[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675- 8311. This article is number one in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE
By David Cloud

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

In the summer of 1985 Dr. Tom Hale, a medical doctor working in Nepal,
visited our home in Kathmandu and began a discussion about Bible versions.
He was involved with a Nepali Bible translation and wanted to know what I could share with him about the texts and versions. We had an interesting
time going through some of the reasons why the new versions differ from the old Protestant ones, and when he returned to his hospital in central Nepal,
we carried on our conversation via correspondence. I also gave him some
books on the subject, including, if I remember correctly, Edward F. Hills's Defending the King James Bible, and D.O. Fuller's Which
Bible? On July 28, Dr. Hale wrote the following:

"Thank you very much for your long and thoughtful letter to me about
the Greek texts. I greatly appreciate the time you took to answer me, and I have found what you have written to be most informative, and indeed, worrisome. I hadn't realized that the battleground, as it were, is in the
area of the Greek texts."

I was amazed at this. The man is a student of the Scriptures and of Bible theology and has sat under the ministry of key evangelical leaders, yet he
had never heard that the major differences between the new versions and the KJV results from the different Greek texts upon which they are founded.

As time passed it became evident that Dr. Hale had rejected the Received
Text in favor of the modern critical text. A chief factor in this bad
decision was the counsel he received from Dr. James M. Boice, pastor of the Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and head of the International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Hale wrote to Boice to seek his opinion on Bible versions, and Hale sent me a copy of Boice's letter when he closed
our conversations on the subject. The following statements from this evangelical leader reveal how multitudes of Christians have been led to
reject the Bible of their forefathers:

"There are some in this country and elsewhere who are very zealous for the textus receptus, prepared by the humanistic scholar, Erasmus, and used as
the basis for the King James translation. This has led some, quite unwisely
in my judgment, to defend the King James Version as the only true and
faithful English text.

"Let me say that the concerns of some of these people are undoubtedly good. They are zealous for the Word of God and very much concerned lest liberal
or any other scholarship enter in to pervert it. But unfortunately, the
basis on which they are operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do
what I could in a gentle way to lead them to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are concerned. ...

"The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as
a result of that complexity. ...

"What this boils down to is that, although there are large numbers of manuscripts that support the textus receptus, these do not have a weight proportionate to their numbers. In fact, if one or two very old manuscripts disagree with a reading common to this very large number of European manuscripts, the one or two early manuscripts should perhaps be preferred. This is what the scholarly editions of the Greek text do. They attempt to apply sound principles of judgment to determine the oldest and best
readings which, however, as I have pointed out, are not necessarily the readings of the majority of the manuscripts.

"Now let me say a word about the textus receptus. Sometimes people who
object to modern English versions of the Bible do so on the basis that one
or more of the translators is less than evangelical, perhaps even liberal
in theology. They defend the King James on that basis, because all of those translators were godly men. However, in doing that, they overlook the fact that Erasmus, who produced the Greek text on which the King James Bible is based, was actually a humanist. He was not supportive of the reformation
and took issue with Luther in his book on the Freedom of the Will. This is
not to say that Erasmus was not a good scholar. He was. He was perhaps the best scholar of his day; but he was a humanist, and if bias is supposed to enter in on that basis, it would presumably have entered into his text and thus have contaminated the KJV. Moreover, Erasmus did not have very many
texts to work with. ... He was a great scholar; his Greek comes quite close
to what was originally written. However, people who defend the textus
receptus ardently should know these facts. It is not a Divinely given and specially preserved text of the New Testament.

"Let me say personally that the English text that I work from most often is the New International Version. It is not perfect, but it is a very good
text and may well win a place in the contemporary church similar to the
place held by the King James Version for so long. ...

"Of course, all these matters are spelled out in the various textbooks
dealing with textual criticism. I am particularly appreciative of the works
of Bruce Metzger, the best textual scholar I know. But you can find those books yourself. What you were asking for was my own understanding of the situation and problem as an evangelical scholar committed to inerrancy and biblical exposition" (Letter from James M. Boice, Tenth Presbyterian
Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Dr. Thomas Hale, United Mission to Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, September 13, 1985).

I have quoted this lengthy letter because it presents such a typical
defense of the modern versions. Though Boice's reasoning sounds plausible, when examined carefully, a great many of his assumptions must be called "myths." The Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines myth as "a belief or set of beliefs, often unproven or false, that have accrued around
a person, phenomenon, or institution." That is exactly what we find in modern textual criticism.

I identify the following myths in Boice's letter: (1) Erasmus is a
"humanist." (2) Erasmus and the Reformation editors had extremely limited access to manuscript witness. (3) True scholars reject the Received Text
and the KJV. (4) The subject of Bible versions and texts is too complex for the average person to comprehend. (5) The readings of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which Boice calls "one or two early manuscripts") are to be preferred over the majority of manuscripts. (6) The doctrine of Bible preservation does not guarantee a perfect Bible. Boice thinks the Received Text used during the past 450 years was corrupted, and he admits that there
is no perfect text or version today. His concept of preservation is very
weak. He tells Hale about the supposed weakness and errors of Bible editors
of old, but he does not remind Hale that God is the One who has promised to keep His Word. (7) Modernists can be trusted in their testimony regarding Bible texts and versions. James Boice pointed Dr. Hale to the writings of Bruce Metzger, a modernist who works for the radical National Council of Churches in America. Metzger is the head of the continuing committee for
the perverted Revised Standard Version, and thinks the Old Testament is
filled with myths and errors. I have documented Metzger's heresies in
Unholy Hands on God's Holy Book: A Report on the United Bible Societies, available from Way of Life Literature.

In this series of booklets we will deal with most of the myths which Boice delineated.

In the late 1800s, after taking a long, hard look at the theories of Drs. Westcott and Hort, <Brook John Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were professors at Cambridge University and were the editors of the Greek text underlying the English Revised Version of 1881. They were modernists.> the brilliant biblical scholar John Burgon referred to these myths. Most of the significant differences between modern versions and the Authorized Version
are the result of Westcott and Hort's textual theories. Burgon's scholarly evaluation as described by Philip Mauro, one of the foremost patent lawyers
of the United States of the last century, is an appropriate way to begin
these studies:

Dean Burgon is not amiss when he characterizes the whole theory as "mere moonshine." Indeed, it seems to us to be either a case of solemn trifling
with a matter of supreme importance or a deliberate attempt to lead astray
the English-speaking nations, and through them the whole world, and that without the support of a scintilla of real proof, but rather in the face of all the pertinent facts. As Dean Burgon, in his exhaustive analysis of Dr. Hort's theory, says:

"`Bold assertions abound (as usual with this respected writer) but proof,
he never attempts any. Not a particle of "evidence" is adduced.' And again:

"`But we demur to this weak imagination (which only by courtesy can be
called a "theory") on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate with our would-be guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove
nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favor at all.'

"Truly, that with which we are here dealing is not a theory, but a dream; a thing composed entirely of gratuitous assumptions, "destitute not only of proof, but even of probability" (Philip Mauro, "Which Version," True or
False, p. 114).

"Moonshine."

"Not a particle of evidence is adduced."

"They assume everything; they prove nothing."

"Not a theory, but a dream."

"A thing composed entirely of gratuitous assumptions."

"Destitute not only of proof, but even of probability."

Burgon was talking about myths surrounding the Received Text and the King James Bible.

It is our conviction that this subject abounds with myths, myths which are promulgated at most Bible institutions and held commonly among Christians.

MY TESTIMONY

I was converted through the witness of the King James Bible the summer of 1973, and the overwhelming desire of my life as a new Christian was to
learn the blessed Word of God. I had been deceived for many years, and I wanted never again to be in that condition. The Lord Jesus Christ had given
me some promises. In John 7:17 He said, "If any man will do his will,
he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." The Lord Jesus said if a man sets his heart to do the will of
God, He will show that man sound doctrine. That man will not be deceived by error. Further, in John 8:31-32 Christ said, "If ye continue in my
word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Again, this is a promise for the man who determines to continue in the Word of God, to read it, study it, memorize
it, meditate in it, love and obey it.

Buoyed by these blessed promises, I have given myself for twenty years to serious study of the Word of God and to attempt to do the will of Christ.
For the first several years of my Christian life I probably spent an
average of eight hours a day studying the Bible. I have tried always to be willing to do His will, and, knowing the deceitfulness and wickedness of my own heart, often I have cried out to the Lord that if unknowingly I am unwilling to do His will, He would make me willing! It has cost friends; it has cost habits which I loved; it has cost music which I loved; it has cost going to one of the parts of the world where I least wanted to go and
enduring some very hard and fearful circumstances. It cost becoming perhaps the most unpopular preacher in an entire country as the national fellowship there defamed me and tried to have me evicted because of my stand upon
Bible truth. If I had simply kept quiet about some unpopular doctrinal matters, the door was before me to become a popular conference and church speaker in that land. Continuing in the Word of God always costs something, but in my stumbling, imperfect manner I have desired to do the will of God whatever it might be.

It was not long after my conversion, though, that I was forced to begin considering the problem of the new versions.

Thinking the new translations merely updated the sometimes antiquated
language of the KJV, I went to a bookstore and asked for "a Bible that
is easier to read." Though the lady behind the counter recommended that
I stay with the KJV, something unusual for a commercial Christian bookstore today, she sold me a Today's English Version. I also obtained an
Amplified Bible. As I studied these, though, neither seemed to be
the uncorrupted Word of God, so I stayed with the old Authorized Bible.

The first church I joined helped me a great deal, but the pastor believed
the New American Standard Bible in many places contained readings preferred
to the KJV.

At that church I saw that some of the folk had The New Analytical
Bible, and I purchased one of these study Bibles as well. The cross references, dictionary, and many of the helps were excellent, and I enjoyed using this Bible except for one serious matter. Scattered throughout the
King James text were what the title page of the The New Analytical
Bible claimed to be "the more correct renderings of the American
Standard Version (1901)." Thereafter, as I studied the Bible I had to
consider the changes and omissions brought into the text by these NASV readings. Were they to be preferred over the KJV readings? Were they,
indeed, "more correct"?

One year after I was saved I attended Bible school at Tennessee Temple in Chattanooga, Tennessee, from which institution I graduated with highest
honors in 1977. While there I took a course in Greek, and we studied from
the United Bible Societies' Third Edition Greek New Testament. I was not
told this Greek text was superior to the Received Text underlying the KJV,
but this was assumed throughout the course. Why would the teacher use this particular Greek text if it is inferior? The Received Text was available
from the Trinitarian Bible Society. The fact is that our teacher took the popular but inconsistent position that both the KJV and the NASV are
excellent versions, and that, though the differences between the texts and versions make for interesting research, they are not truly significant.

Another of my teachers at Tennessee Temple used the NASV in the classroom.
The point is that I had to consider the matter of texts and versions head
on. I had to make a choice. What Bible would I base my Christian life and ministry upon? I found that I was no longer absolutely certain that every
word of my Bible was perfect. I found myself wondering if this passage and that passage might be a transcriber's gloss.

Not long after graduation from Bible school my wife and I began missionary deputation, and in early February 1979, we left the States to travel to the land of Nepal. The next ten years we lived and served Christ in Asia. One
of the projects we desired to accomplish in Nepal was to help produce a concordance in the Nepali language. We knew that one did not exist, but as
we discussed this with Christian leaders in that land, we learned that the existing Nepali Bible needed to be revised or retranslated before a concordance could be produced.

As we looked more closely at the Nepali Bible we understood why this was
the consensus of opinion. The New Testament portion of the standard Nepali Bible at that time was based upon the English Revised Version of 1881. The
Old Testament was based upon two or three English versions, including the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible. Not only were there textual problems with this Bible, but it seemed that portions of it had not been carefully translated. There were all sorts of errors.

It was during my research into this Bible and discussions with the chairman
of the Nepal Bible Society that I was forced to look seriously into the
matter of texts and versions. Did the differences matter? If so, which text
is the correct one? It was in those days during my first two years in Nepal that I came to a solid position regarding the superiority of the Received
Text and of the English Authorized Version which is founded upon it.

It was in those days that I began to understand about the myths surrounding this issues.

I certainly don't know all of the answers to the questions which surround
the issues of Bible inspiration, transmission, and translation, but I have learned some quite shocking FACTS about the Bible version issue which were hidden to me for many years. I have learned that many of the commonly
promoted ideas about Bible versions are but "moonshine." I call
them myths. Don't ask me the motives of those evangelical and fundamental leaders who promote these myths. I don't know their motives, and surely
they vary from individual to individual. I only know this: Many Bible- believing Christian leaders are promoting ideas about our Holy Book what
can only rightly be called myths.

I trust you will stay with me as we consider six of the popular myths about the King James Bible: Myth one, Erasmus was a humanist. Myth two, the Reformation editors lacked sufficient manuscript evidence. Myth three,
there are no doctrinal differences between the texts and versions. Myth
four, while inspiration was perfect, preservation was general. Myth five,
true scholars today reject the Textus Receptus. Myth six, the issues are
too complex for the average Christian to understand.

MYTH NUMBER ONE:
ERASMUS WAS A HUMANIST

Invariably, if texts and versions are discussed, the name of Erasmus will enter into the conversation. And so, too, will the idea that "Erasmus was a humanist."

A popular evangelical leader and one time head of the International Council
on Biblical Inerrancy, James Boice, writes of those who still persist in supporting the ancient and God-honored Textus Receptus. He seems to think
one of the main problems with those who hold such old fashioned views today is their ignorance of the supposed fact that Erasmus was a humanist. Let us hear this, though, in his own words:

"However, in doing that [defending the Textus Receptus], they overlook the fact that Erasmus, who produced the Greek text on which the King James
Bible is based, was actually a humanist" (Letter to Tom Hale, September 13, 1985).

It's amazing how often this charge is repeated by those who desire to
belittle the text which literally covered the inhabited earth during the
last 450 years. Stewart Custer, professor at the well-known fundamentalist university, Bob Jones, in The Truth About the King James Version
Controversy, offers the same view of Erasmus:

"The Textus Receptus began with an edition of the Greek New Testament put together by a Roman Catholic humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, in A.D. 1516"
(page 10).

As is usually the case, this view of Erasmus is given without proof. It
would appear that these matters in regard to Erasmus are settled historical facts, but in reality there is evidence that Erasmus was more than merely a "Roman Catholic humanist."

As in most historical matters, there are areas of uncertainty; the evidence
is imperfect and really insufficient; the time factor which divides us from the man is vast--450 years; the records which do exist can be interpreted
from more than one angle, and are typically slated according to the bias of the historian or reviewer.

Also, I want to make it clear that by no means am I ready to assign any
degree of perfection to Erasmus, either spiritual or intellectual. I am not trying to excuse the man's problems. There were serious imperfections in
the man by fundamental Christian standards--his refusal to practice
biblical separation from the error he so clearly saw; his overly zealous affection for pagan scholarship; his refusal (like that of all the Protestants) to discard in toto all of Rome's errors, including the very concept of sacramentalism, papacy, and the priesthood, etc.

Having said this, though, the evidence reveals that to label Erasmus merely
as a Roman Catholic humanist and a careless, blundering textual editor is
not the true picture.

I have made the effort to look into Erasmus's life and theology to acquaint myself sufficiently, I believe, for the task at hand. With considerable difficulty (since these studies were first written in South Asia without
the benefit of proper theological library) I obtained two biographies of Erasmus's life--Erasmus of Christendom by Roland H. Bainton, and more importantly, the out-of-print classic Life and Letters of Erasmus by J.A. Froude, 1894. I have also used many other church historians and resources,
and in light of the records available, I don't understand why evangelical
men persist in casting Erasmus in such a totally negative spiritual light. These often are the same New-evangelicals who see nothing wrong with yoking together with modernists and Romanists today. One obvious motive for their attitude toward Erasmus would be an attempt to disparage his editorial work
in reference to the Textus Receptus.

The studies I have made into the life and beliefs of Erasmus have been edifying and challenging. Without doubt, he held the treasure of his faith
in Christ in a clay vessel, but the record holds evidence that the man
lived and died with Christ, that he was born of the Spirit.

GOD CAN USE LESS THAN PERFECT MEN

The finality of such a judgment, obviously, is beyond the ability of any
man to make, and it is not necessary to believe that Erasmus was a saved or spiritual man to believe that God used him as a chosen vessel in the matter
of preserving the Word of God. Balaam, Samson, and Solomon were greatly
used of God in spite of the fact that one of them was not even a part of
the people of God, and the other two were disobedient. Two of these men
were used in the process of the giving of inspired Scripture to the world. They were channels of divine revelation.

We could use the example here of another man who was used of God and even called the servant of God, but who was not described in Scripture as a
saved man--Cyrus. See Isaiah 44:28--45:4. Cyrus was God's chosen instrument for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and in spite of the fact that he was a heathen king, God said of him in this passage, "He is my shepherd, and
shall perform all my pleasure ... Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden ... I will go before thee ... I will give thee ..." Note that Isaiah 45:4 makes it plain that Cyrus was not
saved, for God said he would do all of this through Cyrus "though thou hast not known me."

I am saying that even if it were true that Erasmus was not a saved man, and even if there are many things about Erasmus which were not right before
God, this does not exempt him from having been a channel for divine preservation of Holy Scripture. I personally believe, though, that the
record shows Erasmus was not a Cyrus or a Balaam.

Erasmus was within the Catholic Church, at least much of his life. But this does not mean Erasmus was blinded by Catholic heresies, certainly not to
the extent that opponents of the Received Text would have us believe. And
it is absolutely clear that Erasmus was not a humanist as it is defined in
our day. A humanist by modern terms is one who has placed man in God's position and contends that man is the master of his own destiny. Today's humanists are atheistic evolutionists, and Erasmus absolutely does not fit into this category. If men such as those quoted above do not mean to say
that Erasmus is a humanist after the modern definition, why don't they say
so plainly? Certainly they know what most people think of today when they
read that someone is a humanist.

The following facts will help balance the picture and I pray they will
receive a wide hearing:

ERASMUS'S EARLY YEARS PROVIDED A BIBLE FOUNDATION

"In his youth, Erasmus was brought up among the Brethren of the Common Life who held the Bible in great reverence and awe ... Erasmus through life
always had a similar reverence and respect for God's Word." <Lion's History
of Christianity, p. 359; D.O. Fuller, A Position Paper on the Versions of
the Bible.> We should note that Lion's History is biased against the Textus Receptus, yet even this volume admits that Erasmus was brought up among Bible-believing Christians and carried a reverence toward the Word of God throughout his life.

We should add that such a reverence for the Scriptures was certainly not
the common experience among Roman Catholics in those dark days just before
and after the breaking out of the Reformation. Nor is it today, either, by
the way! Erasmus's belief and spirit were closer to Scripture than to Rome.

Consider Erasmus's testimony toward the Bible in his own words:

"I would have the weakest woman read the Gospels and the Epistles of St.
Paul ... I would have those words translated into all languages, so that
not only Scots and Irishmen, but Turks and Saracens might read them. I long for the plowboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver
to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with them
the dullness of his journey. ... Other studies we may regret having undertaken, but happy is the man upon whom death comes when he is engaged
in these. These sacred words give you the very image of Christ speaking, healing, dying, rising again, and make Him so present, that were He before your very eyes you would not more truly see Him." <Norman Ward, Famine in
the Land, p. 38.>

These, my friend, are not the convictions of the typical dupe of Rome in
the sixteenth century. Note that the phrase about making the plowboy to
sing the Scriptures originated with Erasmus--though it was popularized by William Tyndale.

ERASMUS SPOKE OUT PLAINLY AGAINST ROMAN ERRORS

"Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance
of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry and the childish and coarse religion of the day. ... The Pope offered to make him a cardinal. This he steadfastly refused, as he would not compromise his conscience." <Is the KJV Nearest to the Original Autographs?>

This matter of Erasmus being offered high positions in the Roman church and refusing for conscience' sake is confirmed by every source I have
consulted. It is not possible to know for certain his motive in each
instance, but it is a historical fact that Erasmus repeatedly refused positions which would have made him wealthy and given great worldly
prestige. The record indicates that his primary motive in most instances
was the driving desire to be free to study, to write, to translate the Scriptures. He often spoke of this as his compulsion in life.

"Erasmus was of no mind to relinquish his liberty to travel wherever books, scholars, and printers were to be found." <Erasmus of Christendom, p. 103.>

"The consummate scholar Erasmus was the star of his age, who, though he
might have lived opulently in France, Germany, or Italy, had chosen to
finish his days among his English friends." <Ibid.>

"`I hear,' he wrote, `that the Christian King will make me a bishop in
Sicily. I am glad he thinks of me, but I would not give up my freedom to
study for the most splendid of bishoprics.'" <Ibid., p. 111.>

It is a historical fact that Erasmus was strong and public in his
condemnation of Catholic heresies, and "these attacks were made at a time
when they might well have cost him his life. They did, in fact, result in
the Roman Catholic church branding him as an `impious heretic' and the Pope forbade Catholics to read his works." <Ward, p. 38.>

ERASMUS DEMONSTRATED HIS REJECTION OF ROMANISM BY HIS REJECTION OF THE
LATIN VULGATE

Erasmus's own edition of the Latin New Testament was so opposed to the official Catholic Vulgate that "many thought Erasmus's Latin translation a presumptuous attack on the venerated Vulgate. Erasmus had also provided
some annotations justifying his translation, and these annotations included sharp barbs aimed at the corrupt Catholic clergy." <D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, p. 34.>

Historian Andrew Miller reminds us of the dangerous climate which existed
in that day for anyone who would oppose the Roman Vulgate:

"Under the gracious, guiding hand of Him who sees the end from the
beginning, Erasmus bent all his great mental powers, and all his laborious studies, to the preparation of a critical edition of the Greek Testament.
This work appeared at Basel in 1516, one year before the Reformation, accompanied by a Latin translation, in which he corrected the errors of the Vulgate. This was daring work in those days. There was a great outcry from many quarters against this dangerous novelty. "His New Testament was attacked," says Robertson, `why should the language of the schismatic
Greeks interfere with the sacred and traditional Latin? How could any improvement be made on the Vulgate translation?' To question the fidelity
of the Vulgate, was a crime of the greatest magnitude in the eyes of the
Roman Catholic church" <Andrew Miller, Miller's Church History (Bible Truth Publishers, 1980), p. 696.>

Again, we observe that this is not the work of the typical priest of Rome!

ERASMUS'S BIBLE COMMENTARY DEALT A SHARP BLOW TO ROME'S PERVERSIONS

It is crucial to understand the times in which Erasmus labored. His
writings and the publication of his New Testament paved the way for the Reformation. Erasmus lit the fuse for the Reformation explosion. This is no mean feat. Though I am a Baptist and do not trace my heritage through the Protestant Reformation, I do praise God for the multitudes which have been saved because of the Reformation. I believe God used the Reformation to
break the back of Rome's temporal power to prepare the way for the great missionary era of the last 400 years. I praise God for the political and social blessings I enjoy today because of the Reformation.

We are sorry that Erasmus did not more wholeheartedly join the Reformation
and make an unequivocal departure from the Catholic church. Apparently he
felt that the necessary changes could be made from within the existing traditional church structures. He was wrong in this, for sure, BUT HE DID
SEE THE ERRORS AND THE PROBLEMS. He did see the wickedness. AND HE DID
SPEAK OUT PLAINLY AND UNHESITATINGLY AGAINST THESE THINGS. It was Erasmus's boldness to identify Rome's vileness that led others, such as Luther, to
take a stand.

Nothing more plainly evidences this than his commentary. At this point we
will quote from Froude's Life and Letters of Erasmus:

"Erasmus had undertaken to give the book to the whole world to read for itself--the original Greek of the Epistles and Gospel, with a new Latin translation--to wake up the intelligence, to show that the words had a real sense, and were not mere sounds like the dronings of a barrel-organ.

"It was finished at last, text and translation printed, and the living
facts of Christianity, the persons of Christ and the Apostles, their
history, their lives, their teachings were revealed to an astonished world. For the first time the laity were able to see, side by side, the
Christianity which converted the world, and the Christianity of the Church with a Borgia pope, cardinal princes, ecclesiastical courts, and a
mythology of lies. The effect was to be a spiritual earthquake.

"Each gospel, each epistle had its preface; while notes were attached to special passages to point their force upon the established usages. ...

"I shall read you some of these notes, and ask you to attend to them.
Erasmus opens with a complaint of the neglect of Scripture, of a priesthood who thought more of offertory plates than of parchments, and more of gold
than of books; of the degradation of spiritual life, and of the vain observances and scandalous practices of the orders specially called
religious. ...

"Matthew 19:12 (on those who make themselves eunuchs)--`Men are threatened
or tempted into vows of celibacy. They can have license to go with harlots, but they must not marry wives. They may keep concubines and remain priests.
If they take wives they are thrown to the flames. Parents who design their children for a celibate priesthood should emasculate them in their infancy, instead of forcing them, reluctant or ignorant, into a furnace of licentiousness.'

"Matthew 23 (on the Scribes and Pharisees)--`...what shall we say of those
who destroy the Gospel itself, make laws at their will, tyrannize over the laity, and measure right and wrong with rules constructed by
themselves? ... prelates of evil, who bring disgrace and discredit on their worthier brethren?'

"Matthew 23:27 (on whited sepulchres)--`What would Jerome say could he see
the Virgin's milk exhibited for money ... the miraculous oil; the portions
of the true cross, enough if they were collected to freight a large ship?
Here we have the hood of St. Francis, there Our Lady's petticoat, or St. Anne's comb, or St. Thomas of Canterbury's shoes ... and all through the avarice of priests and the hypocrisy of monks playing on the credulity of
the people. Even bishops play their parts in these fantastic shows, and approve and dwell on them in their rescripts.'

"Matthew 24:23 (on Lo, here is Christ or there)--`I saw with my own eyes Pope Julius II, at Bologna, and afterwards at Rome, marching at the head of
a triumphal procession as if he were Pompey or Csar. St. Peter subdued the world with faith, not with arms or soldiers or military engines.' ...

"1 Corinthians 14:19 (on unknown tongues)--`They chant nowadays in our churches in what is an unknown tongue and nothing else, while you will not hear a sermon once in six months telling people to amend their lives. ... A set of creatures who ought to be lamenting their sins fancy they can please God by gurgling in their throats.'

"1 Timothy 1:6 (on vain disputations)--`Theologians are never tired of discussing the modes of sin, whether it be a privation in the soul or a
spot on the soul. Why is it not enough simply to hate sin? ... Hundreds of such questions are debated by distinguished theologians, and the objects of them are better unknown than known. It is all vanity. ... Over speculations like these theologians professing to teach Christianity have been
squandering their lives.'

"1 Timothy 3:2 (on the husband of one wife)--`Other qualifications are laid down by St. Paul as required for a bishop's office, a long list of them.
But not one at present is held essential, except this one of abstinence
from marriage. Homicide, parricide, incest, piracy, sodomy, sacrilege,
these can be got over, but marriage is fatal. There are priests now in vast numbers, enormous herds of them, seculars and regulars, and it is notorious that very few of them are chaste. The great proportion fall into lust and incest, and open profligacy. It would surely be better if those who cannot contain should be allowed lawful wives of their own, and so escape this
foul and miserable pollution.'

"Such are extracts from the reflections upon the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church which were launched upon the world in the notes to the
New Testament by Erasmus, some on the first publication, some added as
edition followed edition. They were not thrown out as satires, or in controversial tracts of pamphlets. They were deliberate accusations
attached to the sacred text, where the religion which was taught by Christ
and the Apostles and the degenerate superstition which had taken its place could be contrasted side by side. Nothing was spared; ritual and ceremony, dogmatic theology, philosophy, and personal character were tried by what
all were compelled verbally to acknowledge to be the standard whose awful countenance was now practically revealed for the first time for many centuries. Bishops, seculars, monks were dragged out to judgment, and hung
as on a public gibbet, in the light of the pages of the most sacred of all books, published with the leave and approbation of the [Pope] himself.

"Never was volume more passionately devoured. A hundred thousand copies
were soon sold in France alone. The fire spread, as it spread behind
Samson's foxes in the Philistines' corn. The clergy's skins were tender
from long impunity. They shrieked from pulpit and platform, and made Europe ring with their clamour. ...

"The words of the Bible have been so long familiar to us that we can hardly realize what the effect must have been when the Gospel was brought out
fresh and visible before the astonished eyes of mankind" <J.A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1894), pp. 119-127.>

I don't know of any humanists today who have written anything like the
words of Erasmus, because humanists today don't believe the Bible. Erasmus
was definitely not a humanist in the modern definition of the term, and it
is wrong for proponents of modern versions to identify him as such. It is
also clear that Erasmus was not your ordinary Roman Catholic, to say the least.

ERASMUS'S PROTESTANT SPIRIT IS SEEN IN ROME'S REACTION TO HIS WORK

We have already noted that Erasmus was branded as a heretic because of the publication of his Greek New Testament, his correction of the Catholic
Latin Vulgate, and his translation of the Bible into Latin. The Pope forbad the people to read his works. The storm which swept around the man who produced the first printed Greek New Testament was terrific.

"Traditional Catholicism uttered a cry from the depths of its noisome pools (to use Erasmus's figure). Franciscans and Dominicans, priests and bishops, not daring to attack the educated and well-born, went among the ignorant populace, and endeavoured by their tales and clamours to stir up
susceptible women and credulous men. `Here are horrible heresies,' they exclaimed, `here are frightful antichrists! If this book be tolerated it
will be the death of the papacy!' `We must drive this man from the university,' said one. `We must turn him out of the church,' added another. `The public places re-echoed with their howlings,' said Erasmus. The firebrands tossed by their furious hands were raising fires in every
quarter; and the flames kindled in a few obscure convents threatened to
spread over the whole country. ...

"The priests saw the danger, and by a skillful maneuver, instead of finding fault with the Greek Testament, attacked the translation and the
translator. `He has corrected the Vulgate,' they said, `and puts himself in the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a work authorized by the consent
of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What audacity!' and then, turning
over the pages, they pointed out the most odious passages: `Look here! This book calls upon men to repent, instead of requiring them, as the Vulgate
does, to do penance!' (Matt. 9:17). The priests thundered against him from their pulpits: `This man has committed the unpardonable sin,' they
asserted, `for he maintains that there is nothing in common between the
Holy Ghost and the monks--that they are logs rather than men!' ... `He's a heretic, an heresiarch, a forger! He's a goose. ... He's a very
antichrist!'" <J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (New York: Hurst & Company, 1835), Vol. 5, pp. 153- 54.>

Edward Lee, a staunch Papist, organized a league of Englishmen to oppose Erasmus. D'Aubigne writes of the wide influence of this league: "In every place of public resort, at fairs and markets, at the dinner-table and in
the council-chamber, in shops, and taverns, and houses of ill-fame, in churches and in the universities, in cottages and in palaces the league blattered against Erasmus and the Greek Testament. Carmelites, Dominicans,
and Sophists, invoked heaven and conjured hell."

Historian Andrew Miller adds this testimony regarding the hatred expressed
by traditional Romanists toward Erasmus: "This was daring work in those
days. There was a great outcry from many quarters against this dangerous novelty. ... To question the fidelity of the Vulgate was a crime of the greatest magnitude in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church."

ERASMUS REVEALED HIS LOVE FOR TRUTH IN HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BIBLE

Historian J.H. Merle D'Aubigne tells us what Erasmus had in mind with his edition of the Greek New Testament:

"When Erasmus published this work, at the dawn, so to say, of modern times,
he did not see all its scope. Had he foreseen it, he would perhaps have recoiled in alarm. He saw indeed that there was a great work to be done,
but he believed that all good men would unite to do it with common accord.
`A spiritual temple must be raised in desolated Christendom,' said he. `The mighty of this world will contribute towards it their marble, their ivory,
and their gold; I who am poor and humble offer the foundation stone,' and
he laid down before the world his edition of the Greek Testament.

"Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: "It is not
from human reservoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow
from the heart of God."

"And when some of his suspicious friends spoke to him of the difficulties
of the times, he replied: `If the ship of the church is to be saved from
being swallowed up by the tempest, there is only one anchor that can save
it: it is the heavenly word, which, issuing from the bosom of the Father, lives, speaks, and works still in the gospel.'

"These noble sentiments served as an introduction to those blessed pages
which were to reform England." <D'Aubigne, Vol. V, pp. 153-156.>

These, my friends, are not the sentiments of a mere "Roman Catholic
humanist."

THE TERM "HUMANIST" HAS CHANGED MEANINGS SINCE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

The term "humanist" meant something entirely different in the sixteenth century than it means today. In December 1984 I wrote to Andrew Brown, at
that time the Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and
asked about the charge of Erasmus being a humanist. Brown's reply was most enlightening:

"Erasmus was a thoroughgoing `Christian humanist' from his youth to his
death. The use of the word `humanist' in the Renaissance and Reformation period does not in any way share the atheistic connotations which that word now has in popular usage. A `humanist' in that period was simply someone
who was interested in classical literature, culture and education, as a
means of attaining a higher standard of civilised life. Stephanus, Calvin
and Beza were all humanists in this sense, and it is these `humanist'
ideals which have largely shaped Western culture in the succeeding centuries, blended with the teachings of the Christian Gospel.

"Erasmus was both a Catholic and a Reformer at the same time. He criticised many of the worst abuses and corruptions of the Catholic church, but he thought that the church should be reformed from within and that it was
wrong to separate from it. He was praised and criticised by Protestants and Catholics alike. Some of his writings are highly spiritual, even if there
are occasional traces of unsound doctrine. His Enchiridon (Manual of a Christian Soldier) was so edifying that it was translated into English by William Tyndale, the translator of the first printed English New Testament.
I am sending separately an extract from one of his last works, the
`Treatise on Preparation for Death,' which I think will satisfy you
concerning his spiritual outlook. A good biography of Erasmus is R.
Bainton's Erasmus of Christendom." <Letter from Andrew Brown of the Trinitarian Bible Society, Jan. 7, 1985.>

ERASMUS'S DOCTRINAL ORTHODOXY IS SEEN IN HIS WRITINGS

Erasmus's own writings illustrate his doctrinal soundness and repulsion at Roman heresies. This was evidenced in his commentary to the Bible, but I
want to quote from some of his other writings. We will begin with a quote
from the last part of the work mentioned by Brown, Erasmus's Manual of the Christian Soldier. It is obvious from this that Erasmus did not follow
Roman thought, but was sound at least regarding the major teachings of the Gospel. And it is certain that Erasmus was no humanist in any modern sense.
As to the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God, Erasmus was orthodox.

Bainton informs us that Manual was "a resolute call to action in the
Christian warfare" (p. 66). "As with Kempis and the Brethren [with whom Erasmus spent his early years], the stress is laid upon the exemplification
of the gentler virtues: humility, meekness, self-effacement, tenderness, compassion, yielding rather than asserting one's due, forgiveness, love of enemies, overcoming evil with good. ... The color of monastic habits, the wearing of girdles and sandals are all inconsequential ... The sacraments,
we learn, are without value apart from the spirit."

Let us hear it in Erasmus's own words. Following are quotes from "Treatise
on Preparation for Death":

"Would you please Peter and Paul? Then emulate the faith of the one and the charity of the other. Thereby you will do better than if you make ten pilgrimages to Rome ... You honor a statue of Christ in wood or stone and adorned with colors. You would do better to honor the image of his mind
which through the Holy Spirit is expressed in the gospels. Are you excited over the seamless robe and the napkin of Christ and yet doze over the
oracles of his law? Far better that you should believe than that you should treasure at home a piece of the wood of the cross. Otherwise you are no
better than Judas, who with his lips touched the divine mouth. The physical presence of Christ is useless for salvation ... In a word, let all your possessions, all your concern, all your care be directed toward the
imitation of Christ, who was not born for himself, lived not to himself,
died not to himself, but for our sakes ...

"We are assured of victory over death, victory over the flesh, victory over the world and Satan. Christ promises us remission of sins, fruits in this
life a hundredfold, and thereafter life eternal. And for what reason? For
the sake of our merit? No indeed, but through the grace of faith which is
in Christ Jesus. We are the more secure because he is first our doctor. He first overcame the lapse of Adam, nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood, which has been confirmed by the testimonies of
the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and virgins and by the universal Church of the saints. He added the seal of the Spirit lest we should waver in our confidence ... What could we little worms do of ourselves? Christ is our justification. Christ is our victory. Christ is our hope and security.
"Unto us a child is born." Unto US, born for us, given for us. He it is who teaches us, cures our diseases, casts out demons, for us suffers hunger and thirst, is afflicted, endures the agonies of death, sweats blood, for us is conquered, wounded, dead and resurrected, and sits at the right hand of God the Father ...

"As we approach death the sacraments are not to be despised, but of greater importance is faith and charity without which all else is vain. I believe there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist,
not having been anointed, not having received Christian burial who rest in peace, while many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been buried next to the altar have gone to hell. There is no point in putting on
a cowl. Better to resolve to live a better life if you get well. I know a noble woman who gave a large sum to a priest to have masses said for her
soul at Rome. Her money might better have been spent to obligate the priest never to go to Rome. ...

"Christ said, "Come unto me all ye that labour." Take refuge then in his
cave in the rocks. Flee to his wounds and you will be safe. The way to
enter paradise is the way of the penitent thief. Say simply, `Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world.'" <Erasmus,
"Treatise on Preparation for Death," quoted by Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus
of Christendom (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), pp. 68, 69, 70, 269, 270.>

To the end of his life Erasmus fought with his pen against the excesses of Rome. From one of his earlier writings we have this typical sampling:

"Obedience is so taught as to hide that there is any obedience due to God. Kings are to obey the Pope. Priests are to obey their bishops. Monks are to obey their abbots. Oaths are exacted, that want of submission may be
punished as perjury. It may happen, it often does happen, that an abbot is
a fool or a drunkard. He issues an order to the brotherhood in the name of holy obedience. And what will such order be? An order to observe chastity?
An order to be sober? An order to tell no lies? Not one of these things. It will be that a brother is not to learn Greek; he is not to seek to instruct himself. He may be a sot. He may go with prostitutes. He may be full of
hatred and malice. He may never look inside the Scriptures. No matter. He
has not broken any oath. He is an excellent member of the community. While
if he disobeys such a command as this from an insolent superior there is
stake or dungeon for him instantly." <Froude, p. 68.>

Of the work of Erasmus, the biographer Froude says:

"A few words will not be out of place about the work which Erasmus was
himself busy over, and of which the Adagia [from which the paragraph above
was quoted] had been but a preliminary specimen. If we are to believe the account of his intellectual history which he began in his later writings,
the Christian religion [speaking of the Christian faith of the New
Testament] appeared to him to have been superseded by a system which
differed only in name from the paganism of the old world. The saints had
taken the place of the gods. Their biographies were full of lies and as childish and absurd as the old theogonies. The Gospels were out of sight. Instead of praying to Christ, the faithful were taught to pray to miracle- working images and relics. The Virgin, multiplied into a thousand personalities--our Lady of Loretto, our Lady of Saragossa, our Lady of Walsingham, and as many more as there were shrines devoted to her--was at
once Queen of Heaven and a local goddess. Pious pilgrimages and indulgences had taken the place of moral duty. The service of God was the repeating of masses by priests, who sold them for so much a dozen. In the exuberance of their power the clergy seemed to exult in showing contempt of God and man
by the licentiousness of their lives and the insolence of their dominion.
They ruled with their self-made laws over soul and body.

"Their pope might be an Alexander VI; their cardinals were princes, with revenues piled up out of accumulated benefices; their bishops were
magnificent nobles; and one and all, from his Holiness at Rome to the
lowest acolyte, were amenable to no justice save that of their own courts. This extraordinary system rested on the belief in the supernatural powers which they pretended to have received in the laying on of hands. As
successors of the Apostles they held the keys of heaven and hell; their excommunications were registered by the Almighty; their absolutions could
open the gates of Paradise. The spiritual food provided in school or parish church was some preposterous legend or childish superstition, varied with
the unintelligible speculations of scholastic theology.

"An army of friars, released from residence by dispensation, were spread
over Europe, taking the churches out of the hands of the secular priests, teaching what they pleased, and watching through the confessional the
secret thoughts of man and woman. These friars thrust themselves into
private families, working on the weakness of wife or daughter, dreaded and detested by husbands and fathers; and Erasmus, as well as the loudest of
the Protestant reformers, declared that they abused the women's confidence
for the vilest purposes. Complaint was useless. Resistance was heresy, and
a charge of heresy, unless a friendly hand interposed, meant submission or death. Unhappy men, unconscious of offence, were visited by a bolt out of
the blue in the shape of a summons before a Church court, where their
accusers were their judges." <Froude, pp. 65,66.>

Upon Erasmus's first visit to Italy he witnessed a papal procession.
Quoting History of the Popes by Ludwig Pastor and Lugduni Batavorum, the Leiden edition of the works of Erasmus, edited by Leclerc, 1703, Bainton
gives this interesting description of the scene and Erasmus's response:

"Erasmus and his party, hearing that the city was actually in the
possession of the pope, continued their journey and arrived in time to witness the papal triumph. The procession was led by horsemen and then infantry in glistening armour, followed by the papal standard bearers and
the pope's ten white palfreys with golden bridles, then the foreign envoys, next forty of the clergy with lighted candles, the cardinals preceding the pope in a palaquin and clad in purple cape shot through with threads of
gold and on his head a mitre sparkling with pearls and jewels. Patriarchs followed, archbishops and bishops, ecclesiastics, generals of the monastic orders, and at the end the papal guard. Erasmus viewed the spectacle magno
cum gemitu, "with a mighty groan."

"`Was Pope Julius the successor of Jesus Christ,' he asked, `or of Julius Caesar?'

"A `mighty groan' is an apt description of Erasmus's reaction to Rome's
vile errors throughout his life!"

So much more, of course, could be given from Erasmus's writings to
illustrate the man's Bible faith and love for Christ, but we think one more quote will suffice to prove our thesis. The following was composed by
Erasmus for the boys at a school established by his Bible-believing friend John Colet. Note Erasmus's love for Christ and his pure faith in the true Christ of the Bible--truly God, truly man, only Savior. And note, as well, that there is no hint here of that false Catholic mysticism which attempts
to pass itself off as devotion to Christ. Give an ear to Erasmus's
exhortation to these sixteenth century boys:

"Who in all history is like to Jesus, ineffably, inconceivably God of God, born before all times, eternal and fully equal to his eternal and loftiest parent? Does not his human birth easily overshadow that of all kings? By
the will of the Father and the breath of the Spirit he was born of a
Virgin, a man in time and still God, unsullied by our corruption. Who is richer than he who gives all things and is not diminished? Who more illustrious as the splendor of the glory of the Father, enlightening every
man that comes into the world? Who more powerful than he to whom the Father has given power in heaven and on earth? Who more mighty by whose nod the universe was established? at whose nod the sea is calm, species changed, diseases flee, armed men fall on their faces, devils are expelled, rocks rended, the dead raised, sinners repent, and all things are made new? Who
is more august whom angels adore and before whom devils tremble? Who more invincible than he who has conquered death and cast down Satan from heaven? Who more triumphant than he who has harrowed hell and brought souls to
heaven where he sits at the right hand of God the Father? Who is more wise than he who founded and governs the universe in harmony? Whose authority is greater than his of whom the Father said, "This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him"? Who is more to be feared than he who can cast body and soul into
hell? Who more fair than he whom to behold is perfect joy? Who is more
ancient than he who has no beginning and will have no end? But perhaps boys may better think of him as a boy, lying in swaddling clothes in a manger, while angels sang, shepherds adored, the animals knew him, the star stood
over where he lay, Herod trembled, Simeon embraced, Anna prophesied. O
humble simplicity! O sublime humility! How can thoughts conceive or words suffice to express his greatness? Better to adore than to seek to explain.

"What then shall we do, if John the Baptist said he was unworthy to unloose the latchet of his shoes? Strive, my dear boys, to sit at the feet of Jesus the teacher." <Bainton, p. 102.>

In these writings we see the heart and soul of a Protestant, not a true
Roman Catholic; of a Bible-believing Christian, not a humanist. Those
familiar with the writings and beliefs of the Protestant leaders such as Luther and Calvin will understand that all of these men continued to be somewhat intermingled in their thinking with Catholic theology in many
areas. This is why the denominations they established were more akin in
many ways to the one at Rome than to the one of the first century in Jerusalem. Luther (and Lutheranism after him), for example, retained infant baptism, believed in a real presence in the `Eucharist' (though not exactly
in the Roman sense), established formal ties between church and state, retained much of the ritualism of Romanism, maintained the Catholic concept
of "clergy" and "laity," and followed a type of church polity closer to
Rome's than to the simple New Testament pattern of the pure independence of the local assembly.

It is also true that many of the Protestant leaders did not, in the
beginning, desire to depart from Catholicism, but only to purify it from within. Thus there were many in those days who, like Erasmus, were within
the Catholic church and could very definitely be called Catholic, but were
at the same time Protestant--protesters against Rome's errors--in belief
and heart. We must remember that was the very beginning of the sixteenth century, the mere dawn of the Reformation.

I am saying that the historical facts and the writings of Erasmus reveal
that he was a Bible believer and a reformer even though he long remained within the confines of Catholicism. At the very worse, he had rejected the chief errors of Romanism. In fact, as we shall see later in this study, Westcott and Hort, leaders in the revision work of the late 1800s in
England, were much closer in their affection toward Rome and sacramentalism than was Erasmus of Rotterdam!

One illustration, for now, will suffice to demonstrate this. While Erasmus fought against Roman sacredotalism (pertaining to the priesthood,
especially as relates to the concept of a priesthood possessing special
divine authority and power) and sacramentalism, Westcott and Hort loved
these things and desired to bring the Church of England closer to Rome:
"Hort writes to Westcott, October 17, 1865, [only five years before they started the English Revised Version]: `I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their
causes and their results.' And again, in correspondence with Westcott, Hort said: `But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn
the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood.' Hort writes to Dr. Lightfoot, October 26, 1867: `But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist.'" <Life of Westcott, Westcott, Vol. II, page 50, 51, 86.>

Some protest against the use of the above correspondence to demonstrate Westcott and Hort's beliefs. It is true that some of the letters within
these volumes were written when the men were young, during their formative years. But the ones I have quoted were written in the last half of the nineteenth century, when the men were matured in their thinking. In fact,
as already noted, these letters were written just a few years before they began working on the translation of the English Revised Version. The first resolution of intent to produce the ERV was published in early 1870 by the Southern Convocation of the Church of England. Westcott was born in 1825
and Hort in 1828; therefore, both men were about forty years of age when
they wrote the letters I have quoted.

ERASMUS DIED AMONG PROTESTANT FRIENDS, POSSIBLY OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH

We read that "in 1535, he [Erasmus] again returned to Basel and died there
the following year IN THE MIDST OF HIS PROTESTANT FRIENDS, without
relations of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church." <Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended p. 194, quoting T.A.
Dorey, Erasmus (London: Kegan Paul, 1970); Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom;
W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Translation (Cambridge: University Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, Erasmus, (New York: Harper,
1923).>

It must also be mentioned that Erasmus, almost to the end, desired to see
Rome and England (after the Anglican church broke from Catholicism) reconciled, and was willing to offer his services toward that goal. This is
a sad commentary, but is a fact, and is but the fruit of his lifelong
refusal to understand or practice biblical separation. It can be said,
though, to his credit, that a year before his death Erasmus turned down a strong offer to become a Roman cardinal. "In another letter he says on the same subject: `Some of my friends at Rome wish to provide the income
required for the red hat, and promote me whether I will or no. They mean it seriously. The Pope, six of the cardinals, and the Portuguese Ambassador
are moving for me. I have written to say that I will not by provided for by benefice or pension.'" <Froude, p. 420.>

THE GREEK EDITORS WHO REVISED ERASMUS'S TEXT WERE UNQUESTIONABLY
PROTESTANT, BIBLE-BELIEVING MEN

It is important to note that the men who followed Erasmus in the work of producing editions of the Greek New Testament and from whose editions most
of the translations of the Protestant Reformation were made, were strong Bible-believing men. It must be kept in the mind that it was through the
work of these men, of whom there can be no doubt that they were separated, persecuted Protestants, that the Textus Receptus was perfected. It is upon their Greek texts, and not directly upon that of Erasmus that the KJV was based.

Theodore Beza, for example, "was one of the leading advisors to the
Huguenots [separatist New Testament Christians] in France. He participated
in their conferences and defended the purity of the Reformed faith. He produced new versions of the Greek and Latin New Testament, a source for
the Geneva and King James Bibles ... Under his leadership Geneva became the centre of Reformed Protestantism." <Lion's History of Christianity, p.
382.>

It could be mentioned here that the Geneva Bible contained notes which were unhesitatingly anti-Catholic.

Of Robert Stephanus, whose third edition of the Greek New Testament is commonly regarded as the Textus Receptus in Britain, we read: "In 1523 he published a Latin New Testament, and two times he published the Hebrew
Bible entire. But the most important were his four editions of the Greek
New Testament in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551 respectively. These activities aroused the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that in
1550 he was compelled to leave Paris and settle in Geneva, where he became
a Protestant, embracing the Reformed faith." <The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Funk & Wagnalls), "Stephan"; quoted by Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 203.>

It can be said, and rightly so, that the men who produced the Greek texts
and Bible translations of the sixteenth century were imperfect men. It
CANNOT be said that they were men of weak faith in the Scriptures or men
who were apostate in their beliefs, as CAN be said of those who have
produced the vast majority of Greek texts of modern times and most of the translations from these corrupted texts.

My friends, let us not accept this evangelical myth which surrounds Erasmus and other sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant editors and translators. As we have seen, there is more to the picture than is commonly presented in the writings of those who for some strange reason feel called
to downgrade the text and versions in which the Word of God was preserved
for centuries and to slander anyone who persists in reverencing and
defending that Text.

In conclusion we must urge upon our reader the conviction that it is not Erasmus or any other man who is the focus of our faith. We do not believe
the Received Text is the pure Word of God because of any perfection we find
in Tyndale, or Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or King James I, or the Authorized Version translators, or David Otis Fuller, or any other man or group of men. Far from it! Our faith is in Almighty God who gave a perfect Bible and Who has promised to keep it.

In this regard we quote from Edward F. Hills, a Harvard educated scholar
who defended the Received Text and the King James Version in spite of the derision this brought from the intellectual crowd. The one great thing that made Hills different from most liberally educated scholars is this: he believed the Bible. He believed God's testimony regarding the inspiration
and preservation of Holy Scripture. Praise be to God for such a scholar in this age of unbelief!

"In the editing of his Greek New Testament text, especially, Erasmus was guided by the common faith in the current text. And back of this common
faith was the controlling providence of God. ...

"The God who brought the New Testament text safely through the ancient and medieval manuscript period did not fumble when it came time to transfer
this text to the modern printed page. This is the conviction which guides
the believing Bible student. ..."

To that we say Amen and amen!

Kurt,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675- 8311. This article is number two in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH NUMBER 2:
REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
By David W. Cloud

A second popular myth about the Received Text is the well-worn but
erroneous idea that Erasmus and the textual editors and Bible translators
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had access to a severely limited variety of manuscript evidence. Again I quote a popular evangelical leader, the one time head of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, James Boice: "Moreover, Erasmus did not have very many texts to work
with." <James Boice, letter to Dr. Tom Hale, United Mission to Nepal,
Sept. 13, 1985.>

If you read only the studies of men who are opposed to the Textus Receptus
you would think that this is an absolute, unquestionable fact of history.
Hear the dogmatic assertion of another writer who holds the views of Dr. Boice:

"Although Erasmus published a fourth and fifth edition, we need say no more about them here. Erasmus's Greek Testament stands in line behind the King James Version; yet it rests upon a half dozen minuscule manuscripts, none
of which is earlier than the tenth century. ... the textual basis of the TR
is a small number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule
manuscripts." <D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Baker Book
House, 1979), pp. 35-36.>

Let's give one more example to illustrate just how common this thinking is. Consider this quote from an article by Doug Kutilek, assistant to
evangelist Robert L. Sumner:

"In constructing and editing the text, Erasmus had the feeblest of
manuscript resources. He chiefly used one manuscript of the Gospels, dating from the twelfth century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, also from the twelfth century. These he edited and corrected, using one or two additional manuscripts of each section along with his Latin Vulgate....

"Erasmus's fourth and fifth editions were all but slavishly reprinted by Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivirs and others in their editions of the Greek New Testament in the century that followed. All these collectively are often referred to as the Textus Receptus, or received text. It must be observed
that these reprints merely reproduced without examination of evidence the hastily-produced text of Erasmus. The result is that the text of Erasmus, hurriedly assembled out of the slimmest of manuscript resources--containing
a number of readings without any Greek manuscript support--became for
nearly 300 years the only form of the Greek New Testament available in
print, and the basic text for the Protestant translations of the New 7(2 Testament made in those centuries. ...

"In short, there is no ground whatsoever for accepting the Textus Receptus
as the ultimate in precisely representing the original text of the New Testament. Rather than being the most pristine and pure Greek New
Testament, it was in fact the most rudimentary and rustic, at best only a provisional text that could be made to serve for the time being until
greater care, more thorough labor, and more extensive evidence could be had
so as to provide a text of greater accuracy. It is unfortunate that what
was only a meager first attempt at publishing a New Testament Greek text became fossilized as though it were the ultimate in accuracy.

"It was not until the nineteenth century that the shackles of mere
tradition and religious inertia were thrown off and a Greek text based on a careful and thorough examination of an extensive amount of manuscript
evidence was made available. The Greek texts of Griesbach, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, and Westcott and Hort were, individually and collectively, a great improvement over the text of Erasmus, because they
more accurately presented the text of the New Testament in the form it came from the pens of the apostles." <Christian News (Apr. 21, 1986), p. 16.>

This lengthy quote was included to demonstrate the perversion of history
which has become so common among Bible scholars, and also because it so graphically illustrates the strange hatred which prevails today among
scholars of every label toward the ancient and revered Textus Receptus and those multitudes of versions which are based upon it.

Even stranger is the fact that after dragging the textual editors of the Reformation and their work, the Received Text, through the mud and mire of hateful criticism for sixteen lengthy paragraphs, Kutilek makes an about
face and contends that there actually is not a "hair's breadth in doctrinal difference between Erasmus's text and that of, say, Westcott and Hort," (a myth which is dealt with in another of this series--Myth #3: No Doctrinal Differences Between Texts and Versions) and is so kind to say, "I do not
wish to be too hard on Erasmus, after all, I recognize him as a pioneer who opened up a frontier for others to follow and laid a foundation on which others would build."

These men have found out a marvelous thing: They seemingly have mastered
the art of facing two ways at the same time!

One further comment regarding these statements by Kutilek is in order. If
all of this is true, and only an imprecise, rudimentary, rustic, and provisional text was produced at the dawn of the age of printing and of the Protestant Reformation and was for four hundred years carried to the
farthest reaches of the earth during the most zealous period of missionary Gospel work since the first century--where was God at that time and why did
He allow such a text to prevail? Why does Kutilek completely ignore the
Bible passages which promise that God will preserve His Word to every generation? We deal with this in yet another booklet in this series (Myth
#4: Inspiration Is Perfect, but Preservation Is General), but this point is too important to pass over lightly. Kutilek's God must have been on a long lunch break during the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries because, according to Kutilek, He certainly was not preserving the Scriptures.

We hasten now to offer some historical facts surrounding this matter of the Reformation editors and translators and their textual resources which quite contradict the popular ideas we have considered.

ERASMUS'S TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDENCE BROUGHT HIM INTO CONTACT WITH BROAD MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

Erasmus personally visited libraries and carried on correspondence which brought him in touch with manuscript evidence which was vast both in number and variety.

If we would believe the critics of the Received Text, Erasmus and other
Greek scholars of the Reformation engaged in their work while confined to barren rooms with only a handful of resource materials. This is far from an accurate view of history. These men were scholars of the first rank, which even their enemies and those in disagreement with their conclusions admit.
As such, they were men engaged continually in dissertation with other scholars; they were men of wide-ranging personal correspondence, men who traveled, visiting libraries and centers of learning--yea, men who did all that was necessary to discover everything possible about the beloved
projects to which they were devoted.

"He [Erasmus] was ever at work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing
and publishing. ... He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the
Fathers." <David Otis Fuller, Is the KJV Nearest to the Original
Autographs?>

"By 1495 he [Erasmus] was studying in Paris. In 1499 he went to England
where he made the helpful friendship of John Cabot, later dean of St.
Paul's, who quickened his interest in biblical studies. He then went back
to France and the Netherlands. In 1505 he again visited England and then passed three years in Italy. In 1509 he returned to England for the third
time and taught at Cambridge University until 1514. In 1515 he went to
Basel, where he published his New Testament in 1516, then back to the Netherlands for a sojourn at the University of Louvain. Then he returned to Basel in 1521 and remained there until 1529, in which year he removed to
the imperial town of Freiburg-im-Breisgau. Finally, in 1535, he again
returned to Basel and died there the following year in the midst of his Protestant friends, without relations of any sort, so far as known, with
the Roman Catholic Church.

"One might think that all this moving around would have interfered with Erasmus' activity as a scholar and writer, but quite the reverse is true.
By his travels he was brought into contact with all the intellectual
currents of his time and stimulated to almost superhuman efforts. He became the most famous scholar and author of his day and one of the most prolific writers of all time, his collected works filling ten large volumes in the Leclerc edition of 1705 (phototyped by Olms in 1963). As an editor also his productivity was tremendous. Ten columns of the catalog of the library in
the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works translated, edited, or annotated by Erasmus, and their subsequent
reprints." <Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 195-197, referring to T.A. Dorey, Erasmus (London: Kegan Paul, 1970); Bainton,
Erasmus of Christendom; W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Translation, (Cambridge: University Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, Erasmus, Preserved Smith (New York: Harper, 1923).>

According to Dr. Edward F. Hills, the evidence points to the fact that
Erasmus used other manuscripts beside five:

"When Erasmus came to Basel in July 1515, to begin his work, he found five Greek New Testament manuscripts ready for his use. ... Did Erasmus use
other manuscripts beside these five in preparing his Textus Receptus? The indications are that he did. According to W. Schwarz (1955), Erasmus made
his own Latin translation of the New Testament at Oxford during the years 1505-6. His friend John Colet who had become Dean of St. Paul's, lent him
two Latin manuscripts for this undertaking, but nothing is known about the Greek manuscripts which he used. He must have used some Greek manuscripts
or other, however, and taken notes on them. Presumably therefore he brought these notes with him to Basel along with his translation and his comments
on the New Testament text. It is well known also that Erasmus looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on
the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings
taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with the common faith because it was founded on manuscripts which in the providence of God were readily available." <Hills, p. 198.>

The following quotation from D'Aubigne's diligent historical research also indicates that Erasmus had access to more textual evidence than his modern detractors admit:

"Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language.
Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. `If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.' He had collated many Greek MSS. of the New
Testament, and was surrounded by all the commentaries and translations, by
the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. ... He had investigated the texts according to the
principles of sacred criticism. When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary,
he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Cecolampadius. Nothing
without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb."
<J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (New York: Hurst & Company, 1835), Vol. 5, p. 157.>

THE VATICANUS READINGS WERE KNOWN AND REJECTED BY THE PROTESTANT
TRANSLATORS

Erasmus, Stephanus, and other sixteenth century editors had access to the manuscript from the Vatican called Codex B, the manuscript most preferred
by Westcott and Hort and the English Revised translation committee. Yet
this manuscript was rejected as corrupt by the Bible publishers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Consider the following quotation from Benjamin Wilkinson, author of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated:

"The problems presented by these two manuscripts [the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus] were well known, not only to the translators of the King James, but also to Erasmus. We are told that the Old Testament portion of the Vaticanus has been printed since 1587. The third great edition is that commonly known as the `Sixtine,' published at Rome in 1587 under Pope
Sixtus V ... Substantially, the `Sixtine' edition gives the text of B ...
The `Sixtine' served as the basis for most of the ordinary editions of the
LXX for just three centuries" (Ottley, Handbooks of the Septuagint, p. 64).

"We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could
have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of
the Bible, p. 84).

"There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript
because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome,
who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).

"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).

"Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings of the Vatican
Manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that
the Received Text was correct. ...

"We have already given authorities to show that the Sinaitic Manuscript is
a brother of the Vaticanus. Practically all of the problems of any serious nature which are presented by the Sinaitic, are the problems of the
Vaticanus. Therefore the [editors of the 1500s and the] translators of 1611 had available all the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected
them.

"The following words from Dr. Kenrick, Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia,
will support the conclusion that the translators of the King James knew the readings of Codices Aleph, A, B, C, D, where they differed from the
Received Text and denounced them. Bishop Kenrick published an English translation of the Catholic Bible in 1849. I quote from the preface:

"`Since the famous manuscripts of Rome, Alexandria, Cambridge, Paris, and Dublin were examined ... a verdict has been obtained in favor of the
Vulgate. At the Reformation, the Greek Text, as it then stood, was taken as
a standard, in conformity to which the versions of the Reformers were generally made; whilst the Latin Vulgate was depreciated, or despised, as a mere version'" (H. Cotton, quoted in Rheims and Douay, p. 155).

"In other words, the readings of these much boasted manuscripts, recently
made available, are [largely] those of the Vulgate. The Reformers knew of these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate. ...

"On the other hand, if more manuscripts have been made accessible since
1611, little use has been made of what we had before and of the majority of those made available since. The Revisers systematically ignored the whole world of manuscripts and relied practically on only three or four. As Dean Burgon says, "But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were obtained."

"We feel, therefore, that a mistaken picture of the case has been presented with reference to the material at the disposition of the translators of
1611 and concerning their ability to use that material." <Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.>

To this testimony I add one more quote:

"In the margin of this edition [his fourth] Stephanus entered variant
readings taken from the Complutensian edition and also 14 manuscripts, one
of which is thought to have been Codex D." If this was not actually Codex
D, at the very least it was another one of that small family of manuscripts which presents a similar reading that contradicts the majority text."
<Hills, p. 204.>

ERASMUS KNEW OF THE VARIANT READINGS PREFERRED BY MODERN TRANSLATORS

The notes which Erasmus placed in his editions of the Greek New Testament prove that he was completely informed of the variant readings which have
found their way into the modern translations since 1881.

Even though Erasmus did not have access to all of the manuscripts
translators can use today, there can be no doubt that he did have access to the variant readings in other ways.

"Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers
Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the
New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known
to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text
in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus
dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer
(Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-
22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)." <Hills, pp. 198-199.>

THE REFORMATION TEXT IS AS ANCIENT AS THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT

It is further true that the Greek text produced by Erasmus and other Reformation editors is representative of a text demonstrably as ancient as
the modern critical text. Consider again the words of D.A. Carson in his
book on the King James Version: "... the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule manuscripts" (Carson,
p. 36).

While it is true that the actual Greek manuscripts Eramus had in his possession were relatively late ones, this is not the whole story. When all the facts are considered, we find that Carson's statement is a myth.
Consider the testimony of Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of the committee
that produced the English Revised Version, the predecessor of all modern versions:

"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part only in small and insignficant details, from the great bulk of the cursive MSS. The
general character of their text is the same. By this observation the
pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual
manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least
contemporary with the oldest of our extant MSS, if not older than any one
of them" (Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two
members of the N.T. Company, pp. 11-12).

In commenting on Ellicott's statement, the Trinitarian Bible Society puts
the matter into a perspective that the KJV detractors would like to ignore:

"It must be emphasised that the argument is not between an ancient text and
a recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one of which was rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries. The assumptions of modern textual criticism are based upon the discordant testimony of a few specimens of the rejected text recently disinterred from the oblivion to
which they had been deliberately and wisely consigned in the 4th century"
(The Divine Original, TBS article No. 13, nd, p. 7).

REFORMATION EDITORS HAD WIDE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLES AVAILABLE TO
THEM

Another matter frequently ignored by the detractors of the ReceivedText is
the fact that Erasmus and the textual editors of the Reformation had a wide variety of Bibles which provided great help in their work. The editors and translators of the Reformation had access to many excellent Bible versions which attested to the textual witnesses upon which they, in turn, were
based.

It was Erasmus's knowledge both in Greek manuscripts AND of versions of the Scripture in various languages, both contemporary with his time and
ancient, that provoked Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson to note that "the text
Erasmus chose had such an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches, that it constituted an irresistible argument for
and proof of God's providence."

Wilkinson gives a brief history of the important role held by the
Waldensian Bibles in preservation of the true text of Scripture:

"The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles (Allix, Church of Piedmont, 1690, p. 37). We are indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that
the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D. From the illustrious group of
scholars which gathered round Beza, 1590 A.D., we may understand how the Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches.

"There are modern writers who attempt to fix the beginning of the Waldenses from Peter Waldo, who began his work about 1175. This is a mistake. The historical name of this people as properly derived from the valleys where
they lived, is Vaudois. Their enemies, however, ever sought to date their origin from Waldo. ... Nevertheless the history of the Waldenses, or
Vaudois, begins centuries before the days of Waldo.

"There remains to us in the ancient Waldensian language, `The Noble Lesson' (La Nobla Leycon), written about the year 1100 A.D., which assigns the
first opposition to the Waldenses to the Church of Rome to the days of Constantine the Great, when Sylvester was Pope. This may be gathered from
the following extract: `All the popes, which have been from Sylvester to
the present time' (Gilly, Excursions to the Piedmont, Appendix II, p. 10).

Thus when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome,
was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church
in northern Italy--later the Waldenses--is seen standing in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was
that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very
name, "Itala," is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking
of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says: `Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it
keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression'" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Lit. Ed., Vol. II, p. 542). <Wilkinson.>

Here we can see the hand of God plainly evident in preserving the precious Word He had given to men. Through every dark century of persecution and apostasy, faithful and separated saints held to the Scriptures at the cost
of earthly comfort, fortune, even life. The Waldenses, or Vaudois, were but one of these groups of faithful brethren. There were others, but the
Vaudois were especially honored of God in that their versions of Scriptures were selected by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation as
representative of the original manuscripts of the prophets and apostles.

God promised to preserve His Word. How can we fail to see in these events
the fulfillment of this promise? The pure Word of God was preserved by pure churches and in turn transmitted into the hands of the men who had been prepared of God to give this pure Word to the world during the great missionary period of the last four-and-a-half centuries.

In conclusion I quote from Which Version by Philip Mauro, outstanding trial lawyer of the nineteenth century. The testimony of men such as Mauro, Dr. Edward F. Hills, Dr. John Burgon, and Dr. David Otis Fuller is largely
ignored and despised by evangelical (even many fundamental) scholars today, but their teaching is based upon the solid foundation of the biblical
doctrine of divine inspiration and preservation, combined with careful scholarship. It is unwise and less than honest simply to ignore the
testimony of such men, and yet that is exactly what is being done.

"When we consider what the Authorized Version was to be to the world, the incomparable influence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and
in accomplishing those eternal purposes of God for which Christ died and
rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven--when we consider that this Version was to be, more than all others combined, `the Sword of the Spirit,' and that all this was fully known to God beforehand, we are fully warranted in the belief that it was not through chance, but by providential control of the circumstances, that the translators had access to just those Mss. which were available at that time, and to none others.

"So far in our series on Myths About the King James Bible we have seen that
it is not true that Erasmus was a humanist in the normal sense of which
this would be understood in our day. Nor is it true that Erasmus and the
Bible editors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were severely
limited in manuscript and textual evidence as compared with the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. If you have followed carefully with
me in these studies to this point, I trust you can see that to call these myths is not at all an exaggeration of the term."

It is important to remind ourselves that our faith regarding the
preservation of the Scriptures is not in man, but in God. Even if the Reformation editors had fewer resources than those of more recent times, we know that God was in control of His Holy Word. The preserved Bible was not hidden away in some monastic hole or in the Pope's library.

The vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and the writings of church fathers support the Received Text. This was a fact known
by the Reformation editors. They saw the hand of God in this and believed
that the witness of the majority of textual evidence contained the
preserved Word of God. God's promise to preserve His Word has been
fulfilled in the multiplication of pure Bibles and the rejection and disuse
of corrupted Bibles. In reviewing the existing manuscript evidence, Jack Moorman gives the following summary:

"At Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Chicago (1984), Dr. [Stewart] Custer said that God preserved His Word `in the sands of Egypt.' No! God did not preserve His Word in the sands of Egypt, or on a library shelf in the
Vatican library, or in a wastepaper bin in a Catholic monastery at the foot
of Mt. Sinai. God did not preserve His Word in the `disusing' but in the `using.' He did not preserve the Word by it being stored away or buried,
but rather through its use and transmission in the hands of humble
believers. ...

"At latest count, there were 2,764 cursive manuscripts (MSS). Kenyon says, `... An overwhelming majority contain the common ecclesiastical [Received] text.' ... Kenyon is prepared to list only 22 that give even partial
support to the [modern critical] text. ...

"Are we to believe that in the language in which the New Testament was originally written (Greek), that only twenty-two examples of the true Word
of God are to be found between the ninth and sixteenth centuries? How does this fulfill God's promise to preserve His Word? ...

"We answer with a shout of triumph God has been faithful to His promise.
Yet in our day, the world has become awash with translations based on MSS similar to the twenty-two rather than the [more than] two-and-a-half thousand." <Jack Moorman, Forever Settled (Bible for Today, 1985), pp. 90-


Kurt,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675- 8311. This article is number three in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH NUMBER 3:
THERE ARE NO DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS
By David W. Cloud

One of the common ideas on the subject of Bible texts and versions is the supposed non-existence of doctrinal differences between them. As an illustration, I quote from a letter received from a professor of Greek at
an evangelical seminary in India:

"You have given statistics to show the difference between the UBS
[United Bible Society] text and the TR [Textus Receptus]. But you haven't given a single illustration to show that the difference between the TR and
the UBS would affect my Christian faith and life."

Robert L. Sumner makes a similar claim:

"...the rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not affect in
any way any doctrine" (Bible Translations).

Stanley Gundry, writing in Moody Monthly, echoes this sentiment:

"Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine
or divine command to us" (Ernest Pickering, Questions and Answers About
Bible Translations).

We could give many more quotes from Christian leaders who say practically
the same thing regarding the texts and versions, but this should be sufficient. If this idea were true that the new versions contain no
doctrinal corruption, we would still protest that thousands of differences between Bible texts and versions is significant. But what they are saying
is not true. There IS a doctrinal difference between the texts and
versions, and we will do well to make every effort to find out which text
has been preserved by God and to cleave to that text.

The Bible is necessary food for the spirit, the hammer which breaks hard hearts, the fire which burns the soul, the light which enlightens our path;
it is the sword of the Spirit, the living and powerful Word which discerns
the thoughts and intents of the heart. Indeed, the Bible is our foundation; and if the foundation be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DULL SWORD

The Bible is called a sword. It is also said to be sharper than any sword! Compare Eph. 6:17 and Heb. 4:12. Who would think highly of a soldier who
does not care if his sword is sharp just so long as he has a sword? No more should we think highly of those today who claim to be strong Bible 7(2 believers but are seemingly unconcerned about the perfection of their
Bibles, so long as they have a Bible of some sort. Far too many Christians cannot discern the difference between a sharp and a dull sword. And this is true whether such individuals fly under the flag of Evangelical,
Fundamental, Baptist, whatever.

This is not a light matter. A battle is raging. There are spiritual enemies
in high places. Truth is being cast to the ground. It is difficult enough
to win the battle when we have the sharpest sword and the most complete
armor. Woe unto that Christian whose sword is dull! And yet, I contend that
we have come upon an entire generation of Christians who are slashing away
at their spiritual enemies with dull swords.

Well, you say, be on with it. Are there really doctrinal differences
between the texts? Can you prove it? Yes, indeed. Please give close
attention to the following remarks:

ARE THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENCES REALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL?

First we need to emphasize that regardless of whether or not there are doctrinal differences between the versions, it is a strange matter for a
Bible believer to argue that the thousands of textual differences is an insignificant thing.

Consider: There are 36,000 word differences between the English Revised Version of 1881 and the KJV. Thirty-six thousand. In the New Testament
alone there are over 8,000 word differences between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort, or Bible Society Greek text [they are basically the same text]. Eight thousand word differences. At least 2,300 of these directly affect the translation. It is true that many of these are not as
significant as others--but ALL ARE real differences, whether we consider
them significant or not.

In the edition of the RSV which I have in my study, there are approximately 775 words on one page. Speaking now only of the New Testament and using the lowest figure above, this means that approximately three full pages of
Bible text are affected by these changes. If someone were to take three
pages from your New Testament, either by removing the words or changing
them in various ways, would you look lightly upon such a thing? This, in reality, is what men do by downplaying the differences between the two
texts in discussion. Personally, I don't want someone taking away or
changing three pages of my New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament changes), and I'll never understand how men can look so lightly upon this. They do, though. Consider the remarks made in the following letter from a missionary medical doctor in Asia. This letter was addressed to me in late 1985:

"I cannot concern myself with the figures 8,000 and 2,000 [speaking of differences between the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort text]. If I concerned myself with those, I would have to insist that we should never
have translated the Bible out of the original Greek and Hebrew. ... I just can't believe that Jesus wants us to be disunited in spirit because of
these 481 words, or even 2,000 words. There are weightier matters. One of these weightier matters is unity in the body of Christ."

It is easy to sympathize with this man's longing for unity among those who name the name of Christ, but the unity that he calls for--a unity which
would look lightly upon thousands of God's inspired and holy words--is certainly not a unity which is pleasing to Christ. We don't have to guess
as to what the Lord Jesus Christ really thinks about someone who slights
God's Words. Consider what He said: "But he answered and said, It is
written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceed
eth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4; Lk. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). Jesus did not say that man lives by some of God's words, or by most of God's words. He
said man lives by every one of God's words. Every word of God. This is what the Son of God thinks of the words of the Bible! Who are we to have a
lesser concept?

THE PRINCIPLE OF DETAILS

Holy Scripture is filled with detail. Minute detail. Detail which is
sometimes so apparently insignificant that its purpose is not evident even
to the pious reader. But understood or not, the fact remains that the Bible
is filled with detail. The Lord Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the
Old Testament. That is detail. As we read the many genealogies in Scripture
we note detail. And what of Noah's ark? God describes its dimensions, how
many stories it had, the type of wood and pitch, even how many windows. Detail. There is the tabernacle which Israel built in the wilderness. Many chapters of God's Word is taken up with a description of every tiny detail
of the tabernacle, to the tiniest hooks and the colors of the thread woven into the curtains. Details.

If the Bible is indeed God's Word, details are important--highly important. Therefore how--how, tell me!--can those who call themselves Christians say that thousands of Bible words are to be considered too insignificant to
fight for? Such an attitude is not piety; it is treachery. As one godly evangelist from America said, "You can say you will only cut a few small
parts from my mother and it will do no harm, but you will have to do so
over my dead body!" In some matters "small" things become very important!
The late John Burgon, that great nineteenth- century contender for the Word
of God, recognized this truth in the following statement:

"This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of
a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully." <True or False (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973), p. 138.>

Let's move to another principle:

THE PRINCIPLE OF WORDS

It's not just the basic doctrines of the Scriptures by which we live, but
the actual words and details of the Scripture. Three times that truth is repeated in Scripture: in Deut. 8:3, Matt. 4:4, and Lk. 4:4.

"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." (Deut. 8:3)

Three times the Voice from heaven tells mankind it is not just the general doctrine of Scripture, or even the fundamental doctrines of Scripture that
we need; it is every word. The argument that no Bible doctrine is at stake between texts and versions (even if it were true, which it isn't as we will see) doesn't address the real issue.

Time and again God reminds us of the importance of each "word" He has
given. The Bible is the Word of God, but the Bible is written in the words
of God. If we don't have the words, neither do we have the full Word. Those who have ears to hear, please hear what the Holy Spirit says about this:

Exodus 24:4--"And Moses wrote ALL THE WORDS of the Lord..."

Deuteronomy 6:6--"And THESE WORDS, which I command thee this day, shall be
in thine heart."

Deuteronomy 12:28--"Observe and hear ALL THESE WORDS which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for
ever..."

Deuteronomy 17:18,19--"...he shall write him a copy of this law in a book
out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with
him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn
to fear the Lord his God, to keep ALL THE WORDS of this law and these statutes, to do them."

Deuteronomy 18:18--"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their
brethren, like unto thee, and will put my WORDS in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them ALL that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass,
that whosoever will not hearken unto my WORDS which he shall speak in my
name, I will require it of him."

Deuteronomy 27:2,3--"And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over
Jordan unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt
set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister: And thou shalt write upon them ALL THE WORDS of this law...."

Deuteronomy 32:1--"Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, THE WORDS of my mouth."

Deuteronomy 32:45,46--"And Moses made an end of speaking ALL THESE WORDS to all Israel: And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto ALL THE WORDS which
I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to
observe to do, ALL THE WORDS of this law."

Joshua 8:34,35--"And afterward he read ALL THE WORDS of the law, the
blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. there was not A WORD of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read
not before all the congregation."

Joshua 24:26--"And Joshua wrote these WORDS in the book of the law of
God..."

I Samuel 8:10--"And Samuel told ALL THE WORDS of the Lord unto the people
that asked of him a king."

Psalm 12:6--"The WORDS of the Lord are pure WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Proverbs 30:6,7--"EVERY WORD of God is pure ... Add thou not unto his
WORDS, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Jeremiah 1:9--"Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And
the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my WORDS in thy mouth."

Jeremiah 7:27--"Therefore thou shalt speak ALL THESE WORDS unto them..."

Jeremiah 23:9--"Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all
my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of the Lord, and because of THE WORDS of his holiness."

Jeremiah 23:36--"...ye have perverted THE WORDS of the living God, of the
Lord of hosts our God."

Jeremiah 30:2--"Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee
ALL THE WORDS that I have spoken unto thee in a book."

Ezekiel 3:10--"Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, ALL MY WORDS that I
shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears."

Luke 4:4--"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall
not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD OF GOD." (See also Matthew 4:4.)

John 8:47--"He that is of God heareth God's WORDS: ye therefore hear them
not, because ye are not of God."

1 Corinthians 2:13--"Which things also we speak, not in THE WORDS which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..."

1 Timothy 4:6--"...nourished up in THE WORDS of faith and of good
doctrine..."

2 Peter 3:2--"That ye may be mindful of THE WORDS which were spoken before
by the holy prophets and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord
and Saviour."

Jude 17--"But, beloved, remember ye THE WORDS which were spoken before of
the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Revelation 1:3--"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear THE WORDS of this prophecy..."

Revelation 22:18,19--"For I testify unto every man that heareth THE WORDS
of the prophecy of this book ... And if any man shall take away from THE
WORDS of the book of this prophecy..."

It should be clear from these verses that it is not only the Word of God in general that we need. As the Lord Jesus said, man lives by EVERY WORD OF
GOD. In this light, the idea that thousands of omissions and changes are of little significance because they (allegedly) do not affect the basic doc
trines of the Bible is invalid. It's not just the basic doctrines we need. It's also the very words; yea, as we noted earlier, it is even more than
the words--it is the most minute details that we need. The Lord Jesus
Christ, the Lord from Heaven, spoke of the preservation even of the jots
and tittles of the Word of God.

ENTIRE VERSES AND PHRASES OMITTED FROM NEWER TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS

There are 17 verses omitted outright in the New International
Version--Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28;
17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1
John 5:7. Further, the NIV separates Mark 16:9-20 from the rest of the
chapter with a note that says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do
not have Mark 16:9-20," thus effectively ruining the authority of these crucial verses in the minds of their readers. Thus another 12 verses are effectively removed from the Bible. John 7:53 - 8:11 is also removed from
the rest of the text with this footnote: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11." Yet another 12 verses are
effectively removed from the Bible. The NIV questions four other verses
with footnotes--Matt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of
45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing.

THE PRINCIPLE OF REPETITION

Many of the omissions in the Westcott-Hort or Bible Society text (and
carried over in the new translations) are omissions of repetitious matter. There are many examples of this in the Gospels. In the Bible Society text
and the translations based on it, a phrase or verse will be left out in one Gospel but retained in another. An illustration is Matt. 4:4 and Lk. 4:4.
In Matthew the phrase about man living by every word of God is intact,
while it is omitted in Lk. 4:4. If we point out the fact that Lk. 4:4 has a serious omission, a chorus of voices will argue that we are pointing out an inconsequential matter, since the phrase is retained in Matt. 4:4. But is
it really true that the omissions are unimportant if they are only matters
of repetition? By no means, for repetition within Scriptures is obviously planned of God and has a divine purpose.

Teachers understand the importance of the principle of repetition.
Repetition reinforces a truth; it helps the hearer grasp it; it helps the hearer retain it. And this is exactly the purpose for the great amount of repetition in the Bible and is the reason why it is so evil for someone
like Reader's Digest to "condense" the Scriptures by removing the supposedly unnecessary and boring repetition. Woe unto foolhardy men who so tamper with God's holy and eternal Word! They will receive the reward
promised of God in Revelation 22.

Why did the Lord Jesus Christ begin many statements with the phrase,
"Verily, verily," when He could just as easily have omitted the word
"verily" altogether, or at least have said "verily" only one time.
Obviously He did this for emphasis. Why are there four Gospels instead of
only one? The repetition within Scripture is God crying out to man, "Listen
to this; listen to this; listen to this; listen to this!"

Therefore, when men come along and remove some of the Bible's repetition,
they are doing a great, great evil. That's right, I said a great evil. What
is man that he is free to remove some of God's words and then hide behind
the contention that God was redundant? Jesus said, "Verily, verily." What
is man that he would edit out one of those verilys and then act as if he
had done no harm or evil?

A key example of this is in Mark 9 in which Christ describes Hell as a
place "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." In the Authorized Version that phrase is repeated three times, in verses 44, 46,
and 48. But in the new versions, such as the New International Version, two
of those references are deleted (verses 44 and 46).

We believe Jesus Christ repeated the truth about Hell being a place where
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched because it is so crucial
that lost men be impressed with the awfulness and certainty of Hell. Some
will say, "But that verse is still in Mark 9:48. No doctrine is changed. No significant harm is done in removing verses 44 and 46, because verse 48
which says exactly the same thing has been retained." Those who say this
are wrong; serious harm IS done; the divinely-intended emphasis has been weakened. The Sword has been dulled.

By the way, someone reading this might be wondering about the textual authority for verses 44 and 46 of Mark 9. It is a fact that these two
verses are omitted from practically all twentieth century translations and
in all new editions of the Greek text since the days of the introduction of Westcott-Hort's text in 1881. Are these omissions based upon sound textual authority? Not at all. In fact, the two verses are attested to by the vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts, old Bible versions, and quotes from the writings of church fathers. The only textual "authority" for omitting these important verses is a handful of texts of very questionable origin, primarily the manuscript Sinaiticus (discovered in the 1800's in a
wastebasket of an apostate monastery in Mt. Sinai), the manuscript
Vaticanus (which was hidden for centuries in the library at the Roman
Catholic Pope's palace), and one or two fifth century manuscripts of even lesser importance. In many places modern textual critics accept the
extremely questionable testimony of these manuscripts while rejecting the overwhelming majority of existing evidence.

Consider another example of this important principle of repetition. It is
seen in the vision which was given to Peter about the conversion of the Gentiles. He saw a vessel in appearance like a sheet lowered down from Heaven full of animals which were unclean under the Mosaic law. When the
voice accompanying the vision demanded that Peter rise, kill, and eat, he balked. The vision was repeated three times. Three times (Acts 10:9-16).
Why? For emphasis. God doesn't waste words, but at the same time ALL of
God's words are important and are not to be tampered with by man. The Scriptures have already been purified seven times (Psa. 12:6). We,
therefore, do not need a Reader's Digest condensation committee, nor a paraphraser, nor a naturalistic-minded critical editor, nor a so-called "dynamic equivalent" translator.

Let us think a little more about the important principle of repetition as a tool of emphasis. Joseph testified to this regarding the prophecy God had given Pharaoh in a dream:

"And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because this thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass" (Gen. 41:32).

Joseph recognized the importance even of the repetitions of God's Word. Through repetitions God emphasizes important truths, and removing some of
the Bible's repetition removes some of the power and emphasis of that particular truth. In this we can see more clearly how the devil would
attempt, in his subtle way, to undermine the power of the Word of God over men's lives by seeing that texts are made with vast numbers of omissions of words and phrases. The overall teaching of Scripture is not changed; therefore, many see no harm. An alarm is not raised by the average careless shepherd of the fold. But with each omission the strength and impact of certain truths upon the readers' lives are rendered less forceful.

THE DOCTRINE OF INDIVIDUAL PASSAGES IS CHANGED

The omissions and changes in the Bible Societies' Greek Text (which is a revision of the Westcott-Hort Text and is the basis for practically all
recent translations) very definitely do change the doctrine of the
particular verses and passages involved, and this numbers into the
hundreds. I would remind our friends that doctrine means teaching. In the
King James Bible, the Greek word for doctrine is also translated teaching
and instruction. I am saying that if any teaching is changed, doctrine is changed. And while many of the word changes admittedly do not change the overall teaching of Scripture, they do change the teaching--and therefore
the doctrine--of the particular passages.

Does not the omission of the phrase "to repentance" in Matthew 9:13 change
the meaning of that verse significantly? As translated from the Textus Receptus the verse reads in the KJV, "But 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." Most of the new versions omit
"to repentance," thus creating a significant difference in the meaning and usage of the verse. The doctrine of this verse has been changed.

The omission of entire verses, such as Matt. 12:47, 17:21, Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 11:26, 15:28, and Acts 8:37, does significantly change the teaching of the passages in which they were contained.

When the phrase "but by every word of God" is omitted from Lk. 4:4, does
this not significantly change the meaning of that particular verse in Luke?

We could go on and on. Can anyone seriously testify that there is no change
in the teaching of the verses in which we find the thousands of omissions
or additions? And even if there were absolutely no doctrinal difference between the two texts in consideration, which there is as I will soon demonstrate, this does not change the fact that hundreds and hundreds of doctrinal changes are made within particular passages. I do not understand
the cavalier way these facts are treated by so many Christian leaders, even
by many who claim to be fundamental.

MANY DOCTRINES ARE ATTACKED AND WEAKENED

While not entirely removing any "major" teaching of Scripture, the Greek
text underlying the new versions does viciously attack and seriously weaken some teachings. To illustrate this I will use (primarily) the New American Standard Bible (NASV), known to some as "the rock of biblical honesty," and which is popular even in some fundamental schools and churches. There are
many kinds of rocks, of course, and in this case the rock is brittle and untrustworthy. Much of the following material is used by permission from A Critical Examination of the New American Standard Bible by D.K. Madden.
Copies of this excellent study can be obtained from Way of Life Literature. See front of book for address.

For our statements about the textual basis for a certain reading we have consulted several sources, including the critical apparatus in two Greek
New Testaments. Revision Revised by John Burgon, the studies of Dr. Edward
F. Hills, the edited works of David Otis Fuller, and personal
correspondence with Dr. Bruce Lackey have also been of great help. Burgon's Revisions Revised, the two major works of Edward Hills (Believing Bible
Study and The King James Version Defended), and Fuller's Which Bible? have excellent indexes, which facilitate their use as textual evidence resource guides. The stateside Way of Life Literature catalog contains a list of
this type of resource material.

The fact that there is basic doctrinal agreement between the different
Greek text families shows us two things. First, we can rejoice that God has overruled the wicked plan of men and devils and has maintained essential doctrine even in the most corrupted texts. Second, this does not mean,
though, that the differences between the texts are insignificant and
harmless. It does not mean that doctrine is unaffected. It also does not
mean it is not important to find and use the purest text.

I can show someone the true Gospel of the grace of Christ with any Bible translation, even a Roman Catholic one. I can prove the deity of Christ through any Bible translation--even the perverted New World Translation
used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I can teach the doctrine of the Atonement even from a perversion such as the Today's English Bible which deletes the word "blood" in most major passages. This shows the marvelous hand of God
to confound the efforts of the devil. But this does not mean that the
changes made in these and other new translations are not significant.

The following study shows that doctrine has been affected by the modern versions:

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEITY

Matthew 1:25--"Firstborn" is out, speaking of the Lord Jesus.

Matthew 19:17--Instead of "Why callest thou me good?" as in the KJV, the
NASV reads, "Why are you asking Me about what is good?" This obscures the
true sense of the passage and of Jesus' remarks, through which He was
pointing out the fact that either He is God or He is not good. Matt. 19:17, rightly translated from the proper text, is a reference to Christ's deity,
but is removed from the new texts and translations.

Matthew 27:54--The new translations remove or question the centurion's
clear testimony to Christ's deity. The true reading is "Truly this was the
Son of God" (KJV). But the NASB refers the reader to a footnote here which reads, "Or, possibly, a son of God, or a son of a god." This is blasphemy against Christ. The NIV and RSV have basically the same footnote, while the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and the Phillips New Testament incorporate the spurious reading into the text itself. The Living Bible's footnote here says, "Or, a godly man." Who will say this is not a doctrinal change?

Mark 9:24--The man's testimony that Christ is Lord is removed from the
NASB, NIV, TEV, RSV, ASV, Phillips, Living Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New
English Bible, and the Revised Berkeley Version (distributed by the Gideons
in some instances as an alternate to the KJV).

Mark 15:39--The same situation exists here as with Matthew 27:54. The centurion's testimony of Christ's deity is removed from the text or
questioned with a footnote, and this in spite of the fact that the reading
of the Textus Receptus and KJV is attested by the majority of textual witnesses.

Luke 2:33--"In this verse the NASB, in common with most other modern
versions, again attacks the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ by changing
`Joseph and his mother' to `father and mother.' This same corrupted reading
is found in the NIV, RSV, TEV, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible,
Phillips, and Revised Berkeley Version. The KJV translation is attested by
the majority of textual witnesses."

Luke 2:43--In consistency with the reading of verse 33 noted above, the
NASV has "his parents" instead of the correct rendering of the KJV--"Joseph and his mother."

Luke 4:41--The powerful and clear witness identifying Jesus as the promised Messiah, "Christ the Son of God," is removed by the extraction of "Christ"
in the new versions. The NASB, NIV, TEV, RSV, etc., read, "You are the Son
of God," whereas the KJV correctly reads, "Thou art the Christ the Son of God." The KJV translation is attested by the majority of textual witnesses.

Luke 23:42--NASB has the penitent thief address the dying Saviour merely as "Jesus," whereas according to the Textus Receptus and KJV, he calls him "Lord." This again is an important detail because it records that even when the disciples had forsaken their Lord and Master, God in His sovereign providence caused a dying penitent thief to publicly acknowledge His deity. This wonderful testimony is removed from the modern versions, and upon what overwhelming manuscript authority? Again the omission rests upon the flimsy foundation of a bare handful of questionable witnesses, whereas the
majority of all manuscripts, versions, and ancient commentaries attest that the thief did indeed call upon Jesus as "Lord."

John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18--The NIV and most other modern versions omit "begotten," thereby removing an important witness to the uniqueness of
Christ as the only begotten Son of God. (One exception is the NASV which retains "begotten" in these passages.) To remove "begotten" from these passages creates a lie within the text. Christ is not the only son of God. Adam is called the son of God; Christians are called the sons of God. But Christ IS the only begotten son of God just as the KJV correctly affirms.
The problem here is the failure to properly translate the Greek word "monogenes." This is a combination of two words--"mono," meaning only and "ginomai," meaning to cause to be. The failure to translate "ginomai" is inexcusable, and even more so as it refers to our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 3:13--A very important phrase is omitted from the Westcott-Hort-UBS
Greek text (and therefore is omitted in the modern translations). I am referring to the phrase "which is in heaven." The KJV reads, "And no man
hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son
of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." This is a plain, irrefutable testimony of the deity and omnipresence of Christ, but is removed from modern translations.
The KJV translation of the Textus Receptus is based upon the majority of textual witnesses.

John 4:42--Again, the clear witness that Jesus is the Christ is removed.
The KJV reads, "we ... know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of
the world." The NASB and other modern versions omit Christ, but again, the
KJV translation stands upon the solid ground of the majority of textual evidence.

John 6:69--"And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son
of the Living God." Here is another wonderful and clear testimony that
Jesus was the very Christ prophesied in Old Testament Scripture, yea, the
Son of the Living God. But in this verse, the modern translations destroy
this testimony. The NASB reads, "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God." The RSV, NIV, Phillips, TEV, New
English, Revised Berkeley Version, and Jerusalem Bible have the same
erroneous reading which ignores the majority of textual evidence. The
weakened translation is based upon the authority of the same handful of questionable manuscripts referred to previously.

John 9:4--KJV: "I must work the works of him that sent me..." The NASB
reads, "We must work the works of Him who sent me..." You can see that this slight change in pronouns from I to we removes entirely this beautiful reference to Christ's unique work. Seemingly small changes in the Bible can create big differences.

Acts 2:30--The KJV says God promised to raise up CHRIST to sit on the
throne of David. According to the modern versions, God promised merely "to seat one of his descendants upon his throne." This reading is found in the NASV, NIV, RSV, New English Bible, TEV, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, Revised Berkeley Version, and other modern translations.

The removal of the word "Christ" in the modern versions renders ineffective this powerful reference to the Messianic lineage of Jesus. The Received
Text here exalts Jesus, the son of David, as the very Messiah (Christ is
the Greek form of the Hebrew Messiah), the mighty God and everlasting
Father (Isa. 9:6), the Immanuel, God with us (Isa. 7:14). The modern
versions based upon a corrupted Greek text show their normal tendency to tamper with these marvelous testimonies to the deity of Jesus Christ.

And upon what strong textual basis did the modern Greek editors and translators weaken this blessed witness? What overwhelming proof did they
have before them that would require the removal of this ancient landmark?
As usual, the reading of the modern versions is based upon the witness of
the same small group of questionable manuscripts, while the witness of the majority of textual evidence is discarded.

Acts 8:37--The NASB omits this verse and thereby removes the glorious and important testimony of the Ethiopian eunuch as to the incarnation and deity
of Jesus Christ. "And Phillip 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 also removed from the RSV, NIV, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, and Phillips, and is placed in brackets in the TEV, indicating great doubt as to its trustworthiness.

1 Corinthians 15:47--This is another serious omission pertaining to
Christ's deity. The KJV reads, "The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven." The NASV reads, "...the second man is from heaven," thus effectively removing this blessed and powerful testimony that Jesus Christ is Lord from heaven. The NIV, TEV, RSV, Revised Berkeley, New English, Jerusalem, Living Bible, and Phillips imitate this perversion.

By the way, it was the editors of the English Revised Version and of the Westcott-Hort text who removed this blessed witness from the Bible. Before that the words, "the Lord" (from heaven) had stood uncontested in most
Bibles throughout the entire world, boldly witnessing to Christ's eternal deity. Upon what overpowering textual authority did these nineteenth
century editors remove these significant and precious words? Again it was
done only on the exceedingly weak testimony of a few manuscripts of dubious value against the vast majority of textual witnesses. The sad part is that most twentieth century translators and Greek editors have followed in these sad footsteps.

1 Corinthians 16:22--"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha." This is changed by the NASB to read, "If any one does not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha." Obviously the more
general reference robs Christ of the witness and honor He has received from this passage for centuries in most Bibles. Again, this new reading is a subtle, but definite weakening of the witness of Scripture to Christ's
deity. The strange thing is that even though the KJV translation is based solidly upon the majority of textual witnesses, the NASB does not even have
a footnote to show that they have tampered with the Received Text on the
basis of very slight manuscript authority. The NIV, TEV, RSV, Revised Berkeley, Jerusalem, New English, Living Bible, and Phillips follow the
faulty NASB translation.

Galatians 3:17--By the removal of "in Christ," the NASB and other modern versions strike another subtle yet definite blow against the preexistence
of Christ and of His part in the covenant of salvation. The KJV reads, "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul..." Here we are reminded that every word of the text is highly significant.

1 Timothy 3:16--KJV reads: "And 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." The NASB (together with practically all twentieth century versions) reads, "And by common confession great is the mystery of
godliness. He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit."

The following extract from a sermon by Terrance Brown, formerly the
Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, offers important
facts which reveal the error of the NASV reading and the shocking history
of how this perversion crept into modern versions:

"Countless millions of the Lord's people, from the dawn of the Christian
era to the present day, have read these words in their Bibles precisely as they appear in our Authorised Version, but now this powerful testimony to
the Godhead of our Saviour is to be swept out of the Scriptures and to disappear without trace. If we have the temerity to murmur or complain
about this erosion of the sacred text of God's Word we are liable to be accused of defending the Authorised Version on emotional rather than on rational grounds. Our present purpose is not so much to vindicate the
English translation as to demonstrate that we have good reason to believe
that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write `God was manifest
in the flesh.' ...

"Unfortunately this `mutual toleration' was attempted by those responsible
for the Revised Version [of 1881], and Dr. G. Vance Smith, minister of St. Saviour's Gate Unitarian Chapel, York, was invited to join the revising
body. Dr. Smith attended a Communion service in Westminster Abbey in
company with the other Revisers and in a letter to `The Times' of 11th
July, 1870, he declared that he received the sacrament without joining in
the Creed and without compromise of his principles as a `Unitarian.' This evoked a solemn protest signed by several thousand clergy, and a resolution
of the Upper House of Convocation in February, 1871, ``That it is the
judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord
Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which is
committed the revision of the Authorised Version of Holy Scripture ... and that any such person now on either company should cease to act therewith.'

"Vance Smith nevertheless remained on the committee. Among other passages robbed of their true significance was 1 Timothy 3:16, where `God was
manifest in the flesh" was altered to "who was manifest...' This was
entirely satisfactory to Dr. Smith, who commented, `The old reading has
been pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be
by all careful students of the New Testament [doesn't that lying statement make you want to throw up!]... It is another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word "God" into their
manuscripts--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency
in early Christian times to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as "God manifested in the flesh."' [The author of this book, for one, stands with those blessed early Christians in looking upon Jesus Christ as the incarnate God!]

"Most of the Revisers were also of the opinion that the original words
written by the Apostles did not include the name of God, and as a result
the Revised Version presents this text in a weakened form.

"Notwithstanding the hostile note in the margin of the Revised Version at
this place, <`The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient
ancient evidence.'> there is abundant ancient evidence for the text as we
have it in the Authorised Version, and comparatively little for the adulterated text of the modern versions. ...

"The great majority of the Greek copies have `God was manifested,' and very few indeed have `who' or `which.' At the time of the Revision nearly three hundred Greek copies were known to give indisputable support to the
Received Text, while not more than a handful of Greek copies could be
quoted in favour of `who' or `which.' It is thus apparent that the correct
and best attested reading of this verse is preserved in the Authorised Version. ...

"While it is of interest to record the opinions of scholars during the last century, it is infinitely more important that we should know what was
written by the Apostle in the first, and the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the inclusion of the Name of God in this text. To quote Professor Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology), "For God we find the great body of the cursive Greek manuscripts and almost all the Greek fathers ... The internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the common text ... The leading truths concerning the manifestation of Christ are concisely stated, (1) He is God; (2) He was manifested in the flesh..."

"This text as we have it is an integral part of God's inspired and holy
Word. It would be presumptuous to add to it, perilous to reject it, wise
and profitable to receive it and to remember the admonition to the prophet
of old--`Diminish not a word.'"

To this testimony we add that of the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

"[If] the text does not say "God was manifest in the flesh," who does it
say was manifest in the flesh? Either a man, or an angel, or a devil. Does it tell us that a man was manifest in the flesh? Assuredly that cannot be
its teaching, for every man is manifest in the flesh, and there is no sense
in making such a statement concerning any mere man, and then calling it a mystery. Was it an angel then? But what angel was ever manifest in the
flesh? And if he were, would it be at all a mystery that he should be `seen
of angels'? Is it a wonder for an angel to see an angel? Can it be that the devil was manifest in the flesh? If so he has been `received up into
glory,' which, let us hope, is not the case. Well, if it was neither a man, nor an angel, nor a devil, who was manifest in the flesh, surely he must
have been God; and so if the word be not there, the sense must be there, or else nonsense.

"We believe that if criticism should grind the text in a mill, it would get out of it no more and no less than the sense expressed by our grand old version. God Himself was manifest in the flesh. What a mystery is this! A mystery of mysteries! God the invisible was manifest; God the Spiritual
dwelt in flesh; God the infinite, uncontained, boundless, was manifest in
the flesh. What infinite leagues our thought must traverse between Godhead self existent, and therefore, full of power and self sufficiency, before we have descended to the far down level of poor flesh, which is as grass at
its best, and dust in its essence! Where find we a greater contrast than between God and flesh, and yet the two blended in the incarnation of the Saviour. Matchless truth, let the Church never fail to set it forth, for it
is essential to the world's salvation that this doctrine of the incarnation
be made fully known."

Thus we see that in the modern reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, in the omission
of one highly significant word--just one little three letter word--one of
the Bible's clearest, most indisputable witnesses to Christ's eternal deity has been wiped away.

1 John 4:3--"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof
ye have heard that it should come; and even now is it in the world." The
NASB reads, "And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from
God..." It is easy to see that this is a seriously weakened translation
which does not give forth the proper test whereby we can discern the spirit
of antichrist. The NASB rendering (which is followed by the other modern versions) is almost meaningless. Even Modernists, Mormons, Mohammedans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Masons will confess "Jesus"--in their own
perverted ways. The test is not whether someone confesses Jesus in a
general sense, but whether he confesses that Jesus is the Christ of Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 and other Old Testament passages prophesied that Christ would be God. Jesus IS that Christ, and anyone who denies this is of the spirit of antichrist. The NASB reading of this
passage is seriously corrupted.

Revelation 1:11--Without so much as a marginal note of explanation, the
NASB removes the important words, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" from this verse. Other modern translations do the same--NIV, TEV,
RSV, Revised Berkeley, New English, Jerusalem, Phillips.

We have looked briefly at twenty-five key passages in which the testimony of Christ's deity either has been removed entirely or critically weakened
in newer versions of the Bible. The deity of Christ has not been removed entirely from these Bibles, but by the changes in the wordings of more than two dozen important passages, the overall testimony to the doctrine of Christ's deity has been weakened. Is this really a matter, friends, of
little consequence as so many would have us believe? I say not.

This is not all. In addition to these major omissions are the following omissions of names and titles belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. For this list we are indebted to D.K. Madden's A Critical Examination of the New American Standard Bible.

LORD--Omitted in Matt. 13:51; Mark 9:24; Acts 9:6; 2 Cor. 4:10; Gal. 6:17;
2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 1:4.

JESUS--Omitted in Matt. 8:29; Matt. 16:20; 2 Cor. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col.
1:28; Phile. verse 6; 1 Pet. 5:14.

CHRIST--Omitted in Lk. 4:41; Jn. 4:42; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 16:23;
2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 3:17; Gal. 4:7; 1 Thes. 2:19; I Thes. 3:11; 1 Thes.
3:13; 2 Thes. 1:8; Heb. 3:1; 1 Jn. 1:7; Rev. 12:17.

JESUS CHRIST--Omitted in 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 3:9; 2 Tim. 4:22.

LORD JESUS CHRIST--Omitted in Romans 16:24; Eph. 3:14; Col. 1:2.

SON OF GOD--Omitted in John 9:35; John 6:69.

From the above non-exhaustive study it can be seen that the Westcott-Hort- Bible Society text and the modern translations make a definite attack upon
the Scriptures' testimony of the deity of Jesus Christ. This one fact alone
is sufficient cause to retain the Textus Receptus and faithful translations founded upon it.

Note further that the above readings of the TR and KJV are supported by
every edition of the Textus Receptus and of the Majority Text. Some enemies
of the TR delight in pointing out the fact that there are some differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus, such as Erasmus's, Stephens', Elzevir's, and Scrivener's. These critics usually fail to
mention an important fact relevant to this issue-- the differences between these texts are amazingly few (and minute), whereas the differences between the TR and the Westcott-Hort type text are amazingly vast.

The few differences which do exist between the various editions and manuscripts within the Received Text family cannot be ignored, but they do
not present the type of difficulty as that presented by the Egyptian
textual family. The orthodoxy of the Received Text family is seen in its united witness FOR the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the above
mentioned passages.

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST

There are only two passages in the Gospel which directly contain the account of Christ's ascension to Heaven after His resurrection--Mark
16:19 and Luke 24:51. It is interesting that both of these passages are questioned by the Westcott-Hort text and the versions which are based upon this foundation.

D.K. Madden notes: "Luke 24:51 AV reads--`And it came to pass, while
he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.' NASB omits the last part of this verse from the text, while a marginal note says--`Some mss. add: and was carried up into heaven.' It is also
significant that NASB places the last twelves verses of Mark 16 in brackets with a marginal note casting doubt on their genuineness, because these two portions of Scripture contain the only Gospel account of the
Ascension." Also, "Luke 24:52--Worship of the Ascended Lord
Jesus Christ is omitted from the text while a marginal note says, `Some
mss. insert: worshiped Him, and...'"

OMISSIONS AFFECTING THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

Colossians 1:14--The AV [Authorized Version, KJV] reads, "In whom we
have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." NASB
omits "through his blood" (D.K. Madden).

Hebrews 1:3--The AV reads, "Who 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 at the right hand of the Majesty on high." The NASB omits "by himself" (D.K.
Madden).

1 Peter 4:1--The AV reads, "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered
for us in the flesh ..." The NASB omits "for us" (D.K.
Madden).

1 Corinthians 5:7--The AV reads, "... For even Christ our passover
is sacrificed for us." Again, the NASB omits "for us" (D.K.
Madden).

OMISSIONS AFFECTING THE DOCTRINE OF FASTING

The new versions make a strange attack against the New Testament teaching
of fasting. Though some references to fasting remain, several very
significant references are removed.

Matthew 17:21--KJV "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer
and fasting." This entire verse is omitted in the NASV, RSV, NIV, New
English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and Phillips. The TEV puts the verse in brackets.

Mark 9:29--KJV reads "And he said unto them, This kind can come
forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting." The Bible Society Greek
text and the new versions based on this text omit the phrase "and
fasting." This is true in the NIV, NASV, RSV, Living Bible, Phillips,
New English Bible, and Jerusalem Bible.

These two verses about fasting are certainly not the only references to
this doctrine in Scripture, but they are the only two references which specifically, directly teach the importance of fasting as an aspect of spiritual warfare. Those who have fought spiritual battles against the
powers of darkness know from experience the precious truth of what Jesus is saying in these passages. Prayer is a powerful spiritual resource, but
there ARE demonic strongholds which cannot be broken by prayer alone
without fasting. It is a fact, and it is a part of the Bible!

To remove these references from the Bible is folly and evil. It is equal to removing part of the essential armament from a soldier's equipment before sending him into battle.

The textual evidence for the references is overwhelming. Again, it is basically a matter of the vast majority of textual witnesses on one hand (which support the fasting readings) against the flimsy, questionable testimony of two manuscripts, primarily-- Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Personally, I will require a much stronger witness than this before
allowing someone to remove these blessed Scriptures from my Bible. In fact, you will not take them from my Bible, thank you! I consider these
references so important spiritually, that the removal of these two passages alone demonstrate to me the error of following the Westcott-Hort textual principles which allow the Sinaitic and Vaticanus manuscripts to overthrow
the testimony of multitudes of other witnesses.

There are four other passages dealing with the doctrine of fasting which
are removed in the new versions:

Acts 10:30--Here we read in the King James Version and most of the old Protestant translations in various languages that Cornelius was fasting and praying. The new versions, following the lead of the Westcott-Hort Greek
text, remove the word fasting. This is true for the RSV, NASV, NIV, Living Bible, TEV, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, the New Berkeley Version,
and Phillips.

1 Corinthians 7:5--The KJV reads, "Defraud 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." Again, rejecting the majority of textual witnesses,
the new versions remove fasting from this important passage. This is true
for all of the versions we have been checking as mentioned above.

2 Corinthians 6:5--The KJV reading, "fasting," has been changed
in the new versions to "hunger." Obviously hunger and fasting are
two different things. In 2 Cor. 11:27, where the Apostle Paul gives a
similar listing of some aspects of his ministry, he mentions both hunger
AND fasting. We see from this that the Holy Spirit is not using these terms synonymously. Therefore, this is another attack upon the biblical doctrine
of the spiritual benefit of fasting.

2 Corinthians 11:27--The KJV reading, "fastings often," is
replaced in the new versions with "often without food." The comment
on 2 Cor. 6:5 above applies here as well. One can be hungry and go without food without it being connected with the spiritual life and warfare. The
KJV reading says, "in hunger and thirst, in fastings often." A
clear distinction is made between the hunger Paul often endured and his frequent times of spiritual fasting. If in these two passages the Holy
Spirit is referring to the apostle's spiritual battles, to spiritual
fasting, which is most probable since such a distinction is made, the
modern translators have done a great evil in removing this teaching through their versions.

When the reading of these six verses is taken together, a definite pattern
of attack appears in the new Greek texts and versions upon the doctrine of fasting as a spiritual weapon. This is even more serious in light of the
fact that we are warned in Scripture that spiritual warfare will grow in intensity as the time of Christ's return draws near. "This know also,
that in the last days perilous times shall come. ... But evil men and
seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2
Tim. 3:1,13). Don't be deceived, dear Christian friend, into accepting a
Bible version which removes these important spiritual weapons from your
life.

By no means are these all of the doctrines attacked in the modern versions, but from with these examples the overall result can be seen. It is admitted that the above doctrines are not entirely removed in the modern versions,
but there is no doubt that a definite weakening of doctrine has taken
place.

Some of the most precious passages dealing with these doctrines have been tampered with--for example, 1 Tim. 3:16, dealing with the deity of our
Lord Jesus Christ. There is not a clearer testimony in the New Testament to Christ's deity than this. As one writer has noted, the Westminster
Confession, which supports each of its doctrinal statements with Scripture references, uses 1 Tim. 3:16 as proof of its testimony to Christ's deity.
Few Christians in evangelical circles would use this today, because first,
it is not in their Bibles; or second, it is not in the Bibles used by those with whom they are dealing. This is the sad fruit of Westcott-Hort textual work.

MORE THAN 50 TEACHINGS ARE REMOVED, WEAKENED, CHANGED OR ADDED IN THE
UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES GREEK TEXT AND THE NEW VERSIONS

The following list is by no means exhaustive, but we will note over fifty different teachings which either are removed entirely, weakened, changed,
or added in the UBS text. You will look in vain for these teachings in the
new English translations. Someone might reply that the following things do
not affect one's Christian faith and life, but one can say that only by ignoring the truth that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and
ALL of it is profitable for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Man might say we don't need the
following teachings; God says we do.

Remember, too, that "doctrine" simply means teaching. Thus, when
any teaching of Scripture is removed or changed in the modern versions, in actuality, a doctrine has been removed or changed.

(1) The doctrine pertaining to the exact purpose, power and importance of FASTING is removed from the Bible in the UBS text.

Though we have already mentioned this, it is proper to point out this fact again in the present context. At least six significant references to
fasting are removed in the UBS text, and two of these are related to the teaching that some demonic strongholds can be broken only through fasting--Matt. 17:21 and Mk. 9:29. The omission of the word
"fasting" in these two verses completely removes this particular
doctrine of fasting from the entire Bible. Yes, there are other references
in the Bible to fasting, but no other references unequivocally specify its effectiveness in spiritual warfare.

(2) The teaching of the virgin birth is effectively removed from the
epistles in the UBS text.

Those who deny the virgin birth love to point out the supposed fact that
the apostles did not refer to this doctrine in their writings to the
churches. These liberals are wrong, of course. The virgin birth is referred
to in Gal. 4:4 and Heb. 2:16, but the "small" changes made in these
passages in the UBS text and the new translations effectively remove the possibility of these verses being references to the virgin birth. Gal. 4:4
in the NIV reads "born of a woman," whereas it reads "made of a
woman" in the KJV. To be born of a woman is natural; to be made of a
woman is supernatural! Heb. 2:16 in the NIV reads, "For surely it is
not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants," whereas the KJV reads,
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him
the seed of Abraham." In the NIV we find Jesus helping the Jews; in the
KJV we find the preexistent Christ becoming a Jewish man through the womb
of a virgin.

(3) The teaching that Christians are to withdraw from men who "deny the doctrine which is according to godliness," is removed from 1 Tim. 6:5.

The phrase "from such withdraw thyself" is attested by the majority
of Greek manuscripts, and the chief support for omitting the phrase is
merely the corrupt Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts.

There are other passages which contain the doctrine of separation, but each has different kinds of separation in view. No other passage in the Bible contains the exact doctrine taught in 1 Tim. 6:3-5, that Christians are to withdraw from those who deny the doctrine according to godliness in the
ways spoken of there.

There are many promoting a worldly Christianity, scoffing at biblical standards of personal holiness such as abstinence from rock music, alcohol, drugs, immoral and violent movies, even saying homosexuality and divorce
are not displeasing to God. Too, there are a growing number of supposed Christians who believe homosexuality is a proper lifestyle. 1 Tim. 6:3-6 is
a plain prophecy of such men, concluded by the command to separate from them. Often I have wanted to use this passage to exhort such separation,
but I could not because those to whom I was speaking used Bibles which
deleted the clause about separation. In light of the growing tendency among professing Christians to deny the doctrine of godliness, this passage
becomes more needful with each passing year.

(4) According to the UBS text and the new translations, eagles fly in
Heaven and give messages from God. Rev. 8:13 in the NASV is representative
of the modern versions: "... I heard an eagle flying in mid-heaven,
saying with a loud voice, `Woe, woe, woe, to those who dwell on the
earth.'" You won't find this doctrine anywhere in the TR or the KJV!

(5) The teaching that the healing of Peter's mother-in-law was immediate is entirely removed from the UBS text by the omission of the word
"immediately" in Mk. 1:31.

(6) The doctrine that Jesus came expressly to call sinners to repentance is omitted in the UBS text. The words "to repentance" are omitted in
Matt. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17. Other passages, such as Matt. 4:17, have Jesus preaching repentance in the modern versions, but only the two referred to
say expressly that this was His actual purpose in coming.

(7) The doctrine that every sacrifice shall be salted with salt is omitted entirely from the UBS Greek text by the omission of the words "every
sacrifice shall be salted" in Mk. 9:49.

(8) The teaching that the young ruler had to "take up the cross" is
omitted entirely from the Bible in the UBS text by the removal of those
words in Mk. 10:21. This account is repeated in Matt. 19:21 and Lk. 18:22,
but the reference to Christ's command that the young ruler must take up the cross is not contained in these passages.

(9) The matter of trusting in riches making it hard for men to enter the kingdom of God is removed from your Bible if you use one based upon the UBS text, because the words "for them that trust in riches" are omitted
in Mk. 10:24. Other passages mention the rich man (Matt. 19:23,24, etc.)
but no other New Testament passage explains that the wealthy man's problem
was the matter of "trusting in riches."

(10) By omitting the words "of the saved" in Rev. 21:24, the
teaching regarding these future things is significantly changed.

(11) The teaching that Mary was blessed among women is removed. The modern versions omit "blessed art thou among women" from Lk. 1:28. No
other verse says this, and it is omitted in all new versions. Perhaps this
is unimportant? Who are we to say? This IS a Bible doctrine in the TR and
KJV, and it is NOT a Bible teaching in the UBS text or new translations.

(12) The teaching that Jesus commanded the devil to get behind Him is
omitted. Lk. 4:8. Matt. 4:10 reads, "Get thee hence, Satan," but
says nothing about Satan being commanded to get behind Jesus. This teaching
is missing from new versions of the Bible.

(13) The teaching that the apostles James and John were wanting to imitate Elijah in calling fire from Heaven is removed. "...even as Elias
did" is omitted in the UBS text in Lk. 9:54.

(14) The teaching that the apostles did not "know what manner of
spirit" they were of and that "the Son of man is not come to
destroy men's lives, but to save them" is removed from the new Bibles
by the omission of these words from Lk. 9:55,56.

(15) The teaching that Jesus was struck on the face is removed entirely
from the New Testament. The modern versions remove the words "they
struck him on the face" from Lk. 22:64. Parallel passages say they
smote and buffeted Him in a general sense, but only this one verse specifically mentions the striking of His blessed face.

(16) The teaching that Peter "wondered in himself at that which had
come to pass" is removed from the Bible, because the entire verse of
Luke 24:12 is removed from the UBS text. A parallel passage, John 20:3-7,
says Peter went in the tomb and saw the grave clothes, but does not mention about him wondering in himself about the whole matter.

(17) The UBS text and new Bibles remove the teaching that the disciples worshiped Jesus as He ascended to Heaven. The words "and they
worshipped him" are removed from Lk. 24:52.

(18) The teaching that Jesus was preferred before John is omitted from the
UBS text by the omission of the words "preferred before me" from
Jn. 1:27.

(19) The new Bibles which follow the UBS text remove the doctrine that
Jesus was in heaven even while He was on earth. The words "which is in
heaven" are omitted from Jn. 3:13.

(20) The UBS text and new Bibles remove the doctrine about the people
waiting for the moving of the water and about the angel stirring the water
in Jn. 5:3,4. Both verses are omitted. By the way, this KJV and TR reading
is supported by the vast majority of manuscript evidence. We might not understand this passage; we might not even like it. But the fact remains
that the Textus Receptus contains it. It has been in the Bible through the centuries, but it is deleted from the UBS text.

(21) The doctrine regarding the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11
either is removed or is included in brackets, thereby placing its authority
in grave doubt, but is supported by the majority of manuscript evidence.
Much doctrine is contained here, some of which is in no other passage of
the Bible.

(22) The teaching that Jesus addressed Thomas by name is omitted in Jn.
20:29 and is contained in no parallel passage. This might seem an insignificant matter, but how precious it is to see Jesus calling His
own--and a faithless, stubborn one at that!--by name. These little "insignificant" details of God's Word hold much wonderful doctrine.

(23) That which Philip the evangelist required of those he baptized is
removed from the new Bibles, together with the wonderful confession of the eunuch who was saved while riding in the chariot. See Acts 8:37, which is omitted in the new versions.

(24) The teaching that Paul was being deeply convicted by the Lord is
removed from the Bible by the omission in Acts 9:5 of "it is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks."

(25) The teaching of what Paul first said to the Lord Jesus Christ is
removed from the Bible with the omission in Acts 9:6 of "And he
trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" You
cannot find out what Paul first said to Christ in the new Bibles.

(26) Most of Tertullus' speech is removed from the Bible, together with any teaching it contains by the omission of Acts 24:6-8.

(27) The teaching that the other prisoners were delivered to the captain of the guard while Paul was allowed to dwell by himself is removed from the
Bible by the omission of Acts 28:16.

(28) The teaching that the Jews left Paul after his words recorded in Acts 28:25-28 and that they had great reasoning among themselves is removed from the Bible by the omission of Acts 28:29.

(29) The teaching that those who turned from the truth were filled with "fornication" is removed from the Bible by the omission of this
word in Rom. 1:29. Other Bible passages speak of the fact that fallen man commits fornication, but no other Bible passage says specifically, as this
one does, that fallen man became "filled with fornication" when he
rejected God.

(30) The teaching that if something "be of works, then it is no more
grace: otherwise work is no more work" is removed from the Bible by its omission from Rom. 11:6. Though the first part of this verse is retained
and the teaching of the first and second halves of the verse is similar,
the teaching of the two clauses is not exactly the same; and the teaching
of the second clause is removed from the Bible in the new versions.

(31) Doctrine regarding keeping or not keeping holy days is omitted from
Rom. 14:6, with the deletion of the words "he that regardeth not the
day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."

(32) By the omission in Rom. 14:21 of the words "or is offended, or is
made weak," the UBS text removes some doctrine from the Bible in this
context.

(33) The doctrine that we are to glorify God in our spirit as well as body
is removed in 1 Cor. 6:20 with the deletion of the words "and in your
spirit, which are God's."

(34) The doctrine that fasting and prayer is the only thing which is to
keep married couples from their physical relationship is removed by its omission in 1 Cor. 7:5.

(35) By the omission of the words "by the law" in 1 Cor. 7:39, the
teaching is removed from this passage that it is the law which binds the
woman to her husband while he is alive--1 Cor. 7:39.

(36) The doctrine that Jesus is the Lord from Heaven is removed from the
UBS text and new Bibles by the omission of these words in 1 Cor. 15:47. The KJV says, "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the
Lord from heaven." The NIV, as a representative of all modern versions,
reads, "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven."

(37) The truth that the covenant of God promised to Abraham was IN CHRIST
is removed from the Bible by the omission of these words in Gal. 3:17.

(38) The doctrine that we are members of Christ's flesh and of His bones is removed by the omission of these words in Eph. 5:30. The KJV reads, "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." The NIV, again representing practically all modern versions, reads, "for we are members of his body."

(39) The teaching that Christians are to mind the same thing is removed by
the modern version omission in Phil. 3:16. The KJV reads,
"Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the
same rule, let us mind the same thing." The NIV reads, "Only let us
live up to what we have already attained." You can see that the entire
last half of the verse is omitted, as it is in all the modern translations which follow the critical text. The doctrine of walking by the same rule is therefore removed from Scripture.

A similar thought is in Rom. 15:5,6, but there is a distinct difference between the two (as is usually true of similar passages and which is
another reason for the repetition). Rom. 15:5,6 is speaking of the
Christian's attitude toward another--"be likeminded one toward
another." Phil. 3:16,17 is speaking of Christians being of one mind in doctrine and practice. This is a different matter, and the removal of the teaching of Phil. 3:16 is sad in light of the widespread apostasy from the doctrine and practice of the apostles among professing Christians in our
day.

(40) Col. 2:11 teaches that it is the sins of the flesh which are affected
by regeneration and not the body itself. This doctrine is changed in the
new Bibles by the omission of the words "of the sins." This changes
the entire doctrine of this important passage on salvation.

(41) The teaching that preachers are to be examples "in spirit" is
removed by the omission of these words in 1 Tim. 4:12.

(42) The teaching that Philemon was asked to receive Onesimus is removed
from the Bible by the omission of the words "receive him" in Phile.
1:12.

(43) The doctrine that Jesus "by himself" purged our sins is
removed from the new Bibles by the omission of these words in Heb. 1:3.
This doctrine that Christ wrought salvation entirely by Himself is nowhere else exactly stated.

(44) Christians are to confess their "sins" to one another,
according to James 5:16 in the Westcott-Hort and UBS text. The TR uses the Greek word paratoma, which refers to "a side-slip, lapse,
deviation, faults" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). The UBS
text, on the other hand, uses hamartia, the "most comprehensive
term for moral evils" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New
Testament Words). The reading of the new versions fits the Roman
Catholic doctrine of confession, whereas the TR reading does not.

(45) The teaching in 1 Peter 1:22 that it is through the Holy Spirit that
we obey the truth for salvation is removed from the new versions by the omission of the words "through the Spirit."

(46) The doctrine that Christ is glorified on our part when we endure
reproach and suffering is removed by the omission in 1 Pet. 4:14 of the
words "on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is
glorified."

(47) The teaching is removed from the new Bibles that the "old
commandment" referred to by John is the one we have "heard from the
beginning" by the omission of this phrase in 1 Jn. 2:7.

(48) The proper test to determine the false spirit of antichrist is removed from the new Bibles by the perversion of 1 Jn. 4:3 in the UBS text. The KJV reads, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh is not of God..." The NIV reads, "But every spirit
that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God..." There is a great difference between these two tests. Every false spirit will
"acknowledge Jesus" in a general sense, but the spirit of
antichrist will not "confess that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh," referring to the fact that Jesus is that very Messiah, that
very God manifest in the flesh, promised in Old Testament prophecy. We considered this earlier when discussing the modern version omissions pertaining to Christ's deity. This is a serious textual and translational error.

(49) The doctrine that we love God because he first loved us is removed
from the new Bibles by the omission of the word "Him" in 1 Jn.
5:19.

(50) The teaching that "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one" is
removed from the new Bibles by the omission of these words in 1 Jn. 5:7. Absolutely nowhere else in Scripture is the doctrine of the Trinity stated
so clearly. Though this reading is not supported by the majority of
existing Greek manuscripts, it does have some manuscript evidence and other authority to support it. It was not something Erasmus or someone created
from thin air! It is true that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained elsewhere in Scripture and does not depend upon this one verse, but it is
also true that nowhere else in the Bible is the doctrine of the Trinity so clearly and simply stated as here. We must remember this is a 2verse which God has blessed throughout the world for 450 years by the vast influence of the Received Text, the Authorized Bible, and the other great Protestant versions which were carried to the ends of the earth. It is thus impossible not to see the hand of God in the preservation of this reading in our old Bible.

(51) The teaching that the fire which destroys the armies of Satan at the
end of time is from Heaven is removed by the omission of the words
"from God out of" in Revelation 20:9.

(52) The teaching in Rev. 22:19 that those who tamper with God's Word will have their part taken out of the book of life is changed. The new texts say "tree of life" rather than book of life.

In all of these instances the doctrine of the Bible IS changed by the
reading of the new translations. Some might argue that none of these are significant. Others will argue that only a few are significant. However, whether or not these changes are considered significant by men is not relevant. My argument is that the omissions and changes in the UBS text and new translations do affect the doctrine of the Bible. The common
evangelical myth that there is no doctrinal difference between texts and versions is just that--a myth.

Consider again the voice of a well-known evangelist:

"...the rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not affect in
any way any doctrine" (R.L. Sumner, Bible Translations).

This, my friends, is a myth.

May the precious Lord Jesus Christ give His people wisdom to know His voice
in this amazingly confusing day. We need the sharpest sword possible. We
need all of the words of God. Actually, the thing that is most urgently
needed among God's people today is a heart of willingness to obey His
voice, for He has already promised, "If any man will do his will, HE SHALL KNOW OF THE DOCTRINE, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself"
(Jn. 7:17).

Kurt,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675- 8311. This article is number four in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE:

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH # 4: INSPIRATION IS PERFECT, BUT PRESERVATION IS GENERAL
By David W. Cloud

CHAPTER 1
THE NATURALISTIC VIEW OF PRESERVATION

Another popular myth surrounding the King James Bible is the concept that while God inspired the Scriptures perfectly, He has preserved the
Scriptures only in a more general sense. To put this another way, while inspiration was miraculous, preservation has been merely circumstantial.

This thinking is common among evangelicals. It is also common among fundamentalists who have been trained in many of the large colleges and seminaries of our land. These contend that though the Bible was verbally inspired and infallible in the original autographs, there is no
truly perfect Bible today. According to this position, none of the various editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts, nor the translations thereof, are absolutely perfect.

EXAMPLES OF THE POPULAR VIEW

Harold Lindsell exemplifies this persuasion. Lindsell is in the mainstream
of the evangelical movement. He was vice-president of Fuller Theological Seminary; he taught at Columbia Bible College and at Northern Baptist Seminary; and he has served as Senior Editor of Christianity Today. In 1976 Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible to warn of the downgrading of
the doctrine of inspiration among evangelicals. Lindsell said, "This change
of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread
and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges,
theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (p. 20).

The point to note here is that Lindsell stands for the absolute perfection
of the Bible AS ORIGINALLY GIVEN. Consider some statements from his book:

"Inspiration may be defined as the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of chosen men who then wrote the Scriptures so that God
got written what He wanted. The Bible in all of its parts constitutes the written Word of God to man. This Word is free from all error IN ITS
ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. ... It is wholly trustworthy in matters of history and doctrine. ... The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible
infallible ... It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or
defective. Inspiration extends to all parts of the written Word of God and
it includes the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit even in the selection of
the words of Scripture" (pp. 30- 31).

This is an excellent statement on the Bible's inspiration. The strange
problem is that Lindsell does not believe such a Bible exists today. When
it comes to the Bible today, Lindsell takes a rather different position. He says, "God did not shield Scripture when it became a part of history. ...
F.F. Bruce has this to say ... `The variant readings about which any doubt remains ... affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian
faith and practice'" (p. 37).

This is a different matter altogether. A Bible that is word-for- word
inspired and absolutely perfect in every detail is a different thing from
one that is only accurate in its basic historical facts and doctrines, one which contains hundreds of variant readings which might be wrong.

Lindsell's thinking as to existing Bibles is seen in that he has published
a study Bible using The Living Bible, which is one of the worst
translations in existence. In announcing The Lindsell Study Bible - The
Living Bible, Lindsell said, "The Living Bible makes clearer what other translations render obscure. ... I recommend it highly." In 1972, while Lindsell was editor, free copies of The Living Bible were offered as a
bonus for every new subscription to Christianity Today.

Lindsell fights for the absolute perfection of the original autographs of
the Bible but he accepts practically any and every translation and
paraphrase, regardless of the fact that these versions differ from one
another in thousands of consequential particulars. In practice, therefore, Lindsell has no perfect Bible, as he has admitted.

Let me give another example of this thinking. James Boice was Chairman of
the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which in the 1980s held several conferences to explain and defend the doctrine of biblical
inerrancy. Speaking of these matters, Boice said, "These are the great
issues of the day, and they need to be dealt with, particularly by men and women who approach them on the basis of God's inerrant Word, our Bible" (Christian News, Sept. 16, 1985).

That sounds great. But again, when it comes to existing Bibles, Dr. Boice changes his tune. In a letter dated Sept. 13, 1985, to Dr. Thomas Hale, missionary doctor in Nepal, Boice gave his opinion regarding translations. Earlier in 1985, Dr. Hale had visited our home in Nepal and had asked me
for information on Bible versions. For the next few months we corresponded
on these matters and I sent him some materials, including Which Bible
edited by David Otis Fuller, and The King James Bible Defended by Edward F. Hills. As these communications proceeded, Dr. Hale wrote to Boice and asked his opinion of texts and translations. A copy of this letter was given to
me by Dr. Hale. Consider an excerpt:

"I might add that the issue has come before the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy on several occasions and that every one of these men see the value of the newer texts in translations and are not defenders of the
King James Version as the only text. Every man on this council is committed
to inerrancy. Some prefer the King James Version and use it, for various reasons. But not one defends it or the textus receptus as the true and only valid text.

"... people who defend the textus receptus ardently should know these facts [editor: Boice had voiced the timeworn arguments that 1) the majority of manuscripts which support the Received Text are supposedly inferior to the
few that support the Westcott-Hort Text, 2) Erasmus supposedly was a
humanist and did not have broad manuscript evidence]. It is not a Divinely given and specially preserved text of the New Testament. ...

"Let me say personally that the English text that I work from most often is the New International Version. IT IS NOT PERFECT, but it is a very good
text and may well win a place in the contemporary church similar to the
place held by the King James Version for so long. ... I must say, although
I DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE NIV, that GENERALLY it does a better job of translating the Greek text than the King James does."

We can see that while Boice and the other evangelical leaders in the
Council on Biblical Inerrancy are committed to the perfect inspiration of
the Bible as a theological concept, they are equally committed to the fact that no such Bible exists today. They say the Received Text is not perfect. <The Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Traditional Text, or
the Byzantine Text, is that type of "text which is found in the vast
majority of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, which was adopted
by Protestants at the time of the Reformation and used by them universally
for more than three hundred years, and which forms the basis of the King
James Version and other early Protestant translations" (Edward F. Hills,
"The Magnificent Burgon," Which Bible?, p. 88).> The King James Bible is
not perfect. The NIV is nice, but it certainly is not perfect. These men
have no perfect Bible and do not believe such a Bible exists. Yet they are busy fighting for the absolute infallibility and verbal inspiration of the Bible! What Bible? A Bible that has ceased to exist. Further, these
scholarly giants slander those who do believe in a perfect Bible and
contend that WE are unreasonable troublemakers!

Note the intellectual pride which oozes from Boice's pen regarding those simpletons who believe the Received Text is the perfect, preserved Word of God:

"Let me say that the concerns of some of these people are undoubtedly good. They are zealous for the Word of God and very much concerned lest liberal
or any other scholarship enter in to pervert it. But unfortunately, the
basis on which they are operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do
what I could in a gentle way to lead them to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are concerned. ... The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that complexity."

This amazing scholarly pride characterizes the writings of all of these
men, regardless of their theological bent. Anyone who refuses to accept the common scholarly line regarding texts and versions is an ignoramus. Dr.
David Otis Fuller identified this phenomenon as "scholarolotry." These men conveniently ignore the fact that many intelligent, knowledgeable men
reject the modern text and stand firmly upon the KJV.

In the fundamentalist world a similar situation exists, particularly among Bible college professors and their ardent followers. Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University epitomizes this position. His book Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? is a fine defense of the perfect infallibility of the Scriptures--but only in regard to the so-called autographs. Consider:

"Conservatives are not contending for the infallibility of any translation, but only for the infallibility of the original documents. ... `the record
for whose inspiration we contend is the original record--the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul, or Peter, as the case
may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them
whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased
to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it'" (p. 88).

In the book The Truth about the King James Version Controversy, Custer acknowledges that there is at least a 10% difference between the Greek text
of the King James Bible and that of the modern Bibles. Yet of this vast
amount of difference he concludes, "There is no fundamental doctrine that
is at stake between these two families of manuscripts. ... God's
preservation is not a continuing inspiration, but a preservation so that no teaching of the Bible would be lost."

The problem with this position is that it is based on human logic and not
on the Word of God. The same God that perfectly inspired the Scriptures has promised to perfectly preserve the Scriptures--not merely its teachings,
but its very words. What is wrong with believing in a continuing miracle?
If Bible preservation is not miraculous, the doctrine of inspiration is meaningless. If inspiration was perfect but preservation is only general,
the entire matter is vain jangling.

CHAPTER 2
THE EXTENT OF PRESERVATION

The bottom line in this matter is that the same Bible that claims to be perfectly inspired also claims to be perfectly preserved. My faith in this
is not based on common sense (though it is sensible to believe that if God gave a perfect Bible He would preserve that very Bible). My faith in this matter is based on the promises of a God that cannot lie.

The men quoted previously, which represent a wide field of thinking, write volumes defining and defending what the Bible says about its own
inspiration, but they are strangely silent on what the same Bible says
about preservation. They take the position of faith in regard to
inspiration but retreat to the position of skepticism in regard to preservation.

Jack Moorman, in his excellent manual Forever Settled, states the problem plainly: "A far better principle is given in Rom. 14:23--`Whatsoever is not
of faith is sin.' If I cannot by faith take the Bible in my hand and say
this is the preserved Word of God, then it is sin. If we do not approach
the study of how we got our Bible from the standpoint of faith, then it is sin. If I cannot believe what God says about the preservation of His Word, then I cannot believe what He says about its inspiration either--all is
sin."

Faith stands on the Word of God. Let us see exactly what the Bible says
about this matter of its own preservation:

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever." Psa. 12:6-7

"The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to
all generations." Psa. 33:11

"For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to
all generations." Psa. 100:5

"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Psa. 111:7-8

"... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord." Psa.
117:2

"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." Psa. 119:89

"Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded
them for ever." Psa. 119:152

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous
judgments endureth for ever." Psa. 119:160

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall
stand for ever." Isa. 40:8

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that
is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." Isa. 59:21

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt.
5:18

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matt. 24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the
Word of God which liveth and abideth forever." 1 Pet. 1:23

"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by
the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Pet. 1:25

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him
the plagues that are written in this book: 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." Rev. 22:18-19

The teaching of these passages is that God would preserve His Word in
detail to every generation. This, and this alone, is the biblical doctrine
of preservation. I call this verbal preservation. The scholars mock this position and sneeringly label it with derogatory terms such as "secondary inspiration," but I am convinced the Bible teaches miraculous inspiration
and miraculous preservation.

Psa. 12:6-7 summarizes the doctrine of Bible preservation. This passage promises that the pure words (not just thoughts or general teachings) of
God would be kept to every generation. Preserved words. Not just the doctrines. Not just the historical facts. The words! This is verbal preservation, and it is exactly what the Bible plainly promises.

Psa. 33:11 says God's thoughts would not be lost but rather would stand to
all generations, and we know from passages such as 1 Cor. 2:12-13 that
these divine thoughts have been expressed through divinely-chosen words. "Which things also we speak, NOT IN THE WORDS which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." Therefore we see that this promise in Psalm 33, too, is a promise of the verbal preservation of Scripture.

Psa. 100:5, 111:7-8, and 117:2 tell us that the truth of God will stand forever and endure to all generations. This could mean that sound doctrine
in general will be preserved, as those who take a naturalistic view of preservation contend, but this cannot be. We know that God's truth is not expressed to man merely in general doctrinal terms. Truth is expressed in divinely-selected words. Jesus said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (Jn. 17:17). He also 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). It is crucial that men have the very words of Scripture.
God has not merely given man a pattern of truth; He has given the very form
of truth in the Scriptures. It is this verbally inspired truth that the Old Testament is promising will be preserved.

Psa. 119:160 adds the testimony that even the very earliest portions of
God's Word, Genesis and the other writings of Moses, would be preserved.

Psa. 100:5 connects Bible preservation with God's goodness and mercy. It is because God loves man that He has given His Book. Psalm 100:5 reminds us
that the same love which motivated God to inspire the Scriptures, motivates Him to keep them.

Isaiah adds his "amen" to this doctrine of preservation. According to Isa. 59:21, it is the very words of God which will be preserved.

The Lord Jesus Christ is even more specific in His teaching about the preservation of Scripture. In Mat. 24:35 the Son of God promises that His WORDS will not pass away. And in Mat. 5:18, He says the very JOTS AND TITTLES of God's Word will not pass away! That is certainly verbal preservation.

The Apostle Peter tells us with absolute authority that the Word of God is preserved perpetually, and this includes the Word which has been preached
to us in the gospel writings. And by gospel writings we must understand
Peter to mean the whole of the New Testament, not just the first four
books, for Heb. 2:3 instructs us that the gospel "at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him."

Capping off our brief survey of Scripture on this important doctrine is the testimony of Revelation. In the last chapter of this book man is given a
dire warning not to tamper with its contents. Obviously this applies
directly to Revelation, but it must apply equally to the entire Book of
which Revelation forms the last chapter. Think about it. If mankind is forbidden from taking away from or adding to the contents of a Book, it
must be obvious that God intends to preserve that Book in every detail. And note that it is the WORDS which man is forbidden to tamper with. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the WORDS of the prophecy of this
book ... if any man shall take away from the WORDS of the book of this prophecy..." The WORDS! If God forbids man to tamper with any of the WORDS
of the Bible, it is obvious that He intends to preserve those words so they will be available to man. If this isn't true, the warning of Rev. 22:18-19
is meaningless.

In summary, we see that the Bible teaches God will preserve His Word in
pure form, including the most minute details (the jots and titles, the
words), and that this would include the whole Scriptures, Old and New Testaments. The biblical doctrine of preservation is verbal, plenary preservation, which is the only reasonable view in light of the biblical doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Writings. Of what
benefit are perfect writings which no longer exist?

DOES PSALM 12:6-7 REFER TO GOD'S WORDS?

There are those who do not believe Psa. 12:6-7 is speaking of the Word of
God. These contend that this key passage refers rather to God's
preservation of the godly men spoken of in Psa. 12:1. Doug Kutilek,
professor at Baptist Bible College of Springfield, is a proponent of this,
and R.L. Sumner has printed Kutilek's articles on this in The Biblical Evangelist. I wrote to Dr. Bruce Lackey about Kutilek's teaching on Psalm 12:6-7 and received the following excellent comments in February 1984:

"I submit the following reasons for my not being moved away from my
conviction that Psalm 12:6-7 does teach the preservation of Scripture.

"1. His [Kutilek's] admission that `there are occasional exceptions to the principle of agreement in the Hebrew Bible (see Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
135 o)' immediately shows that the preservation-interpretation is not automatically incorrect, grammatically, but is definitely possible. A
somewhat similar situation exists in John 15:6, where `them' is neuter
plural in Greek, and `they are burned' is a singular verb. Dana and Mantey,
in A Manual Grammar of The Greek New Testament, on page 165, give the following statement: `A seeming exception to the above principle of syntax
is the fact that a neuter plural subject regularly takes a singular verb
(John 9:3).' Therefore, it is unwise to prove or disprove a position using
the argument of gender and number. Anyone who studies languages knows that there are exceptions.

"2. The argument listing various verses in Psalms where `keep' and
`preserve' speak of people is not very weighty. Psalm 12:6-7 might be the
only place in the whole book which uses these words to refer to things
[other than people], but that would not disqualify the situation. Psalm
110:4 is the only verse in the Old Testament which teaches the
Melchisedical priesthood of the Lord Jesus, but Hebrews 4:7 does not
hesitate to make much of it!

"3. The argument from context does not hold water, either. He says, `The
basic thrust of the message of Psalm 12 is clear: the psalmist bemoans the decimation of the upright and the growing strength of the wicked.' Thus, he tries to show that verse 7, teaching preservation, would not fit. If this
be true, neither would verse 6. Rather, the context is favorable to the preservation-interpretation. God's promise to save the poor and needy is
given in verse 5; verses 6 and 7 are injected to show that His promise of verse 5 will never be broken.

"4. In the last paragraph, he [Kutilek] says that those who apply these
verses `to any doctrine of Bible preservation' are guilty of handling `the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God.' But earlier, he admitted that such illustrious interpreters as John Wesley, Henry Martyn, G. Campbell Morgan, and Kidner, agreed with the preservation-interpretation. Sounds like a mouse attacking elephants! They might have been wrong on some points, but they were certainly not deceitful and dishonest.

"Some other verses which teach that God would preserve His Words for all generations are Psalm 33:11; 119:152,160; Isa. 59:21; Mat. 24:35; and I
Pet. 1:25. Also, a comparison of Mat. 28:20 and John 14:23 shows that
Christ's promise of His continual presence with us is fulfilled as we keep
His words; thus His words must be available to believers `alway, even unto
the end of the world. Amen.'"

Bruce Lackey, who died in 1988, was the Dean of the Bible School at
Tennessee Temple when I attended there in the 1970s. He was a true scholar
in every sense of the word. He was intelligent. He used the Greek language.
He was a diligent and careful researcher. He was a highly accomplished musician. But he was also a Bible believer. His doctrine was always based
on the Scriptures, not on logic. He was not afraid of rejecting the popular scholarly positions if they were contrary to the Word of God. I sat under Bruce Lackey's teaching for three years and was never, ever given the idea that my Bible was less than perfect. He never caused his students to
question the Bible. If that is unscholarly, so be it.

DERIVED INSPIRATION

Those who mock the idea that there is a perfect Bible today claim that we are teaching a "continuing inspiration." That is not the case. I believe
the Bible was inspired of God as it was given to the holy men of old (2
Peter 1:21). As accurate copies and translations of this inspired Scripture have been made, these also bear the holy impression of the originals. I believe an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew text can properly
be called the inspired Word of God because its inspiration is derived from
the original text.

The King James Bible is an example.

Let me make it clear that I do not believe the KJV is given by inspiration
in the same way that original writings were. I believe it has derived its inspiration from the Greek and Hebrew text upon which it is based.

Further I do not believe the King James Bible corrects the Greek and
Hebrew, is better than the Greek and Hebrew, or a further revelation beyond the Greek and Hebrew. I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and beautiful translation of the preserved Scriptures and as such is the
inspired Word of God--inspired derivatively, not directly.

I do not believe there are mistakes in the King James Bible.

I do believe there are places which could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words which could be brought up to date. (Note
I did not say should be, but could be.) To say, though, there are changes which could be made in the KJV is entirely different from saying it
contains mistakes. I believe the KJV is superior to all other English versions--superior in its textual basis, superior in its method of translation, superior in the scholarship of its translators, superior in
its time of translation.

The key New Testament passage on the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Verse 16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."
This refers to the original giving of the Word of God. The thrust of this passage, though, is that Timothy should have confidence in the Scriptures
that he possessed. Verse 15 says the Scripture Timothy had known from a
child were "holy Scripture." What Scriptures had Timothy known? Were they
the original autographs of Moses and David? Certainly not. Timothy had been taught either from copies of the Hebrew text or from a translation thereof, most likely the later since his father was a Greek and his mother and grandmother had instructed him (2 Tim. 1:5; Acts 16:1).

Further, verse 17 encourages Timothy that the inspired Scripture was given
to be profitable. Any definition of inspiration which does not involve this doctrine of profitability is wrong. God did not intend that His Word be inspired, then lost. The inspired Word of God has been kept by God. There
is inspiration, and there is preservation, and this guarantees
profitability.

CHAPTER 3
THE PRACTICALITY OF PRESERVATION: CAN A TRANSLATION BE CALLED THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD?

Very few people read the Bible languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) fluently. We have seen that Paul's doctrine of inspiration in 2 Timothy chapter three allows for copies and translations to be viewed as the
inspired Word of God. Why not? If a translation is an accurate
representation of the original Text of Scripture, what is wrong with saying that translation is the inspired Word of God? Many mock such an idea,
though. Recently I received a paper written by a Bible college professor in Canada which maligned me for teaching that the King James Version is the inspired Word of God. It was clear that the man had misunderstood and misrepresented my position. In replying to the man and attempting to make
my stand on the KJV clear, I sent him statements by certain men that I have high respect for.

Consider some of the statements that I sent to this Bible college
professor. In addition to statements by the Institute for Biblical Studies
and the Dean Burgon Society, I am including ones by Pastor Bob Barnett of Calvary Baptist Church, Grayling, Michigan, who has some wonderful insight into the matter of Bible versions, and the late Frank Logsdon, who was on
the committee which prepared the New American Standard Version and the Amplified New Testament. Logsdon later publicly disavowed his association
with these versions and defended the King James Bible as the preserved Word
of God.

Each of these statements was written by intelligent, godly men, who are attempting before God to come to grips with exactly what the Bible teaches about preservation. A man certainly has the privilege of rejecting these statements, but to say that these men are unscholarly or that they do misjustice to the Scripture is slanderous:

INSTITUTE FOR BIBLICAL TEXTUAL STUDIES STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION

The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies was founded as an extension of
Dr. David Otis Fuller's ambition to address the version issue and textual debate on a broader scale. The Institute is committed to:

-- the immediate, verbal, plenary inspiration of the original writings of Scripture and that they are therefore inerrant and infallible. This inspiration is unique, applicable both to the process of giving the
original writings and the writings themselves which are that product;

-- the verbal preservation of the Greek Received Text as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society;

-- the verbal preservation of the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of
Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim;

-- the position that translation is not an inherent boundary to verbal preservation. The breath of God, product, not process, conveyed by
translation from the immediately inspired language copies of Scripture into any providentially prepared receptor language will impart to that
translation infallible authority and doctrinal inerrancy inherent in the original language copies. Such a translation by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, both with and through that translation, will evidence to the believer its own self- attestation and self-authentication whereby God
asserts himself as the supreme Authority to that culture. For the English speaking world this revelation of God's authority is preserved in the Authorized Version.

THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION

We believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the
English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts [the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and
the Received Greek Text], which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version
of 1611 and say, "This is the Word of God!" while at the same time
realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture. ...

Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important. The undermining or destroying of either doctrine renders the other meaningless.
If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired, and if inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it
does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been
preserved. It also follows that if the Bible has not been preserved it does not matter how it was inspired. (From the Committee Statement on Bible Preservation of the Dean Burgon Society)

FRANK LOGSDON'S STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION

Providential preservation is a necessary consequence of Divine Inspiration. Most arguments against the Authorized Version abandon reason! If the Authorized Version is not authentic, which is? If the Authorized Version is not God's revelation, have we been deceived? Did God wait 1900 years to
reveal His true Word? If the Authorized Version has been incorrect, what
harm has resulted? If the True Revelation was lost, where was God when it happened? Was man left in darkness when the Authorized Version was his only Bible? Were we wrong these years in claiming the Authorized Version to be indeed God's Word? Why has this present generation become so dissatisfied
with the Authorized Version? Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? Who would risk his integrity in saying that any present-day volume excels the Authorized Version?

BOB BARNETT'S STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION

"I remain in the tradition of Dr. [D.O.] Fuller and many, many others in declaring the authorized King James Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God in English. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I have accepted the wisdom of using modifiers to explain and qualify these terms
when they are questioned.

"I understand that in theological circles, it is not scholarly to claim inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility for any one-language Bible. Yet,
all of us agree and say in public that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. When some make that claim, they are referring only to the
original autographs of the Bible. When others make that claim, they are referring both to the original autographs and also to the apographs from
which the authorized King James Bible was translated. When some of us make that same claim, we are speaking of the total traditional Bible line
preserved by divine providence from the autographs, continuing through the apographs, and manifested in English today through our authorized King
James Bible. When laymen hear each of us speaking they often assume we are
all talking in agreement about the same Bible.

"In reality, if inspiration be limited to the languages of the original autographs, then logically an Englishman must master four languages before
he can claim to accurately know and communicate God's inspired scriptures
to other English speaking people. He must master Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
as well as his own English tongue. This elevates the accurate ministry of God's inspired scriptures to a small handful of scholars who have spent
many years in diligent preparation for a few years of ministry. It renders
the average pastor and masses of believers submissive to the Bible interpretation of these scholars. This violates the scriptural principles
of Acts 17:11. ...

"By faith I believe my authorized King James Bible is inspired. I do not believe the KJB translators were inspired, neither were the English words
they used. I do believe the KJB derives its inspiration, its inerrancy in doctrine, and its infallible authority from the accurately translated apographs of the original autographs of Holy Scripture. The KJB is
inspired, not directly, but derivatively. ... It is inspired in the
"logos," but not the "rhema." By this we mean the English letters and words are not inspired, but the truth they communicate in the English language is inspired and alive. This same inspired truth has continued from the
original God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into our English language. This results in an infallible body of truth, through which the Spirit of
Truth can lead the English speaking Bible-believer unto all truth. We
cannot adequately defend the accuracy and authority of the authorized KJB without defending its inspiration.

"Satan's primary attack upon the Bible today is not upon the original autographs; they are gone. It is not upon the remaining apographs of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures. Few people have the ability to read, study, and know them. The authorized King James Bible is the greatest
danger to Satan in our generation. It is the Bible he hates and attacks the most. While we cannot defend the KJV separate from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek roots from which it comes, neither can we effectively share our faith
in these apographs of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures to an English speaking world without preaching and defending the KJV."

We conclude this section with the words of Bruce Lackey: "Faith which is
based on a clear promise is stronger than objections which are raised by
our lack of information. Since God has promised to preserve His Word for
all generations, and since the Hebrew and Greek which is represented by the King James Version is the Bible that has been received from ancient
tradition, and since God has so singularly used the truth preached from
this Bible, I must follow it and reject others where they differ."

CHAPTER 4
THE CONSEQUENCE OF PRESERVATION

If the Bible has been perfectly preserved, what does this tell us about the Bible situation today? There are four important consequences of the
doctrine of Bible preservation: 1) I must accept the Received Text as the
Word of God, 2) I must reject the Westcott-Hort text and its allies, 3) I
must reject those modern versions based upon the Westcott-Hort text, and 4)
I must reject the so-called Majority Text which seeks to modify the
Received Text.

I MUST ACCEPT THE RECEIVED TEXT AS THE WORD OF GOD

Believing the Bible to be preserved by God, we can look back on the history
of the transmission of the Scriptures to see the hand of God in the preservation of a certain text. God's stamp of approval has been upon the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. John Burgon, the
distinguished author of Revision Revised, gave this testimony to the
antiquity of the Received Text:

"The one great fact which especially troubles him [Dr. Hort] and his joint editor [Westcott] (as well it may) is the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text
has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions."

Burgon, one of England's chief linguistic scholars, knew what he was
talking about. One of his accomplishments was collecting and indexing more than 86,000 quotations from the writings of ancient church leaders. (More
than 4,000 of these were from writers who died before the year 400 A.D.) He also collated more than 350 Greek manuscripts which had been previously unknown to the scholastic world. Burgon was in a perfect position to know
what Bible text was used by Christians down through the centuries. When he says that the Received Text is the one attested by general historic
consensus, we can be sure that it is. Few men have possessed more knowledge
of their subject than John William Burgon.

Further, Burgon was a Bible respecter. While we do not excuse the fact that
he was a high church Anglican, we do praise the Lord that the man believed
the Book. In this he followed in the footsteps of the King James
translators themselves. One of Burgon's peers testified in 1888, "From
first to last, all my reminiscences of Dean Burgon are bound up with the Bible, treated as few teachers of divinity now appear to regard it, as
God's Word written; `absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme'" (Wilbur Pickering, "Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament
Criticism," True or False?, p. 217).

Dr. D.A. Waite, in his book The King James Bible's Superiority, lists the following historical witnesses to the Received text which underlies the
King James Bible:

The received text was used by:

The Churches in Palestine
The Syrian Church at Antioch
The Peshitta Syriac Version (150 A.D.)
Papyrus #75
The Italic Church in Northern Italy (157 A.D.)
The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.)
The Celtic Church in Great Britain
The Church of Scotland and Ireland
The Pre-Waldensian Church
The Waldensian, 120 A.D. onward, (The Early Church Period 100-312)
The Gothic Version of the 4th century
Codex W of Matthew in the 4th or 5th century
Codex A in the Gospels in the 5th century
The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts
The Greek Orthodox Church
The present Greek Church (the Byzantine Period (312-1453 A.D.)
All the churches of the Reformation
The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516)
The Complutensian Polyglot (1522)
Martin Luther's German Bible (1522)
William Tyndale's Bible (1525)
The French Version of Oliveton (1535)
The Coverdale Bible (1535)
The Matthews Bible (1537)
The Taverners Bible (1539)
The Great Bible (1539-41)
The Stephanus Greek New Testament (1546-51)
The Geneva Bible of 1557-60)
The Bishops' Bible (1568)
The Spanish Version (1569)
The Beza Greek New Testament (1598)
The King James Bible (1611)
The Elziver Brothers' Greek New Testament (1624)

Waite reaches the conclusion that "the Received Text in the New Testament
is the Received Text--the text that has survived in continuity from the beginning of the New Testament itself. It is the only accurate
representation of the originals we have today!"

Edward Miller, a British scholar who published several important books on
the subject of textual criticism at the turn of the century, gave this
summary of the period from Chrysostom to the invention of printing: "The
great feature in this period was the rise of the Traditional Text into a predominance which was scarcely disputed" (Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 103,104).

It is evident that the Bible text commonly received among God's people from the 1st to the 17th century is the text which underlies the King James
Bible.

It is also evident that most of the Bibles translated throughout the world during the great missionary era of the 17th to 19th centuries were based
upon the Received Text. This includes the Bibles translated by the
Reformers and Baptists into the languages of Europe, as well as the non- Catholic missionaries who traveled throughout the globe--William Carey in India, Adinoram Judson in Burma, Henry Martyn in Persia, and great numbers
of other godly missionaries across the world who translated Bibles into the languages of the people. The vast majority of these Bibles were based upon
the Received Text.

What this means is this: The majority of Bibles of centuries past contained the verses and words which are disputed by the new texts and versions. They contained Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Lk. 17:36; 24:12; 24:40; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; and Rom. 16:24--all of which are omitted or put in brackets in the new versions. The old
missionary Bibles contained the words "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, "firstborn" in Matt. 1:25, "begotten" in Jn. 1:14, and "the Lord" in 1 Cor. 15:47. All of these are key references to Christ's deity which are removed in the new Bibles. Further, no questions are raised in the old missionary versions regarding the authority of Mk. 16:9-20 or 1 Jn. 5:7-8, as we find in the
new texts.

History tells us that the Received Text is clearly the preserved Word of
God.

Further, the King James Bible is the only English Bible translated from the Received Text which bears God's stamp of approval. The King James Bible has endured and increased in popularity for more than three centuries. It was
the undisputed English Bible through the 1600s, the 1700s, the 1800s, and
most of the 1900s.

In the words of Dr. Waite, who has diligently researched matters
surrounding Bible texts and versions, "You can trust with confidence the
King James Bible in the English language as the most accurate reflection of the original Hebrew and Greek text we have--and probably will have until
the Lord returns in the Rapture of the Church. Read it! Study it! Memorize
it! Understand it! Believe it! Practice it!"

Contrary to this sweet confidence in a preserved Bible, the Preface to the Revised Standard Version gives the popular viewpoint of those who support
the modern texts and versions:

"...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the
nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery
of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James
Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. ... The King
James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was
marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries
of manuscript copying."

This same thinking is voiced by Neil Lightfoot in How We Got the Bible, a popular text on the transmission of Scripture:

"The King James Version rests on an inadequate textual base. ... The text underlying the King James was essentially a medieval text embodying a
number of scribal mistakes that had accumulated through the years ... The revisers of 1611 ... simply did not have at their disposal the many manuscripts which are now known. ... All of which means that the King James
is a translation of an inferior Greek text..."

By faith in God's promise to preserve His Word, I know that the above
thinking cannot be true. If the Received Text and the King James Bible are corrupted, God did not preserve His Word. Rather, He allowed a corrupted
text to become the world's undisputed Bible. Since this cannot be possible,
I place my confidence in the venerable Received Text. I will not allow
anyone to take one line of it from me.

WE MUST REJECT THE WESTCOTT-HORT LINE OF TEXTS

The Westcott-Hort Greek Text was published in 1881 in conjunction with the publication of the English Revised Version. The popular new Greek texts
since 1881 are revisions of the Westcott-Hort Text and are significantly different from the Received Text. There are two reasons why the doctrine of preservation results in rejection of the Westcott-Hort Text.

First, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it was a discarded text. As we have seen, the Received Text was the one which was preferred by God's people through the centuries. The readings adopted by Westcott and Hort, the Revisers of 1881, and critical authorities since,
had been rejected as spurious in prior centuries. Erasmus had access to the Westcott-Hort readings, but he rejected them. The King James Translators
had access to the Westcott-Hort readings, but they rejected them. Luther rejected the Westcott-Hort readings. The translators of all the other great Protestant versions rejected the Westcott- Hort readings. The great
missionary translators such as William Carey and Adinorim Judson rejected
the Westcott-Hort readings. I, too, discard the corrupted Westcott-Hort readings!

Second, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it was a
lost text. The most significant changes which Westcott and Hort introduced into their volume were based upon the readings of manuscripts which had
been hidden from use during the previous three hundred years--chiefly the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus manuscript was locked away in
the Vatican library during the era of the great missionary period of the
17th to 19th centuries. While it's readings were known by textual researchers--including Erasmus--it did not come into favor until Westcott
and Hort incorporated many of its readings into their Greek text. Likewise, the Sinaiticus manuscript was kept in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and was not available to the public until after it was found by Count Tischendorf in 1844.

The doctrine of Bible preservation forces me to reject these manuscripts as spurious. If these were the preserved Word of God, they would not have been hidden away during those crucial centuries.

Third, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it is a different text. There is a critical difference between the Westcott-Hort
Text and the Received Text. Dozens of verses and thousands of important
words are omitted in these new texts--verses and words which were in the
Bible for centuries.

Everett Fowler made extensive studies of the Westcott-Hort Text, the Nestle Text, the United Bible Societies (UBS) Text, and many of the modern English versions based upon these, comparing them with the Received Text and the
King James Bible. When the UBS Greek New Testament (a revision of the Westcott-Hort Text which is the most popular Greek text today in Christian education and translation work) is compared with the Received Text, we
learn the following:

2,625 words are omitted
310 words are added
18 entire verses omitted; 46 verses questioned by the use of brackets
221 omissions of names regarding the Lord God
318 other different omissions having substantial effect on meaning
TOTAL WORD DIFFERENCES 8,674 (Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, p. 9).

The point is this: If the Bible Societies' Text (there are only 250 or so
word differences between the Westcott-Hort Text and the United Bible Societies' Text) is assumed to be the nearest to the verbally inspired original text, then the Received Text includes over 8,000 Greek words not inspired of God, including 18 to 46 entire spurious verses, and dozens of portions of verses. The difference amounts to roughly the same amount of material as that contained in 1 and 2 Peter combined.

Not only are the new texts and versions quantitatively different from the Received Text, but they are qualitatively different. A great many of the differences are doctrinally significant. For example, the removal of the
word "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16 in the new texts, deletes one of the most
powerful testimonies in the Bible to the fact that Jesus Christ is God. The removal of the word "Lord" in 1 Cor. 15:47 deletes another powerful
testimony to Christ's deity. The removal of Acts 8:37 deletes the eunuch's testimony of his faith in Christ prior to baptism.

A convenient list of 200 of the significant changes in the UBS Greek
Testament is available in the New Eye Opener pamphlet. This can be obtained from Way of Life Literature. Myth # 3 in this series of booklets also deals with the doctrinal differences in the versions.

There can be no doubt that the Westcott-Hort textual line is significantly different from that which underlies the King James Version and the other
great Protestant translations which have been so honored and singularly blessed by God for 400 years.

The truth that God would preserve His Word obligates me to reject these new Greek texts as perversions of the Word of God. I will not allow any reading
of the God-honored Received Text to be removed from my Bible.

WE MUST REJECT THE MODERN VERSIONS

Another consequence of Bible preservation is that we are forced to reject
the modern versions. Since these versions are based upon the Westcott-Hort type text, they carry the corruptions of that text. They omit dozens of
verses and thousands of important words which were in the Received Text through the centuries. This includes the New American Standard Version and
the New International Version. The most significant differences between
these versions and the King James Bible are textual differences.

WE MUST REJECT THE MAJORITY TEXT WHICH SEEKS TO MODIFY THE RECEIVED TEXT

I would mention one final consequence of God's preservation--the rejection
of the so-called Majority Text.

Until recently the term "majority text" was used as a synonym for the
Received Text. This changed in 1982 with the publication by Thomas Nelson
of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, both of Dallas Theological Seminary. It claims
to be a corrected edition of the Received Text. The editors' goal was to consider the textual evidence among existing Greek manuscripts for each New Testament word and phrase. If a reading is attested by the majority of manuscripts, it is retained. Otherwise, it is rejected. Other evidence to
the authenticity of readings, such as ancient versions and writings of Christian leaders, is not taken into account by Hodges and Farstad--only
the Greek manuscripts.

There are almost 1900 differences between the Textus Receptus and the Hodges-Farstad Text, many of these highly consequential. Thus, while this matter is not as serious as the problem between the Received Text and the Westcott-Hort Text, it is something which must be faced. For example, I Jn. 5:7-8 is omitted in the Hodges-Farstad Text. While there is manuscript evidence for this reading, it is true that the majority of existing manuscripts do not support it. Thus Hodges-Farstad would have us delete
this powerful reference to the Triune Godhead. The author's booklet
Slipping Away from Preserved Scripture: Examining the Hodges- Farstad
Majority Text gives more information on this matter.

The fact is that while the Received Text is a form of the majority text, it
is not entirely a majority text. The reason for this is simple: In
determining the true reading of Scripture, there are essential factors
beyond merely examining extant manuscripts.

The important point is this: The editors and supporters of the this new "majority" text would leave us in a situation similar to that found among
the proponents of the other modern versions. They don't believe we have a perfect Bible and they make light of those who do.

In the introduction to the Hodges-Farstad Text, the editors admit that they
do not believe they are presenting a perfect Bible to their readers: "The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals. Desirable as such a text certainly is, much further work must be done before it can be produced. It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, is both preliminary and provisional."

@PARABEFORE2 = Wilbur Pickering, who has written in defense of the Received Text and against the Westcott-Hort Text in general, is a proponent of the
new Majority Text. He, too, does not believe there is yet a perfect Bible. Note some of Pickering's statements:

"We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text."

"When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found
to differ from the original in something over a thousand places."

"Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills DO call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do NOT. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text." (quoted by Jack Moorman,
When the KJV Departs From the `Majority' Text)

In The Identity of the New Testament Text, Pickering tells his readers, "Hodges ... will be very happy to hear from anyone interested in furthering the quest for the definitive Text."

After almost 2,000 years of church history, the best that Hodges, Farstad,
and their allies can offer is a "provisional" New Testament and a "quest
for a definitive text." I'm sorry, folks, but I don't want it. I believe
God's promises that He would preserve His Word, even the jots and tittles.
I don't have to set out in search for the preserved Word of God. It's not lost! My confidence is not in man; it is in Almighty God. I have an
absolute authority, and I refuse to play the scholar's game.

By the way, Hodges and Farstad were key players in the production of the
New King James Version. Approximately 500 footnotes appear in the NKJV
which give the supposed "majority readings" over against the Received Text readings, thus deceiving people into thinking that these readings should replace those of the KJV. Future editions of the NKJV will reflect even
more of the research of Hodges and Farstad as they and their cohorts plow ahead with their "quest for the definitive text."

I praise God that we are not left to drift upon the unsteady seas of modern critical scholarship. As a consequence of faith in God's promises to
preserve His Word, I can reject all of these new texts and Bibles and can cleave confidently to the faithful Received Text-based King James Version. "Can the matter be so simple?" you say. Why not? Has God not spoken on the subject? My friends, God has not allowed His Book to be lost.

Faith does not have to answer every question the skeptic can throw at it.
The Trinity is believed, though we are at a loss to explain the details of
it, and those who do not believe it mock us because we cannot answer all
their questions. The fact of the Bible canon is believed, though we cannot describe every step whereby the canon was sealed. We have the complete
Bible, and that is enough for the man who has faith in God. Yet those who refuse to accept the Bible as the Word of God mock us because we cannot
answer all their questions. Likewise, we believe that the Bible has been perfectly preserved because God has said so, though we are at a loss to explain some of the difficulties with this position. Again, those who
reject the doctrine of preservation mock us because we cannot answer all
their questions.

Let them mock. We have God's promise on these things. What do we care if
some think we are foolish or unlearned? Was that not the charge brought against the first Christians by their proud detracters? Dear friends,
believe God and do not allow any man to shake your confidence in His
perfect, preserved Word.

Kurt,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675- 8311. This article is number four in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE:

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH # 5: TRUE SCHOLARS REJECT THE RECEIVED TEXT
By David W. Cloud

Let us consider another matter which is frequently brought out in
discussions about the KJV and the Received Text: Modern scholarship
supposedly is fully arrayed against the TR and is on the side of the
"oldest is best" line of textual theory. The evangelical leader we
have quoted several times in these studies says:

"There are some in this country and elsewhere who are very zealous for the textus receptus ... But unfortunately, the basis on which they are
operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do what I could in a gentle
way to lead them to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where
the Greek text and the translation are concerned. The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that
complexity" (Letter from James M. Boice, Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Dr. Thomas Hale, United Mission to Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, September 13, 1985).

It is true, of course, that "evangelical scholarship," for the most
part, is indeed predisposed against the TR. But if we had only this letter upon which to base our thinking, we would be left with the idea that NO evangelical or Bible-believing scholar today holds the opinion that the TR
is the preserved Word of God. The silence of Boice regarding the existence
of such men implies that this is the case.

This same silence is promoted in most classrooms of Bible colleges and seminaries when the subject of Greek or Bible texts and translations is discussed. David Garrett, a California pastor who graduated from a
prestigious school, acknowledges this silence. He testifies that he was shocked when, seven years after graduation, he read Which Bible and
saw the power of the Bible-honoring dissertations contained therein. "I
was unaware that such a position existed! The issue of a rival theory was
not even mentioned in class and was given one page in my textbook for
textual criticism" (David Otis Fuller, Four Recognized Greek
Scholars, p. 6).

@PARABEFORE2 = Dr. Donald Waite, director of Bible for Today ministries, is
at home in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and he defends the Received Text
as the preserved Word of God. Consider his testimony of how he was kept in
the dark concerning the Received Text position during his schooling:

@BODY TEXT2 = For about twenty years I was in darkness about this issue. I knew nothing of it from roughly 1951 to 1971. ... I was at Dallas
Theological Seminary from 1948 to 1952. That was my Master of Theology. Then I stayed an extra year, 1953. Throughout those years we were simply
told to use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which we did in the Greek classes. It was the actual text Westcott and Hort developed. It was
not simply another text--the Nestles Text or the Souter Text--but it
was Westcott and Hort. And I didn't know there was any other Greek
text. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = I majored in classic Greek and Latin at the University of Michigan, 1945-48. Took three years to get my four years of work. I went summer and winter, so that I could marry my wife. Then I came to Dallas Seminary. I was learning New Testament Greek, and I didn't pay much heed to the text. I didn't care. I just wanted to learn the forms and get good
grades, which I did. But I did not examine the textual base that we were using. I just assumed that was the only one to use.

@BODY TEXT2 = You ask the question, then, how I came to understand the
Bible version issue. I guess the first thing I read about, or knew about,
my mother-in-law to be, Mrs. Gertrude Grey Sanborn, gave me the book
God Wrote Only One Bible. I didn't say or think too much about it. I
didn't study it at the time, but that was my first introduction. Then as I
was teaching as professor of Greek at Shelton College in Cape Maine, New Jersey, one of my pupils, Sandra Devos--Sandra Phillips, I think, was
her name then--said that there was a book in our library at Shelton by
Dean John William Burgon that defends not only the King James Bible, but
also the Greek text, the Received Text, that underlies that Bible.

@BODY TEXT2 = "Have you ever seen that book, Dr. Waite?" she asked
me.

@BODY TEXT2 = I said, "Well, no, I haven't."

@BODY TEXT2 = I think I might have looked at it; I might have glanced at
it. I thought to myself, "Here is an interesting thing. Here is the
first book that I have seen that says there is a difference in the Greek
text that the modern versions are using, and that the King James Bible text that underlies it, the Textus Receptus, is superior to the Westcott and Hort-type text, or to the critical text."

@BODY TEXT2 = ... Then about that time, I think it was about 1969 or 1970, along in there, Dr. Fuller came out with his book Which Bible. I
read that. Also I looked at at least one of the books by Dr. Edward F. Hills--Believing Bible Study. I don't think I saw at the time his
other book, The Defense of the King James Bible.

@BODY TEXT2 = So in 1971, having read these various books, I was deeply convicted and convinced that the King James Bible and the Greek text that underlies it, as well as the Hebrew text--although I got into the Hebrew
text a little bit later--but I was convinced that the Greek text that underlies the New Testament of the King James Bible was the accurate text
to use. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = So you can say the first twenty years, from 1951-71, I was in somewhat of a daze, somewhat of a darkness, concerning the issues. Then from 1971-91, twenty more years, I have been writing, I have been studying,
I have been preaching, I have been teaching, I have been debating, I have
been arguing, I have been talking about, I have been preaching from, I have continued to memorize from and believe the King James Bible and the text
that underlies that Bible. So for twenty years I've been a stalwart
defender of that Book.

@PARAAFTER2 = A great many preachers can testify of similar experiences.
When I took Greek at Tennessee Temple, I was instructed to purchase a
United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (the Westcott-Hort text) and
was never told that the Received Text was the ancient, traditional text. We were not instructed in the issues surrounding this crucial matter.

To return to the point at hand, though, we note that it is popular to characterize those who uphold the Received Text as unscholarly. Another example of this is seen in a speech by Bible editor Eldon Epps to a group
of "scholars" in 1973. After noting the fact that there are still a considerable number of men who are defending the TR and KJV as the
preserved Word of God, Epps observes: "I am being facetious only to a
limited extent when I ask, if the T.R. can still be defended, ALBEIT IN
MERELY A PSEUDO-SCHOLARLY FASHION [emphasis is the editor's], how much
solid progress have we made in textual criticism in the 20th century?"
(Eldon Jay Epps, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1974, No. 93).

Epps seems amazed that after a century of the promotion of Westcott-Hort's critical theories, some persist in defending the TR. This same attitude is expressed by Christian leaders within practically every spectrum of Christianity--Liberal, Evangelical, Charismatic, Fundamental, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Brethren, Baptist, you name it.

@PARABEFORE2 = Consider another testimony which illustrates what the
average Christian "scholar" thinks of those who defend the TR and
KJV. After being given a copy of Which Bible by Cecil Carter, an
elder in a brethren assembly in Canada, Bible translator Dick Walker shares what he thought at that point in time:

@BODY TEXT2 = I received [the] book and exhortation at `arms length.' I considered your opinion genuine but perhaps naive. After all, I had
graduated from a seminary in California which had one of the highest accreditations on the west coast. I had majored in New Testament, taken two and one-half years of New Testament Greek from a scholar who had his Ph.D
in Greek studies and who also had many years of related semitic studies. My studies also included a course in the text and canon of the New Testament
as well as writing my graduation thesis titled `The Exegetical Value of the Greek Participle.' I was satisfied with the science of textual criticism
and the `Nestles' text, which is based on the Westcott and Hort text.

@PARAAFTER2 = This Bible translator later saw that he had been led astray
by modern scholarship and had been kept in the dark about the writings of godly men who defend the TR, but his thinking upon receiving the copy of
Which Bible? well illustrates the common attitude.

@PARABEFORE2 = Another Bible scholar, William Bruner, Th.M, Ph.D., gives further illustration of this attitude. In a letter to David Otis Fuller he says this:

@BODY TEXT2 = On May 12, 1970, you wrote me a very kind letter and sent me some sample materials from your book Which Bible? You might as well
have been shooting a pop gun at a stone wall. My mind was so strongly fortified in the doctrine of Westcott and Hort that I could not for one
moment consider the King James Bible. Had I not studied Textual Criticism under the great Dr. A. T. Robertson? I thought that you were just one of
those die-hard Fundamentalists who were striving to keep the Christian
world under the bondage of traditionalism. Such men are interested only in pleasing the people by catering to their ignorance, prejudice and sentimentality! But just a few weeks ago I happened to read your two books, Which Bible? and True or False? For the first time a little new light shone in. I saw that there is another side to the argument. Dr. Robertson had not given us all the facts (Four Recognized Greek Scholars, p. 2).

@PARAAFTER2 = Indeed, Dr. Robertson had not given his students all the
facts!

@PARABEFORE2 = Wilber N. Pickering is a recognized Greek scholar and a defender of the Traditional Text. At the turn of the century, Anglican
scholar John Burgon raised powerful arguments against the theories and the textual work of Westcott and Hort and the English Revised Version
translation committee. Burgon's treatises were never answered. From a Bible-believing viewpoint they are unanswerable. In reviewing some of
Burgon's arguments, Pickering makes an interesting and indicting
observation:

@BODY TEXT2 = The prevailing ignorance concerning Burgon and his work may
be largely attributed to the circumstance that he is either ignored or misrepresented in every handbook (that the author has seen) published in English in this century that touches on the method of New Testament textual criticism (Wilber N. Pickering, "Contribution of John William Burgon to
New Testament Criticism," True or False? p. 218).

@PARABEFORE2 = Who actually was this John Burgon? Why is it so strange that
he is not so much as mentioned in many handbooks dealing with New Testament textual criticism today? Consider these facts:

@BODY TEXT2 = Burgon was a man of unquestioned scholarship. His biographer lists over fifty published works, on a considerable variety of subjects, besides numerous articles contributed to periodicals. ... He contributed considerably to Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of
the New Testament in its various editions. Edward Miller, who became posthumous editor to both Scrivener and Burgon, said of this contribution,
"He has added particulars of three hundred and seventy-four manuscripts previously unknown to all the world of letters."

@BODY TEXT2 = Of the considerable volume of unpublished materials that Dean Burgon left when he died, of special note is his index of New Testament citations by the Church Fathers of antiquity. It consists of sixteen thick manuscript volumes, to be found in the British Museum, and contains 86,489 quotations. It may be said that Burgon's scholarship in this facet of the total field has never been equaled (Ibid., p. 217).

@PARAAFTER2 = And yet this man of such prestigious scholarship, a man whose work in the field of Greek textual criticism was so uniquely important, is consistently ignored or misrepresented today. Why? The answer can only be
that Burgon unhesitatingly defended the Textus Receptus and aimed mighty
blows at the popular Westcott-Hort theories of textual criticism, and therefore at those who are following those theories. Burgon doesn't fit the popular mold; his arguments are powerful, so he is simply ignored; or if
not ignored, his well-reasoned observations are subtly replaced with
"straw men" which are then easily dismissed as unworthy of the
modern critic's time.

That is fact, dear friends. This same treatment is allotted to every man of God who defends the Received Text.

In the secular field, this same game is played by the humanists who control much of today's mass media--newspapers, radio, television, periodicals.
It is possible for people to survey the media continually and not even
learn of the existence of many important people, groups, and philosophies. Someone from the lunatic fringe of an issue can show up in front of an embassy, for example, with two or three likeminded loonies and the media
will make it into a front page event, while a convention of 15,000 Fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians in the same city is completely ignored. By selective use of this media blackout, those in charge of pro gramming can effectively control the thinking of the average person who is without alternate sources of information.

This is what is happening in regard to the important issues of Bible texts
and translations. Even the graduates of basically sound Bible institutions are, as we have seen, practically unaware even of the existence of a
scholarly "other side" of the issue. Because of evangelical
"media blackout" on this subject, they are aware only of views
closely paralleling Westcott-Hort's turn-of-the-century theories:
"Oldest and better manuscripts are to be preferred in passages of
question" (meaning Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the few other
manuscripts which follow their corrupted pattern are to replace the
readings of the entire majority of other textual witnesses), etc., etc.

Some years ago I published a study on the history and work of the United
Bible Societies. Included in this was a brief sharing of my conviction that the TR is the pure, preserved Word of God as opposed to the text
represented in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. Actually I
did not spend a great amount of time defending the TR, since that was not
the primary purpose of the study. I did mention the fact that the editors
of the United Bible Societies Greek text are apostates--Modernists and
Roman Catholic prelates--and I quoted from the Preface to the American
Bible Society's RSV which states that the KJV and the Greek text upon which
it is based are gravely defected. I then proceeded to demonstrate just how significantly different the UBS text is from the Textus Receptus, and concluded with the contention that it is not possible, in light of God's promises to preserve His Word pure through the centuries, that the text which went throughout the earth during the past centuries was a gravely corrupted one. The opposite is true. It is the United Bible Societies' text which is the gravely defected one. That was all. Certainly it was no wild-
eyed rampage about the King James Bible being inspired down to the jots and tittles of every antiquated word. The main thesis of the book had to do
with the deep theological apostasy which has taken root within the United Bible Societies, and I occupied myself primarily with a thorough
documentation of this frightful apostasy.

Shortly after the release of this study in Asia, a letter arrived from a professor in a theological school in India. He claimed to be an evangelical professor of Greek who believes in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, yet consider what he thinks of my view of the TR--"Your theory that
God's promise of preservation applies only to TR is rather ludicrous."
This man has a doctorate in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Of course he has every right to reject my position regarding the TR, but the
very fact that he calls it "ludicrous" shows that he is ignorant of
the Bible-believing scholarship which is arrayed on the side of the
venerable Textus Receptus.

SCHOLARS WHO SUPPORT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

What follows is basically my reply to this Greek professor:

Dear Brother: According to my dictionary, "ludicrous" means
"absurd; ridiculous." It refers to something which has no backing
whatsoever in reality; something which cannot possibly be true. This
statement is a strong hint that you are not familiar with the basic
arguments and issues at stake here. If my position is truly absurd, meaning "opposed to manifest reason or truth; irrational" (Funk &
Wagnalls), please tell me how a great number of very godly and scholarly
men can hold this very position?

You might disagree with the position, and I admit that many men do; but it
is folly to call the position ludicrous.

I do not want to be a follower of men, because men can be found on either
side of any doctrine or issue, but I do want to point out the fact that a great number of born again scholars have and do hold the same basic
position that I presented in my study. The following are just a few.

I do not make it a habit to "glory in man," but, as Paul said, you
have forced me. "Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will
glory also." I will not glory in myself, of course, for in me there
is no special scholarship in which to glory, but I will list a few men who could, if they so desired, glory in such scholarship and who hold basically the same position as I hold.

It should be kept in mind that these men will not agree on some
particulars. Some stand strictly for the Received Text underlying the
King James Version, while others prefer what they call the Majority text
which in some points differs from the Textus Receptus. Some believe the
King James Version is without error, while others believe there are slight changes which should be made in the KJV. But all agree on the basic premise that the Received Text is the preserved Word of God and represents the
Divine Original, whereas the Westcott-Hort text is a corrupted one.

It also should be noted that these men vary in the degree of
scholarship possessed in the traditional sense of holding high formal
degrees and being recognized Bible linguists, but none of them can be
lumped in the category to which today's defenders of the TR and KJV are usually assigned--ignorant, uninformed, weak-minded men who cling to old
ways because of some strange bias against that which is modern!

@PARABEFORE2 = DR. EDWARD F. HILLS graduated from Yale University and Westminster Theological Seminary, received the Th.M. from Columbia
Seminary, and the Th.D. from Harvard. He also pursued graduate studies at Chicago University and Calvin Seminary. Dr. Hills authored The King
James Version Defended and Believing Bible Study, both of which
uphold the TR alone as the fulfillment of God's promise of preservation. To illustrate briefly the conviction of this scholar in regard to the TR and
KJV we will quote from one of the closing paragraphs in The King James
Version Defended:

@BODY TEXT2 = In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version
that pleases them no matter whether it pleases God or not. "We want a
Bible version in our own idiom," they clamor. "We want a Bible that
talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends over the telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated then ourselves, with
a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang." And having thus
registered our preference, they go their several ways. Some of them unite
with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others deem the
N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more "evangelical." Still others opt for the
T.E.V. or the Living Bible.

@BODY TEXT2 = But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and the Bible version which you must use is not a matter for you to decide according to
your whims and prejudices. It has already been decided for you by the
workings of God's special providence. ... Put on the spiritual mind that
leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the True Text of God's holy
Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special
providence and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations!

@PARAAFTER2 = DR. DAVID OTIS FULLER (D.D.), editor of Which Bible, True
or False, and Counterfeit or Genuine, all of which present in no
uncertain terms the position that the Textus Receptus is the pure, holy, preserved Word of God. Dr. Fuller obtained his Bachelor of Arts at Wheaton College, majoring in English literature. He obtained the Master of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary, studying under men such as Robert Dick Wilson who was a master of 45 ancient languages and could repeat from memory a Hebrew translation of the entire New Testament without missing a single syllable. Dallas Theological Seminary awarded Fuller the Doctor of Divinity degree. He pastored the Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for 40 years. While there he founded the Grand Rapids Baptist Institute which later became the Grand Rapids Baptist Bible
College. Fuller co-founded the Children's Bible Hour radio program in 1942
and for 33 years was its chairman. The Children's Bible Hour is on nearly
600 radio stations. For 52 years Fuller was on the board of the Association
of Baptists for World Evangelism. Fuller's published books totaled fifteen
to twenty. Fuller's Which Bible, which has 350 pages, has gone
through more than a dozen printings totaling more than 50,000 copies.

@PARABEFORE2 = The following excerpt from one of Dr. Fuller's sermons illustrates his view of Bible versions:

@BODY TEXT2 = But someone replies, "We believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts." All right, I agree with you there. But then we
ask the question, and it's a good one, too: "Was God careless? Or
didn't He realize that these errors were creeping in? Or was He impotent
that He could not keep His Word even if He wanted to?"Look out yonder
into space, will you please? Listen to some of the Christian astronomers
and scientists who study the stars and all the planets and constellations there in outer space, and they will tell you that God has so created them
in such a meticulous fashion that they obey all the laws that He has laid
down for His whole vast creation. If God is that careful to keep His
universe, do you think He is going to be careless about His sacred, holy
Word upon which hangs the destiny of the souls of men, whether for heaven
or hell? You know good and well He could not possibly be careless about
such a wonderful Book. But if you want to go ahead and believe in a God who has just let his book go and become filled with errors through the mistakes
of men, you go ahead, but please count me out as of now.

@BODY TEXT2 = I believe with all my heart that there was a time in the
early church when God blessed certain men to choose the twenty-seven books which comprise our New Testament, and in this order we have them now. The proof for that is in the Bible. There they are. Twenty-seven books in that particular order. Just so, I believe God was very definitely in the
choosing of the forty-seven scholars who came together at the command of
King James I around 1605 to produce a new version of the Bible. We are bold enough to say that we don't believe there was ever such a collection of
great, I mean truly great, scholars as these who were so chosen.

@BODY TEXT2 = You see, God knows what he is doing. He always does, and He chose that particular time and age when the English language was at its zenith, to use these men for that purpose.

@BODY TEXT2 = Now let me say here before I go any further, I have never claimed to be a scholar. I do not claim to be one now, and I never expect
to claim to be one. But there are two very definite claims that I make
without hesitation, or trepidation, or reservation. One is I claim to have studied under some of the greatest scholars this country has ever produced,
if not the world. It was my privilege to be a student at Princeton Seminary and to graduate from that institution just before the flood. I mean by
that, before the flood of modernism. Today Princeton is modernistic in
every sense of the word, but not then. There were giants in the earth in
those days.

@BODY TEXT2 = Consider Robert Dick Wilson. He was one of the greatest linguists this country has ever seen. He was at home in forty-five
languages and dialects. He was a contemporary of the great scholar of
Oxford, England, Dr. Driver, who claimed that the book of Daniel was wrong because of certain statements or phrases in it. Dr. Wilson spent years
going through some 50,000 manuscripts to prove that Driver was wrong and
that Daniel was right.

@BODY TEXT2 = A second claim is that I can tell a true Christian scholar
when I hear him, or read his works, or talk with him. By Christian I mean
one who holds to and reverences the Word of God as being THE Word of God,
and as being different from any other book that has ever been published because it is the only book that God ever wrote.

@BODY TEXT2 = As I have said before so say I now again, there are those
people who tell us today that there is no version of the Scripture that is without error. Very well, then, where does the doctrine of inerrancy go
if there are errors in the Bible? They come back with that statement,
"Well, we believe that the original autographs were inspired, but not
those copies of them." We agree that the originals were inspired, but
my question is simply this: If God wrote this Book in the beginning,
wasn't He able to keep it intact and pure and without error all through the ages? My answer to that is that He certainly was and He still is so
capable. I would remind you again that God is jealous for His Word, just as much as He is jealous for His blessed Son, Jesus Christ.

@BODY TEXT2 = If someone says to you that all manuscripts and all versions today have errors in them, then ask them in return what kind of a God they worship. A careless or impotent God in my book is a monstrosity. I believe that the King James Version does not have any errors.

@BODY TEXT2 = Please remember this. You and I are facing, as I have said before, the most vicious and malicious attack upon the Word of God that has ever been made since the garden of Eden, and the modern attack began with
the publication of the Revised Version of 1881. This is an unpopular cause
at present in Christian circles. I have found this out again and again, and
I am going to find it out in the future. But I can say as far as I am concerned it doesn't make any difference what happens to me, but it makes a whale of a difference what happens to the cause of Jesus Christ. And
someday you and I, my friend, will have to stand before a holy God and give
an account to what we did or did not do in seeking to open the eyes of
people to the facts that have been covered up for so long concerning His
holy, indestructible, impregnable Word.

@PARAAFTER2 = JOHN WILLIAM BURGON held several high degrees from Oxford University. "Most of his adult life was spent at Oxford as Fellow of
Oriel College and then as vicar of St. Mary's (the University Church) and Gresham Professor of Divinity" (Which Bible, p. 86). He made
several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went and personally inspected the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts in 1860 and 1862 (Ibid., p. 87). "His biographer
lists over fifty published works, on a considerable variety of subjects, besides numerous articles contributed to periodicals. He contributed considerably to Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of
the New Testament in its various editions. Edward Miller, who became posthumous editor to both Scrivener and Burgon, said of this contribution,
`He has added particulars of three hundred and seventy-four manuscripts previously unknown to the world of letters.' Of the considerable volume of unpublished material that Dean Burgon left when he died, of special note is his index of New Testament citations by the Church Fathers of antiquity. It consists of sixteen thick manuscript volumes, to be found in the British Museum, and contains 86,489 quotations. It may be said that Burgon's scholarship in this facet of the total field has never been equaled (Wilbur Pickering, "Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament
Criticism," True or False? p. 217).

@PARABEFORE2 = Without question, Burgon was a Greek scholar of the highest order and also an unwavering, very bold defender of the TR. Though he
believed there might be room for minor changes in the TR, he was completely opposed to the modern critical text. Consider an excerpt from his critique
of the English Revised Version of 1881. Everything he says about the ERV is applicable to the popular versions of our day:

@BODY TEXT2 = In the end, when partisanship had cooled down, and passion
had evaporated, and prejudice had ceased to find an auditory, the
`Revision' of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as what it most certainly is, the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the `New Greek
Text' of the Revisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of
their position. And so perforce I had. For if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what else but incorrect must the English Translation be? ...

@BODY TEXT2 = A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who have once
committed themselves to an erroneous theory [Westcott and Hortism], seem to
be incapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of the fabric
they have erected, even when it comes down in their sight like a child's
house built with playing cards, and presents to every eye but their own the appearance of a shapeless ruin. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = For we resolutely maintain, that external evidence
must after all be our best, our only safe guide. And to come to the point,
we refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the witness of every other known Codex, every other Version, every other available Ecclesiastical Writer, insist on following the dictates of a little group
of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty
as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = Shame--yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only
to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the
blind! Shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to
correct `plain and clear errors' in the English Authorized Version,
occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the Spirit! Shame, yes, shame upon them! ...

@BODY TEXT2 = Changes of any sort are unwelcome in such a book as the
Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made for the worse, offends greatly. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = What offends us is the discovery that, for every
obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced: in other words, the result of this Revision has been the
planting of a fresh crop of difficulties, before undreamed of, so that a perpetual wrestling with these is what hereafter awaits the diligent
student of the New Testament. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian--the text of
Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs--call it the `Received,' or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please--the fact
remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Versions, ancient Fathers (John
Burgon, Revision Revised).

@PARAAFTER2 = TERENCE H. BROWN. Terence Brown is retired from the position
of Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and he is but one example of the godly, evangelical scholarship which resides within that organization. The Trinitarian Bible Society has the remarkable testimony
that for more than 150 years it has held fast to its founding principles,
one of which is that it will publish and distribute only the Textus
Receptus and faithful translations based on it. The Trinitarian Bible
Society has existed since 1831 and has not ceased to uphold the TR and faithful translations of this text as the perfect and preserved Word of
God. They translate, publish, and distribute Received Text-based Scriptures
in many languages and nations. They also publish a Greek edition of the Received Text.

DR. DONALD A. WAITE. We referred to Dr. Waite earlier in this study, so we will not repeat his credentials here. He is a scholar who stands
unequivocally for the Received Text.

@PARABEFORE2 = ZANE HODGES. Hodges is Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, and has taught Greek for thirty years. He wrote "The Greek Text of the King James Version" which
appeared in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra. An excerpt makes it clear
where Hodges stands in regard to Majority Text as contrasted with the new critical texts:

@BODY TEXT2 = The average well-taught Bible-believing Christian has often heard the King James Version corrected on the basis of "better
manuscripts" or "older authorities." Such corrections are often
made from the pulpit as well as being found in print. If he has ever
inquired into the matter, the Bible-believing Christian has probably been
told that the Greek text used by the translators of 1611 is inferior to
that used for more recent translations. He has perhaps also been told that
the study of the Greek text of the New Testament (called textual criticism)
is now a highly developed discipline which has led us to a more accurate knowledge of the original text of the Bible. Lacking any kind of technical training in this area, the average believer probably has accepted such explanations from individuals he regards as qualified to give them. Nevertheless, more than once he may have felt a twinge of uneasiness about
the whole matter and wondered if, by any chance, the familiar King James Version might not be somewhat better than its detractors think. It is the purpose of this article to affirm that, as a matter of fact, there are
indeed grounds for this kind of uneasiness and--what is more--these
grounds are considerable. ...

@BODY TEXT2 = ... The Majority text, upon which the King James Version
is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite
independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its
readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text. This dominance has not and--we venture to suggest--cannot be otherwise explained.

@BODY TEXT2 = It is hoped, therefore, that the general Christian reader
will exercise the utmost reserve in accepting corrections to his Authorized Version ... He should go on using his King James Version with confidence.
New Testament textual criticism, at least, has advanced no objectively verifiable reason why he should not.

@PARAAFTER2 = I must note here that Dr. Hodges does not believe exactly
like I do regarding the Received Text. I believe the TR is perfect and that
it has no need of modification, but Dr. Hodges, while supporting the
Received Text in general, believes it should be modified somewhat by principles he and others have developed and which they call The Majority
Text. In 1982 Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad published The Greek New
Testament According to the Majority Text based on these principles. I
reject these efforts to change the Received Text, but it is also a fact
that though the Hodges-Farstad Text does differ somewhat from the Received Text, its differences are slight compared with those of the Westcott-Hort Text.

The point of this study is to illustrate that there are scholars who reject the Westcott-Hort text and who follow the Received textual line. Zane
Hodges is certainly an example of this as can be seen in the excerpts we
have given from his writings.

@PARABEFORE2 = DR. THOMAS M. STROUSE has a B.S. in engineering from Purdue University, a M.Div. from Maranatha Baptist Graduate School of Theology, a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University, and has completed all residence work for
the Th.D. from Maranatha. He has been Professor of Theology at Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary since 1988, and he heads up the Doctorate
Program at Tabernacle. That Strouse stands for the Received Text is evident
in his book The Lord God Hath Spoken: A Guide to Bibliology,
published in 1992:

@BODY TEXT2 = The student of the Bible must recognize that the Bible's underlying texts are extremely important. ... The student of the Word
should use the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT because it is the standardized and traditional text of the OT, and the student should use the Received Text of the Greek NT because it is superior to the Critical Text
and Majority Text textually, historically, and Christologically. Not only
is the text of the Bible important, but so is the translation of the Bible. Since the Masoretic and Received Texts are superior, it follows that their resultant translation, the KJV, is superior. ... The KJV is the Word of
God in the English language. It has no errors in it because it carefully reflects the original language texts closest to the autographs. The AV,
like all translations, has `language limitations,' but these are not
errors.

DR. WILBUR N. PICKERING, Linguist-Translator and Director of Public
Relations for the Assoiacao Wycliffe para Traduao da B!blia in Brasilia, Brazil. Pickering is the author of The Identity of the New Testament Text, which is based partially on his master's thesis at Dallas Theological
Seminary in 1968 entitled "An Evaluation of the Contribution of John
William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism." While Pickering does
not believe the Received Text is perfect, he does take a clear stand
against the modern critical text:

"I am thinking of the degree to which they [the critical texts] differ
among themselves, the uncertainty as to the identity of the text reflected
in the many footnotes regarding textual variants, and the nature and extent
of their common divergence from the King James Version. ...

:Down through the centuries of copying, the original text has always been reflected with a high degree of accuracy in the manuscript tradition as a whole. The history of the text presented in this chapter not only accounts nicely for the Majority Text, it also accounts for the inconsistent
minority of MSS. They are remnants of the abnormal transmission of the
text, reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence upon such
aberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the New Testament. ...

"I have demonstrated that the W-H [Westcott-Hort] critical theory and
history of the text are erroneous."

What has been said of Zane Hodges can be said of Dr. Pickering. He does support some slight modification of the Received Text, but it is also plain that he unhesitatingly rejects the Westcott-Hort text.

DR. ALFRED MARTIN, Vice-President and Dean of Education Emeritus of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois. For his Doctor of Theology
dissertation at the Graduate School of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951, Dr. Martin presented "A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory." Consider an excerpt from this:

"Bible-believing Christian had better be careful what he says about the
Textus Receptus, for the question is not at all the precise wording of that text, but rather a choice between two different kinds of texts, a fuller
one and a shorter one. ...

"The present generation of Bible students, having been reared on Westcott and Hort, have for the most part accepted the theory without independent or critical examination. To the average student of the Greek New Testament
today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic
premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer
the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. ...

"At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the
English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim.
These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject--that is,
in the present century--following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the
Bible. ...

"Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on
the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if
he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God. ...

"The great difficulty in New Testament textual criticism today, which makes
it impossible for Bible-believing Christians to be sanguine about the
results of present research, is the almost universally held view among
critics of the relative nature of truth. Textual criticism has become more
and more subjective since Westcott and Hort opened the door of subjectivism wide."

DR. JAKOB VAN BRUGGEN, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Reformed Theological College in Kampen, The Netherlands. Dr. Van Bruggen obtained
his doctor's degree under Prof. Dr. W.C. can Unnik (Utecht). Consider his position on the Bible text as published in The Ancient Text of the New Testament. This was a lecture which he preached in the Netherlands in
December 1975:

"One can even say that the modern textual criticism of the New Testament is based on the one fundamental conviction that the true text of the New Testament is at least not found in the great majority of the manuscripts.
The text which the Greek church has read for more than 1,000 years, and
which the churches of the Reformation have followed for centuries in their Bible translations, is now with certainty regarded as defective and
deficient: a text to be rejected. ...

"This rejection of the traditional text, that is the text preserved and
handed down in the churches, is hardly written or thought about any more in the 20th century: it is a fait accompli. ...

"The textus receptus, which stands very close to the Byzantine text, is considered a "tyrant" that finally "died a slow death." ... It is strange
that in the realm of modern textual criticism all types of searchers and skeptics are given a place, but that those who revert to a former certainty are disqualified as renegades. ...

"Over against this modern textual criticism, we plead for rehabilitation of the ancient and well-known text. This means that we do not dismiss this text which is found in a large majority of the textual witnesses and which underlies all the time-honored Bible translations of the past, but prize
and use it."

What we have said about Zane Hodges and Wilbur Pickering is also true for
Dr. Van Bruggen. He supports efforts to modify the Received Text along
lines he calls strict Majority principles. It is plain, though, that he rejects the Westcott- Hort text and stands for the Received Text in most details.

It is important to point out that the facts brought to light in Dr. Van Bruggen's lecture make it plain that the theory presented so matter-of-
factly by great numbers of Christian scholars is becoming increasingly debunked, not only by evangelicals but by liberals as well.

A similar situation exists in regard to the theory of Darwinian evolution. Even secular scientists are rejecting the basic tenets of evolution in
rapidly increasing numbers. And yet, though they have nothing better with which to replace Darwinian theories, they do not wish to admit that the
entire idea is an utter falsehood. And they refuse even to consider the possibility that divine creation could be true; therefore, they cling resolutely to the broad conclusions produced by Darwinian thinking even
while having rejected that thinking!

Likewise, the pillars of Westcott-Hortism, the theory of a Syrian recension and the neutral text concept, have been torn down. It was with these
theories that Westcott-Hort and their followers built the Greek texts in
which a few supposedly older manuscripts overthrow the witness of the majority. Yet even with the pillars pulled down, the foundationless
building is still upheld by modern textual scholars. This is very strange.
Is it because these scholars have a prejudice against the God-honored
Textus Receptus and for some reason do not desire to see it returned to its proper and reasonable position as the preserved Word of God? In my opinion, the facts point to this conclusion.

I will hasten to mention a few other evangelical scholars who teach that
the common evangelical theories about the TR are wrong.

BRUCE LACKEY. Dr. Lackey, who died December 1, 1988, taught at Tennessee Temple in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for nineteen years and was the dean of
the Bible school department. He pastored the Lakewood Baptist Church of Chattanooga, Tennessee, for eight years, and pastored two other churches before that. The last few years of his life he traveled as a Bible
conference speaker and authored several books. He was an accomplished musician, a highly respected Bible teacher, and was proficient in the Greek language. He was a diligent student of the Greek Received Text. Dr. Lackey held that the Received Text is the preserved and perfect Word of God. In
his book Can You Trust Your Bible Dr. Lackey states:

"The King James Version was the only Bible available to most English-
speaking people for centuries. The manuscripts from which it was translated were used by the majority of believers through the centuries. Thus they represent the Word of God which He promised to preserve for all generations. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6-7). "For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations" (Psalm 100:5).

"Almost every modern version has been made from manuscripts which were
rather recently discovered, though they claim to be more ancient. These are highly touted to be more accurate than those from which the King James
Version came, and have led to the charge that many errors exist in the KJV.
It is the author's experience that this has caused many people to doubt whether there is any Bible in the world today that is accurate, infallible,
or dependable. ...

"When the so-called facts of textual criticism produce doubt in the Bible which people have had for centuries, they should be considered as no better than the so-called facts of evolution. In reality, there are very few
"facts" in textual criticism today. It is very difficult to get textual critics to agree on their conclusions which are drawn from the principles which most of them accept. Even a cursory study of the material available
on the subject today reveals that there is much personal opinion and bias regarding which manuscripts are the oldest or best. ...

"The most serious problem created by the multiplicity of versions and half- truths from textual critics is that many believe that we have no accurate, infallible Bible anywhere in the world today. To say that it exists in all
the versions is to say, in effect, that you can not find it, since no one
can agree on the best way to resolve all the differences in the versions.

"To say that the various differences in versions are unimportant is to
raise a basic question: Why make them? If there is no basic difference, why
do we need them? ... Every version claims to be "more accurate ... more understandable," but when faced with the problem of difference with others, almost every scholar, professor, translator, and textual critic says that
no major doctrine is affected, and that the differences are minor and relatively unimportant. One wonders if the motive for more and more translations might not be commercial, rather than spiritual.

"The fact is that many a Christian has had doubts, fears, and skepticism instilled in his mind by these claims of discovering "more accurate manuscripts." ...

"If we believe God's promises of preservation, we must believe that the
Bible which has been available to all generations is that which God has preserved. Conversely, that which was hidden was not God's truth, `which endureth to all generations'" (pp. 48-52).

DR. MYRON CEDARHOLM, retired President of Maranatha Baptist Bible College
and Graduate School of Theology, Watertown, Wisconsin. During Dr. Cedar
holm's tenure at Maranatha, the school stood resolutely for the Received
Text. Following was the school's position statement in those days [sadly,
the position has changed since then]:

"Maranatha Baptist Bible College is dedicated to the defense of the
Massoretic Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Authorized Version and uses
them in its classes for study and the Authorized Version in the churches
for preaching. Maranatha is the first college to organize on its campus a
Dean Burgon Society chapter, which society exists for the defense of the traditional Baptist texts."

DR. JAMES HOLLOWOOD, retired professor of Theology and Philosophy at
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Graduate School of Theology, Watertown, Wisconsin. Dr. Hollowood is a member of the Dean Burgon Society which
stands for the Received Text and the King James Bible. Dr. Hollowood gave editorial supervision to the publication of Evaluating Versions of the New Testament by Everett Fowler, and he stands without hesitation for the
Received Text.

EVERETT FOWLER, author of Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, had an engineering degree from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts. The following is from the Foreword to Evaluating Versions:

"Mr. Fowler held the office of a deacon for 50 years as well as other positions in the First Baptist Church of New York ... known from its
beginning in 1711 as a center of fundamentalism. It was his privilege to
sit and serve under the outstanding fundamentalist pastor, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, whom God used throughout a long pastorate (1884-1933) to preserve that church from modernism. To the glory of God, First Baptist Church has, from its beginning until this day, enjoyed pastors preaching from the Authorized Version and proclaiming the truths thereof as the very Word of
God. Though Mr. Fowler was not an ordained preacher and did not possess an advanced degree in theology, he studied diligently from the Greek New Testament for more than 30 years. It was in 1953 that he attended Greek classes with the express goal of reading the Greek New Testament.

"After reading the Nestle text several times Mr. Fowler began to note and, later, to list the significant omissions and instances which did not correspond with his Biblical knowledge. ... This treatise is the product of his findings through hours of labor over the years, beginning with the
listing of differences in the Nestle text and growing through the years by
use of various helps and methods. Not only did Mr. Fowler regularly read
the Greek New Testament, but he also read his English Bible. ... For some
40 years he read the Bible through twice a year in English."

DONALD T. CLARKE, former Dean and Chairman of the Greek Department at Bible Truth Institute, Sunbury, Pennsylvania; author of Bible Version Manual.
Thomas E. Baker, President of Bible Truth Institute says of Donald Clarke:

"[He] is the most practical proponent of the Greek New Testament of anyone
I know. His knowledge has come through his dedication to the Holy Spirit
and a diligent comparison of the manuscripts of the Word of God. His conclusions are clear and positive in relation to the history of the Scriptures. In the Introduction to Bible Version Manual the position of its author is clearly stated: `God has not only inspired His Word, but He has
also preserved it down through the corridors of time. I rest in the
knowledge that God has safeguarded the Bible in the past from the wicked poison of vain philosophy and will continue to do so in the future.'"

JAY P. GREEN, SR., General Editor and Translator of The Interlinear Bible,
now in its fourth edition. The Interlinear Bible employs the Hebrew
Masoretic text and the Greek Received Text published by the Trinitarian
Bible Society in 1976, based upon the text followed in the Authorized
Version. I will quote some excerpts from the Introduction to this volume to show that Green is unswerving in his defense of the Majority Text. Please
keep in mind that there is some difference between a so-called Majority
Text and the Textus Receptus upon which the old Protestant versions are
based, but it is also true that the differences are, to say the least, very few and minute when compared with those between a Westcott-Hort type text
and the TR. It also should be pointed out that many who defend the TR and
KJV would not be happy with Green's own translation which he called the
King James II, but which actually is a new and different translation. These things, though, do not detract from the fact that Jay Green is a scholar
who defends the Received Text and rejects the Westcott-Hort text as
corrupted.

"Considering, then, that the words of this Book [the Bible] are the ones
that will judge every person who has lived in all the ages, how important
it must be that the very words of God, and no other, shall be contained in
a portable book, to be distributed far and wide. ... With these
considerations in mind, and in holy fear inculcated by our God, we have
sought to provide in The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible all the original God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words. And after much laborious study, accompanied by much prayer, it was concluded that this
could best be done by providing you with the two attested texts that alone have been uniquely preserved whole, having been accepted in all
generations, in all lands, by the vast majority of God's people as their `received texts.' ...

"These new versions [of the Bible] are not only marked by additions, but by subtractions (enough to make up at least four whole pages of words,
phrases, sentences, and verses). And the words left out are attested to as God's words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek
manuscripts, in the ancient versions, in the writings of the early fathers; and these from every inhabited land on the earth, anywhere that
Christianity has been introduced by God the Spirit. ... What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their version? Mainly, they cite two
manuscripts, admittedly old (c. 300 a.d.), but also admittedly carelessly executed."

DONALD R. WHITE, editor of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, published by Baker Book House. I will quote from the Preface to this
volume:

"The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament ... is based on the Greek Text
of Stephens, 1550, which (with the Elzevir Text of 1624) is commonly called the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, from which the New Testaments of the King James Version, William Tyndale's Bible, Luther's German Bible, Olivetan's French Bible, the Geneva Bible, and many other vernacular versions of the Protestant Reformation were translated. It is the
"Traditional Text" that has been read and preserved by the Greek Orthodox Church through the centuries. From it came the Peshitta, the Italic,
Celtic, Gallic, and Gothic Bibles, the medieval versions of the evangelical Waldenses and Albigenses, and other versions suppressed by Rome during the Middle Ages. Though many copies were ruthlessly hunted down and destroyed,
the Received Text has been preserved by an almighty Providence. This interlinear text maintains the basic integrity of the Received Text (also called the Majority Text, since it is represented by 95 percent of the manuscript evidence). This is in sharp contrast to the Westcott-Hort
tradition (which leans heavily on two manuscripts of the unreliable Alexandrian Text type), the shaky foundation of many of today's versions.
In the sixteenth century, Erasmus and the Reformers knowingly rejected the Gnostic readings of Codex Vaticanus and other very old uncial (i.e., all capital-letter) manuscripts, whose variant readings they judged to be
corrupt. They regarded such dubious `treasures' as the products of scribes
who had doctored the text to suit their own private interpretations. They
also rejected Jerome's Latin Vulgate as a corrupt version and as an
improper basis for vernacular translations" (Donald R. White, Editor, pp.
xi, xii).

PHILIP MAURO was a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United
States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day. Mauro is the
author of Which Version? Authorized or Revised?, and a quote from this book leaves no doubt as to the position of this brilliant man in regard to the textual and translation issue:

"It will be seen, therefore, that the making of a Greek Text, as the first step in producing an English Version, involves the immense labor of
examining, for every disputed word and passage, the numerous manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations now known to exist, and also the making of
a decision in each case where there is a conflict between the various witnesses. This is a highly complicated task; and for the performance of it other qualities besides Greek and English scholarship are required. For example, one must settle at the outset what degree of credibility is to be imputed to the respective manuscripts; and this is where, in our opinion,
the compilers of the Greek Text used as the basis for the R.V. [the Revised Version of 1881] went far astray, with the result that the Text adopted by them was much inferior to that used in the translation of the A.V. Our
reasons for this opinion, which will be given later on, are such as to be easily understood."

JOSEPH C. PHILPOT. Of Philpot, True or False? records: "One time fellow of Worcester College, a faithful Minister of the Gospel, and Editor of The
Gospel Standard 1849-1869 ... one of the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars
of his day, and certainly a deeply spiritual man with a sanctified
discernment of the evil trend of the apostate church" (p. 21). Referring to the King James Bible and the call for a revision, Philpot held this
opinion:

"We appreciate any alteration as a measure that the smallest sprinkling of good would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons.
1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the translation
fall? ... Of course they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines. But these are notoriously either tainted with popery [a reference
to the Tractarian movement within the Anglican church--of which Westcott
and Hort and others of the translation company were members or
sympathizers] or infidelity ... 2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands, as to which was the Word of God--the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity. ... 3. ... There would be two Bibles spread throughout all the land, the old and the new,
and what confusion would this create in almost every place! ... 4. If the
new translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let
well enough alone, as it is easier to mar than to mend. The Socinianising Neologian would blot out `GOD' in I Timothy 3:16, and strike out I John 5:7
as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit his Tractarian
views. ... Once set up a notice, `The old Bible to be mended,' and there
would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. ... Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in pert and flippant language of the day. ... We should be traitors in every sense of the word if we consented to give it up
to be rifled by the sacrilegious hands of the Puseyites, concealed papists, German Neologian, infidel divines, Armenians, Socinians, and the whole
tribe of enemies of GOD and godliness" (True or False pp. 21-23).

Looking back upon the history of Bible translation during the past 100
years, it is evident that this man was a true prophet of God!

WILLIAM T. BRUNER, Th. M., Ph.D. Dr. Bruner once held the typical position
of today's scholarship, considering the Westcott-Hort text a vast
improvement upon the ancient Textus Receptus and the versions (such as the KJV) based upon it. The views of this scholar were changed, though, through
a careful reading of the studies of men such as Burgon and Hoskier.
Bruner's own testimony is contained in a letter to Dr. David Otis Fuller:

"Dear Dr. Fuller:

"On May 12, 1970, you wrote me a very kind letter and sent me some sample materials from your book Which Bible? You might as well have been shooting
a pop gun at a stone wall. My mind was so strongly fortified in the
doctrine of Westcott and Hort that I could not for one moment consider the King James Bible.

"Had I not studied Textual Criticism under the great Dr. A.T. Robertson? I thought that you were just one of those die-hard Fundamentalists who were striving to keep the Christian world under the bondage of traditionalism.
Such men are interested only in pleasing the people by catering to their ignorance, prejudice and sentimentality!

"But just a few weeks ago I happened to read your two books, Which Bible?
and True or False? For the first time a little new light shone in. I saw
that there is another side to the argument. Dr. Robertson had not given us
all the facts.

"As I perused your selections from Burgon and Hoskier, the idols of B and Aleph started to totter, and soon they fell off their pedestals. That was
all I needed. I bought a copy of the Textus Receptus and am now using it. Thanks to you ...

"Sincerely yours,

"William T. Bruner, Th.M., Ph.D.

DICK WALKER, Bible Translator. Walker is another scholar whose views were changed and whose heart was turned toward the Received Text after a careful study of the writings edited by Dr. Fuller. We have the testimony of this Bible translator in a letter to Cecil Carter, an elder for the past 50
years in a Brethren assembly in Canada.

"July 13, 1976

"Dear Brother Cecil:

"Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ and in the joy of knowing Him, whom to know is life eternal. I well remember your visit a few years back when you expressed your deep concern to me over so many Christians who are using translations not based on the Textus Receptus (from which we get the King James Version). Also you gave me a copy of the book Which Bible? by David
Otis Fuller.

"I received your book and exhortation at `arms length.' I considered your concern genuine but perhaps naive. After all I had graduated from a
seminary in California which had one of the highest accreditations on the
west coast. I had majored in New Testament, taken two and one-half years of New Testament Greek from a scholar who had his Ph.D. in Greek studies and
who also had many years of related semitic studies. My studies also
included a course in the text and canon of the New Testament as well as writing my graduation thesis titled `The Exegetical Value of the Greek Participle.' I was satisfied with the science of textual criticism and the `Nestles' text, which is based on the Westcott and Hort text.

"I never knew then how mistaken I was! I had forgotten, or ignored, in
Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians, the folly of applying human
reasoning to God's pattern of revelation, ` ... that in the wisdom of God
the world by wisdom knew not God ...' I Cor. 1:21 (this is true both of Himself and His ways). I did not realize that I, like so many others who
love the Lord Jesus, had accepted unquestioningly the unproved and
unfounded reasoning that the `oldest manuscripts are the best.' I had
placed my confidence in the scholarship of others who have undoubtedly also accepted the same logic while at the same time ignoring the fact that men
of God were quoting from the last 12 verses of Mark (which verses are not found in the so called `oldest and best' manuscripts) and that the writings
of these men of God who quote from the last 12 verses in Mark predate the `oldest and best,' i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

"I praise God for sending you to me and for the kind and loving manner in which you shared these truths with me before I commenced the translation of the Carrier New Testament. I do pray that the Lord Jesus will continue to use your many, many years of solid research into this attack on the Word of God for the edification of other sincere but deceived believers. To the end that the day will come when believers in our Lord Jesus Christ will cease
from using translations which are not the Word of God but corruptions of
the Word of God.

"Sincerely in Christ,

"Dick Walker, Bible Translator"

DR. FRANK LOGSDON. Dr. Logsdon was on the committees which produced the New American Standard Version and the Amplified Version. Logsdon was a highly respected pastor and Bible conference speaker. He pastored Moody Church for
a number of years, as well as other churches. After reading Dr. David Otis Fuller's most excellent books, Which Bible? and True or False?, he writes
as follows:

"I carried these titles with me all the summer long, and immersed myself in them. I have never underscored books so much as I have done in them. They enhanced my appreciation of the K.J.V. as the true revelation of God as no other writings. As a member of the committee in the production of the Amplified New Testament, we conscientiously and honestly felt it was a mark
of intelligence to follow `Westcott and Hort.' Now what you have in these books strikes terror to my heart. It proves alarmingly that being conscientiously wrong is a most dangerous state of being. God help us to be more cautious, lest we fall into the snare of the arch deceiver."

In a personal letter to Cecil Carter of British Columbia, Canada, Dr.
Logsdon writes with reference to the New American Standard Version:

"When questions began to reach me, at first I was quite offended. However,
in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right
about the N.A.S.V. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Dr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the N.A.S.V. ... I could not add much to what Dr. Fuller has in his books,
copies of which you possess. I can aver that the project (N.A.S.V.) was produced by thoroughly sincere men who had the best intentions. The
product, however, is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters
in these already troublous times. God bless you as you press the battle!"

We could continue with this listing of scholars who uphold the Received
Text, but this is sufficient for our purposes. It is the position of men
such as these that is called "ludicrous" by the evangelical professor in India, that is called "pseudo-scholarly" by Kurt Aland, and that is ignored and belittled in the letter from the evangelical leader James Boice. The
fact remains that there ARE a number of scholarly men who remain convinced that the TR is the preserved Word of God and that the Westcott-Hort text is corrupted.

It is not an evidence of superior intelligence or spirituality to ignore or belittle this historical position. In fact, the doctrine of preservation
and the weight of history is on the side of those who support the TR. It is not those who honor the TR who are making a new doctrine; these men are simply standing in the time-honored tradition of loving and defending the Received Text. Even Westcott and Hort admitted that the Textus Receptus was the dominate text throughout the world from at least the third century.
This is an undeniable historical fact. Are we not warned by God against removing the ancient landmark?

MYTH #6:
THE ISSUES ARE TOO COMPLEX FOR THE AVERAGE CHRISTIAN TO UNDERSTAND

This is the last point in our series on Myths About the King James Bible. Consider again the letter from Evangelical leader James Boice to the missionary doctor, Tom Hale:

"The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as
a result of that complexity. But let me try to explain what is
involved. ... Let me say that the concerns of some of these people [those
who defend the King James Bible and its underlying textual basis] are undoubtedly good. They are zealous for the Word of God and very much
concerned lest liberal or any other scholarship enter in to pervert it. But unfortunately, the basis on which they are operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do what I could in a gentle way to lead them to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are concerned" (Letter from James Boice, leader with the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, to missionary doctor Tom
Hale).

As noted earlier in this series of articles, these words were directed to a missionary medical doctor in South Asia in response to that doctor's
queries about the issue of Bible texts and translations. The medical doctor had read several books and booklets I had given him. In particular he had
read Which Bible? edited by David Otis Fuller, The King James Version
Defended by the late Dr. Edward F. Hills, and several smaller works by the Trinitarian Bible Society and others.

Note the paternalistic, condescending attitude of Dr. Boice toward those
who would defend the Textus Receptus. It would appear that there is no possibility that Dr. Boice is the one who is in error, the one who is following unsound "scholarship"! Of course he can maintain this kind of attitude toward those who have not studied the issues very thoroughly, or
who, in his opinion, do not possess sufficient intelligence or education to understand the issues. But if he were writing to some of the men we have mentioned in the last section, he would doubtless demonstrate a different attitude entirely. Would he try to lead Dr. Edward Hills, Dr. David Otis Fuller, or Dr. Donald Waite "in a gentle way to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are concerned"?

Would he say to the learned translators of the King James Bible and other mighty Reformation Bibles that "the situation is somewhat complex,
brethren, and many people do not understand it as a result of that
complexity. But let me try to explain what is involved"!

I'm sure you understand what I am saying. This condescending, paternalistic attitude is a common feature of the writings of those who despise the TR. Surely they know that the difference between their views and those of TR supporters is not a matter of greater and lesser intelligence, but they
often imply that this is the case. There is a myth here.

The most important issue in all the world is to know what and where is the Word of God. By that Word we are born again; in it we find eternal life; by
it we live. As the Lord Jesus said, "It is written, That man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4). This being the case,
we must have these words--all of them.

Since the issue before us is so crucial for the souls and destinies of men,
is it unreasonable to believe that God would make it possible for the
average saint, and especially for the average church leader, to know the
truth of the matter? God loves the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son to suffer and die, and He has given a pure revelation of this love in a Book. Has this God allowed the issues surrounding the
preservation and translation of the Bible to be as complex as Dr. Boice
says they are? "The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that complexity." Can it be so?

I am reminded of Matthew 11:25-27--"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even
so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered
unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, and he to whomsoever the
Son will reveal him."

I am reminded of I Corinthians 1:26-29--"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that NOT MANY WISE men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many
noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and GOD HATH CHOSEN THE WEAK THINGS of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and
things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not,
to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence."

I am reminded of Acts 4:13--"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and
John, and perceived that they were UNLEARNED AND IGNORANT MEN, they
marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."

I am reminded of 2 Corinthians 11:3--"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be
corrupted from THE SIMPLICITY that is in Christ."

I am reminded of Colossians 2:8--"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ."

I am reminded of 1 John 2:27--"But the anointing which ye have received of
him abideth in you, and YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even
as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

This is not to say God does not call and use scholarly men. Certainly He
does, but this is not the normal situation in the churches of God. A
few--but not many--wise, mighty and noble are called. The common man has
more often received the truth than the wise and mighty, who have more often than not stumbled in their pride. Even when the Son of God walked the earth such was the case. The religious scholars discounted his eternal wisdom,
while "the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37).

The Bible enumerates the qualifications for a pastor, but nowhere does God
say that he must be a scholar. He must be trained in the Word of God; he
must be a man of study; he must be ready and able to teach--but there is no qualification that he be a scholar, that he possess a M.Th. or Ph.D. Where
in the Bible does God say that a pastor must master Greek and Hebrew, even? This being the case, God simply is not going to make the issue surrounding
the question of the Bible translations so complex that the average church leader cannot readily know the truth of the matter.

How has God made the matter simple in His Word? First, He has given a pure Word. Second, He has promised to preserve this Word. Third, it is evident
that a certain textual family, a certain type of Bible, was preserved and published throughout the world across the centuries. Fourth, this text was adopted by the Reformation translators and editors. Fifth, this is the
pure, preserved Word of God and should not be discarded for a text which
was rejected in past centuries by God's people.

These facts are not complex at all. And THEY ARE FACTS, by the way. There
are certain details and questions in the midst of these simple facts which admittedly are complex. There are things hard to be answered. But the
basic, overall issues are quite simple and straightforward; so much so that the average man of God can grasp them and know where the Word of God is
today.

I therefore reject Dr. Boice's contention that "the situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that
complexity." The truth of the matter is that the situation is rather simple and many scholars stumble at the simplicity of the truth!

We have looked at six myths which are continually promoted by those who are opposed to the idea that the pure Word of God is preserved in that Text and
in those Versions which dominated non-Catholic Christian life for the past nineteen centuries. Obviously no attempt has been made to answer all of the questions which can be asked on this subject. Our goal was singular:
Brethren, beware of myths which are disguised as truth.


Kurt,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23