From 1611 until our generation there was only one widely used Bible in the English speaking world. The King James Bible (KJV) became the Standard in the British empire upon which the sun never set, and in that language which is the primary vehicle of international discourse. It penetrated the world’s continents and brought multitudes to saving faith in Christ. It became the impetus of the great missionary movements. Through it, Christian workers heard and answered the call to world evangelization. It was the source of the greatest (true) revivals since the days of the Apostles. Street preachers, evangelists, colporteurs, church planters, Sunday school teachers, and tract distributors took the KJV into teeming cities and across country lanes. It was the high water mark in the history of the Gospel's spread.
However, in this world there is always an onslaught against truth and righteousness, and a tendency to put aside the good and substitute something that is inferior. And so, during the 19th century the call for a revised Bible began to be heard. For the most part and certainly in the beginning the call did not come from fervent Bible believers, but rather those who were leaning toward theological liberalism and heresy. It came from men who were comfortable with the rising tide of rationalism, Darwin, and the back-to-Rome movement. The first major English revision was published in 1881, coinciding with the first revised Greek NT, that of the Westcott and Hort, also known as the Critical Text. This was followed by others, and the pace quickened, more and more came along, each with the promise that they were based on the earliest manuscripts and the latest scholarship, and that God's Word would now be more easily understood. But the very opposite has occurred. Even just a cursory review of these versions and the Critical Text reveals something very sinister and diabolical has occurred.
Some time ago I read an obituary of a professing Christian who had purposed to read through a different Bible version every year over the span of a decade. I found this shocking and unfathomable. While it is commendable to endeavour to read through the Bible every year, something I very passionately encourage (even more than once a year), where is the spiritual discernment concerning the very words of God that God gave and saves us, discernment that is assured with the indwelling Spirit of God? Which Bible is the right Bible if there are plural Bibles in the same language? How does inspiration and preservation tie into this philosophy and what does God’s word say about His own Word?
Did God not promise to preserve the very words He inspired? Preservation ties into translation, in that we cannot have an accurate Bible translation unless we know we are translating from Gods inspired and preserved Word. This is foundational. Why are we still producing more and different Bibles in the same languages, if there is already one faithful and accurate translation? How many are there anyway in English? Some estimate upwards close to 500, while wikipedia lists around 150. If there is only one God, which there is, and He only inspired His Word once, then why would there need to be drastically different versions of His Word of which He says is unalterable, unchangeable (Rev 22:18-19), unbreakable (Jn 10:35) in spite of wicked men’s efforts?
What I'm describing above rhetorically, is the biggest issue today with translations, not the KJV, but now it seems it gets little to no coverage compared to other problems. People treat it lackadaisy, yet the Bible is the very foundation for everything in the Christian life and ministry (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Thus, this is a foundational issue. If the child of God is not willing to take a strong stand for the Word of God, what will he stand for?
God says He has exalted His Word above His own name (Ps 138:2). Consider how high and holy God’s name is, the name of Jehovah; the name of Jesus Christ! And yet God has exalted His Word above that. It is impossible to be too zealous for the Bible. And it is not merely Scripture as an abstract concept that we are to be zealous for, it is the Hebrew Old Testament (OT) and the Greek New Testament (NT) that has been passed down to us and is translated into our common languages. Not only should we defend this subject that holds greater importance than anything, but we should defend it militantly. When John Burgon wrote against the Westcott-Hort theories of textual criticism at the end of the 19th century, he was charged with causing unnecessary division and being too militant on the issue. He replied,
“If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperiled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, Dedication ix).
The man who has a true conviction about the textual issue is motivated by his very conviction to take a stand. He believes the preserved Scripture is found in an exact text and translations thereof and he must therefore take a stand for it as the eternal Word of God. It is impossible for him not to be dogmatic and strident on the issue. On the other hand, the man who accepts the modern texts and versions has no such conviction. To him, the preserved Scripture is not found in any one text or version but is scattered mystically throughout the whole and it is his prerogative to pick and choose as he sees fit. Such a position is far removed from textual dogmatism, and the man who holds this position finds it difficult to understand those who are dogmatic and unbending. He wonders why the TR-KJV defender cannot treat the issue as casually as he treats it, but this is not possible because of the very nature of the TR-KJV defender’s convictions.
The whole approach to this subject for those who embrace modern perversions is a ministry of questionings and doubt. Does Gods Word really say that? Does it really mean that? “Yea hath God said” (Gen 3:1) is Satans whisper. Doubting’s and questioning are glorified, and it happens not just in the text but in many doctrines of Scripture, while Gods Word says such questioning is demonic and evil (Gen 3:1). Paul warned against this sort of ungodly ministry (1 Tim 4:1-4; Col 2:8), while a godly man’s approach to the Bible is Biblical exegesis and edification to what the passage precisely and perspicuously teaches.
“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.” (Col 2:8)
The question isn’t what version reads the best but rather, what is the authentic text that God inspired and preserved? What is the pure Word of God that we know to be God-breathed to every word, syllable, jot and tittle?
Before we get into that, a few basics important to understand. The Old Testament (OT) was written almost entirely in Hebrew with a bit of Aramaic. The New Testament (NT) was written entirely in Koine or Hellenistic Greek. When God inspired the Word of God, His words found in the Bible, these are the languages in which He did that. Not in English, not in Latin, not in German, and not in any other language. To get Bibles in vernacular language, they must be translated from these original language texts. Thats how people can read the Word of God in their own language. Thats why Bibles like the King James Bible say in its cover page, “Translated from the Original Languages.”
Another important fact to understand is that there are only two streams of Bibles, into which all 100+ English translations fall. The two streams are very different. Only one stream can be right, since God is not the author of confusion or contradiction.
There are two foundational things that are required for a sound Bible translation (not to speak of the qualification of the translator). The first is that it must be translated from the right Hebrew and Greek texts. The second is that it must use the right method of translation. But before we go into those two foundational principles, first thing that must be addressed is the promise of God of perfect preservation of His words.
1. The Promise of God to Perfectly Preserve His Inspired Words.
The doctrine of preservation must start and finish with faith in what God’s Word says. What it actually says, not what people want it to say. This is the foundation.
God has promised to perfectly preserve His inspired words. Not just Word but all the words in His Word right down to the jot and tittle. Perfect preservation applies to all his words as they were given, in Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic. Passages that speak to this include: Ps 12:6-7; 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2; 119:89, 152, 160; Pr 30:5-6; Is 40:8; 59:21; Matt 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Rev 22:18-19. Consider some important points concerning the doctrines of inspiration and preservation.
a) God’s Words were inspired perfectly in the autographs (2 Tim 3:16-18; 2 Pet 1:21). Copies of autographs are just as inspired as an original writing, and are considered perfectly equal in authority, and almost no one has ever handled an original wiring. Original manuscripts were destroyed at the hand of Emperor Diocletian's wrath between 303 A.D. and 313 A.D. Copies referenced in the Bible (such as 2 Tim 3:15) are not translations. They are copies of the original document, which was written in a certain language: Hebrew or Greek.
b) The Lord promised to preserve all these inspired words from His Word for each subsequent generation, just as they’re preserved eternally in Heaven (Ps 12:6-7; 119:89; Dan 10:21, 11:2 ff; Am 1:1; Matt 24:35; Jn 17:8; Rev 1:1). The Bible teaches the verbal, plenary preservation of the inspired autographa (Ps 12:6-7). The promise of preservation of the words was the words that were given, which were given in what language? Right, Hebrew and Greek and some Aramaic, not another language.
c) The Lord promises and affirms the perpetual availability of the preserved words of God to every generation of believers (Is 59:21).
d) The Lord used His chosen people Israel to preserve and guard the OT Scriptures in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Ac 7:38; Rom 3:2) and the true NT local churches to preserve and guard the NT Scriptures in the Greek Textus Receptus (Matt 28:19-20; Rev 22:7-10).
e) NT churches are to recognize, receive and preserve the Lord’s Words (Jn 17:8, 20; 1 Th 2:13) while rejecting manuscripts with added or deleted words or forged canons (2 Th 2:2) offered by Satan (Gen 3:1 ff; cf. De 13:1-5). The local church, as the depository of God’s words (1 Tim 3:15), led by the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13), recognized and received (Jn 17:8) the words of God as they were given to her by Christ her Lord. Believers can have confidence that the words of Scripture, and, as a necessary consequence, the books of Scripture, and these alone, constitute the deposit of infallible revelation which forms their sole authority for faith and practice (2 Tim 3:15-17) and upon which they will be judged (Jn 12:48), because the Spirit led the church to accept these words, the words from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus, and no others, as God’s Word. These true local churches have recognized the KJV as the Word of God in the English language because it came from the recognized, received, and preserved words that God gave, and thus have rejected all modern versions, including the ESV, NIV, NKJV, etc, as corrupted perversions and Gnostic laced readings in both text and translation.
f) The Lord has given His explicit Words of revelation to man in order that man may be able to demonstrate his stewardship with all of God’s Words at his respective judgment (Jn 12:48; Rev 20:12). That requires preservation.
g) In summary, the Lord Jesus Christ has inspired His autographa (2 Tim 3:16-17), promised to preserve all of His Words (Ps 12:6-7), expects man to receive by faith His revelation and produce perfect copies or accurate translations based on the Received Bible which originated with Him (Matt 28:19-20; Jn 17:8, 20; Rom 16:25-26; cf. Neh 8:8), which movement He began (cf. Ac 2:41; 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; 1 Th 2:13).
There are three main groups concerning the Bible:
Those who hold that the modern translations, based on the text of Westcott and Hort (aka., Critical Text, Nestle-Aland), are more reliable than the Authorized Version of 1611 (KJV) translation, which is based upon the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text;
Those who hold that the KJV is most reliable (in English) because it was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text,
Those who hold that a translation such as the KJV was given by inspiration and is the preserved Word of God and is the final authority in our present world, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus.
The second is the right position, the one that Scripture attests to. The third one is wrong, which I debunk in this linked report. The first one, the modern version position based upon the Critical Text, is a diabolical attack on God’s Word and under the condemnation of Rev 22:18-19 — my focus here in this report.
Frankly, Critical Text scholars and many of its proponents are deceptive heretics; “evil men and seducers . . . deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim 3:13) that blasphemously attempt to reconstruct the autographs, the very words of God. These individuals, who for the most are pretending to be “ministers of righteousness” while they are in fact servants of Satan (2 Cor 11:12-15), falsely define and limit the “Word” of God to mean only the “message, ideas, thoughts, or concepts,” in general, but not all the “words” of God. This is gross and clever deception. These, under the guise of superficial and deceptive piety, are deniers and rejecters of Gods promise of preservation of His words. They are heretics, but also blasphemers. For instance, they cleverly and deceitfully re-define the term “Bible preservation” to mean that they have the “Word of God,” but not necessarily the “words of God.” Though in the Bible these terms are equated, to them there is a difference, and there must be to further their agenda and continue their attack on God, which started way back in the Garden of Eden already (Gen 3:2-3; cf. Gen 2:16-17), with Satan deceiving Eve which led to her omitting, adding and substituting God’s Word (she omitted the words “every” from “every tree” and “freely” from “freely eat,” and added the words “neither shall ye touch it,” and substituted the words “lest ye die” for “thou shalt surely die.”) Thus was born the first “revised version” of the Word of God. It is the paradigm for Satan’s attempts down through history to nullify the Word of God and this practice is more prevalent today than it is has ever been in the past.
There are two distinguishing factors that we base our analysis on as to whether a translation is Biblical and considered the Word of God in that particular language. The Text and the Translation Methodology. Firstly we will consider the Text.
2. The Text.
Does the textual basis of your Bible version matter? This should be an easy question to answer since everything that relates to the Bible is important.
Many people today naively believe that modern translations of the Bible are simply an effort to update or modernize the wording of the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is in fact a diabolical attack of Satan against the very words that God gave, which he started doing immediately after the creation of man, in the garden, speaking to Eve, “Yea, hath God said?” (Gen 3:1). What many fail to understand and grasp is actually the greatest difference, and it’s not just modernization of the wording in modern translations but the actual underlying text.
Most professing Christians are unaware that there are two main competing texts of the N.T. from whence all translations of the Bible flow, and that the differences are substantial:
the Traditional or Received Text, also known as the Greek Textus Receptus (Greek for Received Text) and,
the Critical Text, also known as the Eclectic Text, Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland.
One text, the Received Text, is the true text of Scripture, and the other, the Critical Text, a corrupted text. The true text represents the united testimony of the vast majority (~95%) of manuscripts, while the corrupt text is derived from a few manuscripts which are in conflict with each other.
They are not the same. They differ in many thousands of places. Differences vary from letters, words, phrases, verses and extended passages and they are extensive. There are 655 significant and critical errors in the Critical Text of the NT. Besides that, there are thousands of other changes, with over 8,000 word changes. Things that are different, are not the same. And things that are not the same, are obviously not equal. Even just one error would be an attack on God and His Word, never mind thousands of changes.
The Received Text. There is the Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Protestant Reformation-era versions (such as the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Coverdale Bible, Bishops Bible, Tyndale Bible), also known as the Traditional Text, Byzantine, and Textus Receptus (Greek for Received Text). It represents the vast majority of the greater than 5,600 extant Greek manuscripts. The Received Text is published today by the Trinitarian Bible Society, The Dean Burgeon Society and others. The Received Text has been the text used by the Lords churches since the first century. It is the perfectly preserved Word of God.
The Received Text bears the stamp of divine inspiration and preservation. It came to us through the fires of persecution; it represents the traditional text that was used by the churches through the centuries; it can be traced to Antioch rather than to Egypt; and it is not the product of modernistic and Unitarian scholarship.
The Critical Text. The modern Greek text is called the “Critical Text,” because it is the product of “modern textual criticism.” This was invented in the 19th century (largely) by theological modernists and Unitarians. It was not based on the belief that the Scripture is the infallible Word of God and that God has preserved His Scripture. Modern textual criticism treats the Bible as just another book and uses naturalistic tools to determine its text. The modern Critical Greek text largely originated from the Westcott and Hort text of 1881, which work they deceptively did under the guise of improving the Received Text. They hid their diabolical work from the public so that brilliant scholars like John William Burgon wouldn’t sound the alarm and stop their evil work. The Westcott and Hort text of 1881 is published today by the United Bible Societies and others. Every modern English version of the Bible is translated from the Critical Text.
The Critical Text is also referred to as the Egyptian text or the Alexandrian text, because the manuscripts it is based upon—two actually which are the “Aleph” (Codex Sinaiticus) and “B” (Codex Vaticanus)—originated from Egypt and the Egyptian city of Alexandria, which was a center of learning during the early centuries of the church age, and also a centre of serious heresy and apostasy. Most false doctrines canonized in the Roman Catholic Church can be traced back to Alexandria as their birth place. The modern Greek text favours these two Greek manuscripts above all others, which are the two oldest nearly complete Greek New Testaments, dating to the 4th century (allegedly). The translators of the NIV, for instance, call the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus “the two most reliable early manuscripts” (footnote to Mark 16:9-20, which is removed in modern versions or greatly questioned for its authenticity). Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844 by Constantine von Tischendorf in St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, in a garbage can. Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican Library in 1475. Its history is unknown. Because of its age, it is generally conceded to be the most important one. For instance, Peter van Minnen, in Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts, concludes, “It is to be noticed that all the manuscripts listed above come from Egypt. The papyri . . . Sinaiticus . . . B [Vaticanus] . . . We owe the early Egyptian Christians an immense debt.” Westcott and Hort, who named this the Neutral Text, thought that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus had preserved a pure form of the Alexandrian type of text. But Egypt is not the place where the Spirit of God gave the NT Scriptures. God chose to deliver the Scriptures to churches in Israel, Syria, Asia Minor, and Europe. Not one book of the NT is associated with Egypt. Everything Egypt is considered apostatized and is untrustworthy, including these extremely corrupted codices.
The first edition of the modern Greek NT was that of Westcott and Hort (1881). The Westcott-Hort has been largely the basis for the Nestles’ Greek NT and the United Bible Societies Greek (UBS) NT. The Nestles and UBS Greek NT are almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 in significant departures from the Received Text and in passages that have extensive doctrinal significance. Bruce Metzger of the United Bible Societies (UBS) states in the introduction to his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, after listing the main Greek texts and finally that of Westcott and Hort: “It is this latter edition (Westcott and Hort), that was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies’ edition” (page xxiii). Jack Moorman counted only 216 instances in which the Nestle/Aland 26th edition apparatus departs from the Vaticanus and Aleph. The Westcott & Hort (WH) and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH—48, UBS—45), and almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH—193, UBS—185), and almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH—221, UBS—212).
So it is a different Greek text that accounts for thousands of changes in the modern versions. That is the culprit. It is shorter than the Received Greek text by 2,886 words, which is the equivalent of the omission of the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter. We will say more about this below. On the OT side, changes began to be introduced from the Septuagint (Greek translations), the Talmud, and other sources.
The Critical Text, aka. The Alexandrian Text or Westcott and Hort or Nestle/Aland Text, is corrupt, evil, and blasphemous attack on the Triune God, and on His words and doctrines that He inspired and preserved.
Some of the major differences between the Critical Text (CT) NT and the Received Text (TR) NT:
The CT is substantially shorter than the TR Greek due to all the omissions. The text is shorter by 2,886 words, which is the equivalent of the omission of the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter.
The CT omits or questions 45 entire verses — Matt. 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20; Lk. 17:36; 22:43- 44; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; 7:53–8:11; Ac 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 Jn. 5:7.
The CT additionally omits significant portions of 185 other verses.
The CT greatly weakens and corrupts key doctrines in the Word of God including the doctrine of Christ’s deity (e.g., omitting “who is in heaven” from Jn. 3:13; omitting “God” from 1 Tim. 3:16 — more examples given further below).
The Westcott and Hort CT changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places. Donald Waite, the godly and brilliant defender of the Received Text and King James Bible, and founder of the The Dean Burgeon Society, writes, “Do you know how many changes they made? My own personal count, as of August 2, 1984, using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these 5,604 alterations, I found 1,952 to be OMISSIONS (35%), 467 to be ADDITIONS (8%), and 3,185 to be CHANGES (57%). In these 5,604 places that were involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words included, making a total of 9,970 Greek words that were involved. This means that in a Greek Text of 647 pages (such as Scrivener's text), this would average 15.4 words per page that were changed from the Received Text. Pastor Jack Moorman counted 140,521 words in the Textus Receptus. These changes would amount to 7% of the words; and 45.9 pages of the Greek New Testament if placed together in one place.”
Jack Moorman, in his book entitled, ‘Missing in Modern Bibles--Is The Full Story Being Told?’ (link goes to the free pdf ebook), did a word comparison between the Received Greek Text and the Nestle/Aland Greek Text and discovered the Nestle/Aland text was shorter than the Received Text by 2,886 words. This means the omission of 934 more words than the Westcott and Hort text, the one that Donald Waite examined (1,952 vs. 2,886), from whence the Nestle/Aland originates. This omission of 2,886 Greek words is the equivalent, in number of English words involved, of omitting the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter!
The King James Bible stands alone amongst English translations as translated from the text given by God, the Received Text. ALL modern English translations (since 1881) have been translated from the corrupt Critical Text, and that includes the New King James Version (which was translated in part from both texts, the Received and the Critical).
The first prominent modern English version based on the modern Greek text was the English Revised Version of 1881, but it never threatened the popularity of the King James Bible, even though they attempted to destroy the KJV through lies, manipulation and false witness. The same was true for the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, and the New American Standard Bible of 1960. It was not until the publication of the New International Version in the 1970s that a modern version began to be widely used outside of theologically liberal circles.
It is by the grace of God that the King James Version was not in anywise affected by higher textual criticism:
“In view also of the leading part the English speaking peoples were to play in shaping the destinies of mankind, we are justified in believing that it was through a providential ordering that the preparation of that Version was not in anywise affected by higher critical theories in general, or specifically by the two ancient Codices [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] we have been discussing” (Philip Mauro, Which Version? Authorized or Revised?).
Consider a few examples of errancy in the CT in contrast to the inerrancy of the TR:
a) In Matt 1:7-8, and 10, the CT substitutes the two kings of Asa and Amon in Christ’s royal lineage for the psalmist Asaph and the prophet Amos. The CT declares that the scribe Asaph, rather than king Asa, and Amos rather than Amon, were in the ancestry of Christ. But neither Asaph or Amos were in Christ’s royal lineage. Asaph was writer of some of the Psalms, and David’s chief musician and Amos was the prophet behind the book Amos, but neither were in Christ’s genealogy. The TR correctly puts king Asa and king Amon in Christ’s genealogy, in accordance to the underling Greek manuscripts. This is wicked changing of God’s Word (Rev 22:18-19). This apostasy is supported unashamedly by CT promoters like Bruce Metzger.
b) In Mk 1:2, the CT declares that “Isaiah the prophet” wrote the book of Malachi (Mal 3:1). The TR correctly refers to the book of Malachi as written by one of the “prophets.” The KJV has the perfect reading of Mk 1:2, “As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “Prophets” is plural for a reason. This passage is a quote from two prophets, Malachi and Isaiah, not just one as the corrupt CT claims. Since the prophet Malachi wrote the book of Malachi, and Isaiah the prophet did not, the CT is errant, and the TR is inerrant.
c) In Matt 8:28 the TR reads Gergeshnwon, referring to “the country of the Gergesenes,” and Gadarhnwon in Mk 5:1; Lk 8:26, 37, referring to “the country of the Gadarenes.” The CT reads Gadarhnwon in Matt 8:28, referring to the town of Gadara, and Gerashnwon in Mk 5:1; Lk 8:26, 37, referring to the town of Gerasa. The TR references to “the country of the Gergesenes” (Matt 8:28) and “the country of the Gadarenes” (Mk 5:1) and “the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee” (Lk 8:26) are easily harmonized, because the towns of Gergesa and Gadara are quite close together, the one on the bank of the Sea of Galilee and the other very close to the Sea, so that the “country” (chōra) of the one and the other would easily overlap. However, the CT reading Gerashnwon, referring to the town of Gerasa, is a clear error, since that town is 35 miles south-east of the Sea of Galilee. One simply does not take a ship across the Sea of Galilee to Gerasa, nor is Gerasa “over against Galilee.” The impossibility of the CT reading Gerashnwon was recognized in early church history by Origen (Commentary on John, VI, 24) and the CT reading was rejected. The CT is corrupt while the TR is inerrant.
d) In Lk 23:32, the CT calls Christ an evildoer or sinner, contradicting other plain statements in Scripture about His sinlessness (which reads in the CT: Ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι”). The passage when translated with formal equivalence into English reads, “And there were also two other evildoers with him, led to be put to death,” while the Textus Receptus does not call Christ an evil-doer (Ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι δύο κακοῦργοι σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι), which translated with formal equivalence into English reads, “And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death”). The critical text statement is that “Jesus as crucified with ‘two other criminals,’” but in the Received Text the statement is “two others, who were criminals” even admitted by heretical CT proponents Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman (Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p. 294). The corrupt CT’s rendering here is actually blasphemous.
e) In Lk 23:45 there is a scientific error in the CT, which uses the variant (eklipontos) “was eclipsed” instead of what God’s Word (TR) actually says (eskotisthe) “was darkened.” It would have been a scientific impossibility for the sun to have been eclipsed during the Passover since the moon was full. The reason for this change is obvious. The God-hating and Christ-rejecting humanists changed it because they don’t believe that God can supernaturally just darken the world if He wants to. They have to give it some kind of humanistic explanation, so they added the word “eklipontos.” The darkness depicted the darkness of sin, for which Christ was dying, and God the Father forsaking His Son during those dark hours — it had nothing to do with an eclipse.
f) In Jn 7:8 there is a Christ-contradicting error in the CT, which effectually turns Jesus into a sinner. Yes, how blasphemous is that! Jesus states He is not going to the feast, not yet, and then after goes to the feast. The CT changes God’s Word and uses the negative (“ouk”) “not” instead of what God actually said, (“oupo”) “not yet.” Jesus very obviously was stating He was “not yet” going to the feast because He did yet go to the feast, since God is perfect and sinless and cannot lie. The CT changes it into a negative, which makes God the Son a liar. They would’ve done that intentionally.
Based on these facts alone concerning the text, we already know which stream of Bibles is the right and God-honouring one, but there is even more to this.
3. The Translation Methodology.
Just as there are two competing Greek texts today (the Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles such as the German Luther and the English King James vs. the Westcott- Hort line of Greek texts underlying the modern English versions since the latter half of the 19th century), there are also two competing translation methodologies.
Because the original languages are not known to all the people, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, they are to be translated faithfully and accurately into the common language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in spirit and in truth, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope (Jn 4:24; 5:39; Ac 17:11-12; Matt 28:19; Col 3:16; Rom 15:4; 16:26).
For a translation of Scripture to be faithful and accurate, it must have been translated from the words commonly received and generally available to believers in every generation, according to the Biblical doctrine of word-perfect preservation; using a Biblical theology of Scripture, rejecting the worldly wisdom of textual criticism; and by using the method of formal equivalence (Ps 12:6-7; Matt 5:18; 24:35; Pr 30:5-6; Rev 22:18-19; 1 Cor 3:19-21; 1 Th 2:13). In the English language, the King James Version is the ONLY version that meets this standard of God, while all subsequent modern versions fail in one or more of the above areas due to their corrupt text and/or methods of translation, and therefore must be wholesale rejected.
There are two general methods of translating words, something not only factual for Bible texts but for all literature, whether spiritual or secular.
Static or Formal Verbal Equivalence. This is translating from one language text to another language text using a word-for-word, literal, methodology. This is a word-for-word translation of the original words with the corresponding English words, while taking into consideration the cultural backdrop of the Greco-Roman world of that day as far as what words to use in translation. The King James Version is translated with this methodology, and not dynamic equivalency as most of the modern versions are. Static doesn’t change while dynamic does.
The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence--not dynamic equivalence.
Dynamic Equivalence. A translation translated with dynamic equivalence is “dynamically” (active, energetic, moving or changing) equivalent to the original (less authoritative and precise, not as exact) and literal equivalency is not the objective. This method of Bible translation is relatively new, having only been developed a few decades ago. This method of translation is known by names such as common language, idiomatic translation, impact translation, indirect transfer translation, functional equivalency, and thought translation. The highly inflectious United Bible Societies (UBS), which is composed of 142 national and local Bible societies working in 200 countries and currently involved in translation in 600 languages, distributing a large percentage of the world’s Bibles (sadly), has been dedicated to dynamic equivalency since the 1970s.
The modern versions and perversions have used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained both verbal and formal equivalence. Those who use this erroneous technique in the various "translations/paraphrases" think it's a great technique. Dynamic is at best a commentary, definitely NOT a Bible, NOT the Word of God! The bottom line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right to add to God's Words (which is sin), to subtract from God's Words (which is sin), or to change God's Words (which is sin). Dynamic equivalence is a diabolical attack on God’s Word, further compounding the issue of modern translation perversions. For further excellent read on this subject see Dynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and Error.
As the writers of the NT recorded and cited accurate translations of OT passages, calling such translated words Scripture and recognizing that the translation of the divinely breathed and preserved Hebrew words of God remained the words of God in the Greek language to which they were faithfully translated, so may people of any language refer to the accurate translation of the preserved Biblical language texts as Scripture. Because of its faithful and true rendering of the inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of Scripture (in contrast to the modern versions), the King James Version may confidently be called the Word of God in English, neither exalted above the preserved words of the original languages nor the re-breathing of God's Word into English, but not any less God's Word by virtue of its being a faithful translation.
4. Illustrations of Corruption and Perversion of Scripture by Modern English Versions.
The massive differences between the texts (Received Text and Critical Text) is commonly misstated and seriously downplayed.
All modern versions derive from the Critical Text, which is the product of two ancient Codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), authored by two severely heretical and demonic apostates in 1881: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, thus follow the same corruption (2 Cor 2:17).
Omission of 45 complete verses in modern versions: Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20; Lk 17:36; 23:17; Jn 5:4; 7:53–8:11; Ac 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom 16:24; 1 Jn 5:7. In the NIV, for example, there are 17 verses omitted outright—Mattt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 Jn. 5:7. Further, Mk 16:9-20 is separated from the rest of the chapter with a note that says, “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mk. 16:9-20,” and Jn 7:53–8:11 is separated from the rest of the text with this footnote: “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have Jn. 7:53–8:11.” Hence, another 24 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. Thus 45 entire verses are either omitted or questioned.
Partial omission of 185 verses in modern versions, and its underlying Greek CT.
2,886 words are removed in the modern Greek text, which is equivalent to 1 and 2 Peter (This also exposes the myth that only 1/2 page of text is in question)
The effect of this huge omission of words and passages, or addition or changing, is serious corruption of God’s Word and a demonic attack on critical doctrine, and intentionally so, such as the following (with references):
The Trinity (1 Jn 5:17);
Gospel of Christ (Mk 16:9-14,19; Ac 3:26; Rom 14:9);
Salvation (Rom 11:6; Matt 9:13; Mk 2:17; 10:21; Ac 9:5-6; 2 Tim 1:11; Col 2:11);
Biblical marriage (Matt 19:9);
Separation (1 Tim 6:5);
Hell and Eternal punishment (Matt 23:14; Mk 9:44-47; 16:16; 2 Pet 2:17 — Hell completely removed in OT, half gone in NT);
Believers Baptism (Ac 8:37);
Atonement of Christ (1 Cor 5:7);
Judging (1 Cor 5:12; 6:4);
New Covenant/Testament (Matt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 9:15);
Evidence or Proof of Salvation (Gal 3:1; Jam 2:20; 1 Pet 5:12);
Christ’s Return (Matt 25:13);
Doctrine of Christ and His Deity (Matt 5:22; 8:29; 19:16-17; 23:8; 28:6; Mk 1:1; 1:31; 16:9-20; Lk 2:33, 44; 22:64; 24:40, 51; Jn 1:18, 27; 3:13 ,16; 5:16; 7:8; 9:4, 35; Ac 2:30-31; 4:24; 7:30, 37; Col 1:2; etc — His name is removed >200 times);
Doctrine of Scripture Preservation (1 Pet 1:23);
Fasting and Prayer (Matt 17:21; Mk 9:28-29; Ac 10:30 — in many perversions, the doctrine of fasting and prayer is completely gone);
OT prophecies fulfilled in NT (Matt 27:35; Mk 13:14; 15:28);
Et cetra.
The modern versions also read like a dull, vague, opaque literature device, worse than your average newspaper, in contrast to the magnificence, beauty, and majesty of the KJV. The KJV is an incorruptible bulwark that stands entirely on its own.
The foundation of modern versions is a rejection of the inerrancy of God’s Word and the preservation thereof — God allegedly only promised to preserve His concepts not His “words” (cf. Ps 12:6-7; Pr 30:5-6; Matt 5:18). This position is devoid of any scriptural foundation and akin to agnosticism.
There have been more than 100 English versions of the Bible produced since 1881, but “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor 14:33). When we consider the end of those who omit or add or corrupt Gods Word (Rev 22:18-19), the authorship of modern perversions can only be accredited to the one known as the Great Deceiver, Satan, the father of lies. He has orchestrated the greatest attack ever on God, thereby leading millions into unquenchable hell fire.
Let’s consider some of hundreds of examples of real differences between the texts of the Authorized King James Version and the texts of multitude of conflicting modern versions, starting with the Old Testament, though they’re are fewer variants in the OT than the NT. These are also simple means to assessing for counterfeits, that is, a Bible whose words have been adulterated.
Gen. 22:8. Instead of “…My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" the CT distorts and attacks the prophesy that God would become the Lamb, stating, "God will provide for Himself the lamb" or "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering". The fulfillment of Gen 22:8 is found in Jn 1:29 and this is a blatant attack on that prophecy and on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
1 Sam 13:5, “And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots,” while the CT changes it to three thousand, noted in modern versions such as the NIV.
Ps 145:13 is a passage in the middle of a Hebrew acrostic, like Proverbs 31. A Hebrew poetic device. Each consecutive verse begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This verse reads in the Masoretic translated Text, “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.” Some modern versions (like the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman) however, add the following verses to the passage, “The Lord is trustworthy in all he promises and faithful in all he does”, even though these words are found nowhere in all Masoretic manuscripts, but in some Dead Sea Scrolls and the horribly corrupt Septuagint).
Is. 14:12. Many counterfeits confuse the Lord Jesus Christ with Lucifer. They replace the word "Lucifer" with "morning star, day star, star of the morning". Morning star is a title reserved for the Lord Jesus in Rev 22:16. This is also the only time the word "Lucifer" is found in the Word of God. In Is 14:15 the counterfeit does not send Lucifer to "hell" but only to the confusing "Sheol", or the "grave".
Dan 3:25. Modern perversions like the ESV reads, “He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like A SON OF THE GODS.” This is a blatant attack on the Deity of Jesus Christ. Bible perversions put forth that Jesus, God the Son, was merely a son of the gods, and not the Son of God.
The New Testament:
The Heresy of Adoptionism. Firstly, before we go through in order as they appear in the NT, a bit on how modern Bible versions advance the heresy of adoptionism (this is the heresy that advances the view that Jesus Christ is the Son of God by adoption only and not by nature, that He is divine only in the sense that God the Father adopted him, which completely denies Christ’s deity and the Trinity — also known as Dynamic Monarchianism which developed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries). This heresy runs rampant throughout the CT (and thus corrupted modern versions such as the NIV and ESV) as illustrated by the frequent and deliberate removal of the full title of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Gnostics did not did not want to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was the Lord God or the Christ, and thus the denial is expected in the Gnostic-bred variants which are manifested in the CT and its subsequent modern perversions. For instance, E.W. Fowler in Evaluating Versions of the New Testament records some 221 times the CT omits the full title of the Lord Jesus Christ, along with some 213 omissions by the RSV. 1 Jn. 2:2 asks: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” That is the reality of the translators and many of its adherents. They remove and change enough of Christ’s deity to question His deity, but even just one change would be damaging enough, since it changes what God said of who He is.
Matt. 1:25. Many modern versions read, “but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” It should read however: “And knew her not till she had brought forth HER FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.” This is a blatant attack on the virgin birth of Christ by these counterfeit perversions.
Matt. 5:22. Many modern versions remove the words “without a cause” from this passage, “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment...” God forbids anger WITHOUT A CAUSE, but not anger with a cause, which Jesus demonstrated multiple times (Num 11:1, 10; Mk 3:5; Jn 2:13-17; etc) as did Moses (Ex 32:22; etc) Paul (Ac 13:9-12) and others, and we are commanded to do the same (Eph 4:26; 2 Cor 7:11; Ju 1:3), but heretics like the modern Bible translators and adherents don’t like receiving anger over their rebellion and evil, and calling good evil and evil good, so they remove the clause, effectively causing a contradiction in Scripture and turning Jesus into a sinner. That is both evil and blasphemous!
Matt. 6:13. Many modern versions completely remove the last half of this passage: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” This is an attack on the Lords prayer, and Gods sovereignty and glory.
Matt. 9:13. Many modern versions remove the word “repentance” from this passage where Jesus says, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to REPENTANCE.” So apparently God doesn’t call “sinners to repentance,” He just calls them to something, we just don’t know what. Removing “repentance” nullifies this passage and renders it useless. No man can be saved without repentance, and it is certainly true that the devil, the author behind modern versions, does not want mankind to be saved.
Matt 18:11. Many modern versions completely omit the following words, following the CT: “FOR THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST.” This is a blatant attack on God’s purpose for coming to earth, and His desire to save all of mankind. Satan doesn’t want people to be saved, so he doesn’t want people to know God’s purpose for His earthly sojourn. That this omission is found in modern perversions comes as no shock, since many are influenced by Reformed-Calvinistic theology. The ESV for instance is written entirely with this theology as an eisegetical backbone, which follows that God sovereignly elected people before birth to eternal life or eternal reprobation. In that sense, the Calvinists are justified because there would be no purpose in seeking to save that which was lost, since the only ones lost are the non-elect and you can’t do anything to change that, their eternal reprobation was determined before the foundation the world, so there would be no point in seeking after these non-elect. The same principle applies to the actual elect — they are going to be elect regardless of their will, so the passage will have no influence on that determination.
Matt. 19:9. Many modern versions attack God’s disallowance of remarriage, which He calls adultery, by omitting the nullifying clause, the last half of this passage, which follows the CT: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: AND WHOSO MARRIETH HER WHICH IS PUT AWAY DOTH COMMIT ADULTERY.” God forbids remarriage of someone that is separated or divorced (cf. Matt 19:3-19; Mk 10:2-12; Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39) — it’s an act of ongoing adultery that is only stopped upon repentance which requires the sin to cease, but modern Bible translators and adherents want a license to live in sin, so they remove the no remarriage clause. I have personally witnessed this despicable corruption put into practice.
Matt. 20:20. Many modern versions remove the words "worshipping him" and rob the Lord Jesus Christ of worship that He is worthy of, following the CT. Some translations replace "worshipping him" with "kneeling down" or "kneeling before", but just simply "kneeling" is not necessarily worship. The demons bowed themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, but were they worshipping Him?
Matt 23:14. Many modern versions completely omit this passage, following the CT: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” This is a direct attack on God’s injunction to hypocrites, which hypocrites don’t like. Hypocrites are always lost people, including those who add, omit or change the Word of God in the modern perversions, hence the complete removal of their greater damnation of condemnation.
Matt. 26:28. Many modern versions replace the phrase "new testament" with the generic phrase "new agreement" or "new covenant". This is an obvious attack on the written Word of God. It’s interesting, even though these perversions remove the phrase "new testament", they do not change the title of their NT to "New Agreement" or "New Covenant.” Why not?
Mk. 3:29. Many modern versions change the serious consequences of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost from "eternal damnation" to "eternal sin" or "eternal condemnation.” It severely softens the warning and charge of eternal hell fire, changing what God said and meant.
Mk. 9:44, 36. Many modern versions completely omit: “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched . . . Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (vv. 44, 46), an obvious and blatant attack the doctrine of hell. Satan wants to downplay or even attempt to remove any fear of eternal hell fire from God’s creation, so that they follow him and his demonic angels into this lake that God built for them.
Mk. 11:26. Attack on Forgiveness in The entire passage that commands forgiving others is omitted: “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
Mk. 15:28. Many modern versions completely omit this passage, following the CT: “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.” The omission of this verse leaves the prophetic passage of Is 53:12 concerning Jesus Christ, unfulfilled. It is an attack on prophecy and on the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s inspired words.
Lk. 4:4. Many modern versions remove the last half of this passage: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” This is another assault on the Word of God. In Lk 4:4, the Lord Jesus Christ is quoting De 8:3. Do they believe the Lord Jesus, the Word of God, the Author of Holy Script, didn’t know what De 8:3 says? Or do they just not want to live by every word that cometh out of the mouth of God?
Lk. 4:8. Many modern versions remove the words "get thee behind me, Satan.” Here Christ openly rebukes Satan — but the perversions stemming from the CT do not like reproof and rebuke. Yes indeed, and so we see everywhere in Evangelical-land and Reformed-land, when they are reproved and rebuked for their embracement or promotion of error, sin, and heresy.
Lk. 16:23. Many modern versions refuse to translate the Greek word "haides” into its English word. Rather than translate "haides" to the word "hell", the counterfeit will transliterate the Greek word "haides" into the English "hades,” softening the awful and literal place of Hell. By this trick the perversions stemming from the CT attempt to extinguish the flames of hell. “Hades” may or may not be “hell” since “haides” also means grave. Hell on the other hand is more than a grave: it is flames, torments, weeping and wailing, complete darkness — forever. I believe some of the translators did not like the idea of hell much, considering their precarious state of corrupting the very Word of God (Rev 22:18-19).
Jn 3:13. Many modern versions remove the last portion of this passage, “which is in heaven,” which reads in its entirety, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.” This verse is teaching Christ’s Deity, the omnipresence of the Lord; while localized on earth, He is at the very same time omnipresent in the Spirit. Who is it that has a problem with the omnipresence of the Lord? Yes, the Devil does, who is the father of gnostics. Every person that uses a modern perversion is supporting the work of the Devil.
Jn. 3:15. Many modern versions remove the words “in him” from this passage, which should read: “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." This is a blasphemous attack on Jesus Christ and salvation in Him.
Jn. 4:24. Many modern versions change "God is a spirit" to "God is spirit.” By removing the critical article “a,” the counterfeits teach an impersonal, formless, esoteric, new-age "spirit god,” that is not necessarily a Person of the Godhead.
Jn. 6:47. Many modern versions remove the critical personal words, “On me,” in this passage which reads in the God-inspired and preserved text: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth ON ME hath everlasting life.” Here is how the modern perversions read: “Truly, truly I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” “Believes” what? This is a blatant attack on the doctrine of salvation.
Jn. 7:8. Many modern versions remove the crucial word “yet” from this passage, which actually turns Jesus into a liar, and thus a sinner like you and I. The passage from the right text, the Received Text, says, “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come." Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, "Aleph" (Sinai), and some of the modern perversions, He was. According to the corrupt Critical Text, the word "yet" must be removed. Why do I say this removal of "yet" makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not?
Jn. 14:16. Many modern versions change the Holy Spirit from a loving, concerned "Comforter" to a” Helper, Counsellor.” Though He is the latter as well, the passage is not referring to that but to His nature and character of Comforter.
Ac. 2:47. Many modern versions change the completed act of "saved" to the ongoing, working, in progress "being saved.” With this change, the perversions deny the complete and finished work of Christ and salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ to a progressive, salvation by works. You are no longer "saved" but in the process of "being saved.” The same occurs in 1 Cor 1:18 and 2 Cor 2:15. This is one of the reasons why progressive “salvation” is popular in evangelicalism and other so-called Christian groups today. Its a “damnable heresy” (2 Pet 2:1) and here we can see an element of its origin.
Ac. 4:27. Many modern versions abort the Lord Jesus Christ as the Father’s "holy child" to His "holy servant.” A subtle (Gen 3:1) and clever denial of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. They do the same again in Ac 4:30. God the Father has many "holy servants” but only one "holy child" (Is 9:6).
Ac. 8:37. Many modern versions completely remove this wonderful verse, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” This is the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. The perversions stop him from getting saved, and stop people from seeing the need of personal conversion before water baptism. This is the best verse in the Bible supporting both believer’s baptism and immersion only. Although the principle of believers baptism is left in a few scriptures, this is the only verse that directly says you must believe before you can be baptized. The exceedingly heretical and apostates Westcott and Hort and the RSV translation committee surely revealed their true colours and fidelity to the tradition of infant baptism (and pouring/sprinkling) by removing this incredibly important scripture. Some modern perversion counterfeits are a little more subtle than others. They do not remove the verse from the text, but will add a footnote questioning the verse and plant a seed of doubt. Sound familiar? "Yea, hath God said?"
Ac. 9:5-6. Many modern versions remove half of each of these passages, blatantly attacking the salvation testimony of the Apostle Paul. The words capitalized here are omitted, “And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” This is what modern perversions read, such as the ESV: “And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The actual testimony of Paul is completely omitted. Unbelievable! Why would someone so hate a true testimony of salvation, so as to remove it?
Ac. 17:29. The modern versions change "Godhead" to the new age doctrine of "Divine Nature" or "Divine Being.” “Godhead” is in direct reference to the Trinity, so this change also attacks the Trinity of God.
Rom. 1:16. Many modern versions remove the words “of Christ” which should read from the right text: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel OF CHRIST: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." The heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove the two words, "of Christ" in this verse. Because of this, the modern perversions also remove these words. This certainly is doctrine affected. "Gospel" means "good news" or a "good announcement." What "gospel" could be inserted there instead of the "gospel of Christ"? Was it the good news about a pay raise or about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine!
1 Cor. 1:21. Many modern versions change "the foolishness of preaching” to the "foolishness of what was preached" or "foolishness of the message preached.” Yikes. The deceitful perversions change the object of "foolishness" from the act of "preaching" to the "message" that is preached — which is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. There’s NOTHING "foolish" about the "message" of Jesus Christ — it’s the greatest and most reasonable message in the history of the universe! 1 Cor 1:18, the context, shines some eye-opening light on the modern perversions , which reads: "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." It indicts the publishers and those that continue to stand behind the perversions in spite of the proof, as being unsaved (i.e. fools, which are always unsaved people in the Bible).
1 Cor. 6:9. Many modern versions change the word "effeminate" to "homosexual" or "male prostitutes.” This dilutes the serious warning of just the appearance or mannerism (effeminate) to the sexual act of homosexuals.
2 Cor. 2:17. Many modern versions change the word "corrupt” in “corrupt the word of God" to "peddling (or selling) the word of God.” An apparent attempt by the perversion translators to hide the fact they are "corrupting the word of God.” It actually won’t work; God knows what they are doing.
2 Cor. 10:5. Many modern versions change "imaginations" to "arguments" or "obstacles" or "speculations.” This removes the spiritual identification to where sin begins — in our imaginations.
Phil 2:6. Many modern versions read, ”who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” while it should say: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The difference here is really the difference between heaven and hell. The modern perversions rob Jesus of His deity, asserting He couldn't grasp being equal with God. Maybe that is why many neo-evangelicals are so confused about Christology and embrace there heresy of kenoticism. Jesus is Almighty God (Rev. 1:8) and He knew that, but modern perversions are blasphemous, attacking the Deity of Christ.
Col. 1:14. Many modern versions remove the phrase "through his blood.” But salvation is only "through his blood.” “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin” (Heb 9:22). This is an attack on soteriology.
1 Th. 5:22. Many modern versions change "all appearance of evil" to "every form (or kind) of evil,” which again dilutes and softens the message and gives an opening to dabbling with everything definitely being included in the word. “All” means ALL, not “every form” or “every kind.”
1 Tim. 3:16. Many modern versions change the crucial word "God" to the unmodified, vague pronoun "he.” The passage is supposed to read in the Received Text: “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.” This is one of the clearest passage in the Bible on Christ’s deity, that Jesus Christ was "God manifest in the flesh" but the perversions attempt to destroy His deity because of the heretical unitarian publishers who rejected this truth. This is also nonsensical and ridiculous since all of mankind is manifest in the flesh.
1 Tim. 6:10. Many modern versions add the words "kinds of.” This addition dilutes the conclusive statement, "the love of money is the root of all evil" to the subjective "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” This is an exaltation of some mans little throne above God in their opposition to His conclusiveness.
2 Tim. 2:15. Many modern versions remove the word "study.” It appears the counterfeits do not want you to study your Bible. You might just find out they have been mutilated, butchered, and abused. Maybe that is why majority of professing Christians do not study the Bible at all today. But then, who would be driven to study out of a perversion that has been mutilated, butchered, and abused, and is certainly not the Word of God. There wouldn’t be much motivation for that.
1 Jn. 5:7. Many modern versions Many modern versions attack the Trinity by only having, “For there are three that testify” and removing all these words: “FOR THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.” This incredibly powerful statement on God’s Trinity, is diabolically attacked by the CT and practically every modern perversion.
Rev. 1:5. Many modern versions change the wonderful words "washed us from our sins in his own blood," to "loosed" or "freed" us from our sins. Rev. 1:5 is the only passage in the Bible that says you are washed in the blood, which is precisely what occurs in salvation, but the perversions destroy it. What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. But Satan and his cohorts do not like this life-changing truth.
Many other verses are corrupted, perverted, and mutilated, resulting in the following false and blasphemous teachings:
Jesus had a sin nature like mankind;
God had a fallen nature;
Joseph, not God, was the father of Jesus (Lk 2:33);
Lucifer (Satan) is turned into the Saviour (Is 14:12; cf. 2 Pet 1:19; Lk 10:18);
Satan is an instrument of God and will ultimately be pardoned;
Man is saved by the symbolic death of Christ, not by the blood of Christ (hence the bloodless “gospel” of John MacArthur, a major promotor of the ESV);
Christ was a created being and therefore had a beginning in time;
Man is saved through sacraments and faith in his own works, not that of Christ’s;
Et cetra.
It’s Quiz Time! The Modern Bible Version Quiz, Using the NIV as Example.
Instructions: Using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (and not from footnotes either but from the text alone).
Fill in the missing words in Matt 5:44. “Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, ____ _____ to them that hate you, and pray for them that _______ ________ ________ and persecute you.”
According to Matt 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
According to Matt 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
According to Matt 27:2, what was Pilate’s first name?
In Matt 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
In Mk 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to:
According to Mk 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
According to Lk 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.) What is his title or last name?
In Lk 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
In Lk 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? And, what did He come to do?
In Lk 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus? According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
In Lk 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
Jn 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. As Jesus spoke, where was the Son of man?
What happened each year as told in Jn 5:4?
In Jn 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
In Ac 8:37, what is the one requirement for water baptism?
What did Saul ask Jesus in Ac 9:6?
Write the name of the man mentioned in Ac 15:34.
Study Ac 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul?
What did the chief captain command?
Copy Rom 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
1 Tim 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
In the second part of 1 Pet 4:14, how do “they” speak of Christ? And, what do Christians do?
Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in 1 Jn 5:7?
Rev 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In this verse Jesus said, “I am the A__________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:”
Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it’s much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. So now what do you think of this “accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible”? If these 25 questions haven’t served to show you that the NIV is not the Word of God, based on a corrupted version of God’s Word (Critical Greek text), it is possible to write up another quiz with 25 more questions, or even 250, and you will still flunk the test. If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible
For a detailed evaluation of the English Standard Version (ESV) click on the link.
For a detailed evaluation of the New King James Version (NKJV) click on the link.
The modern Bible perversions and Critical Text basis is so unscriptural and humanistic and so diabolical, few things compare to it or are more dangerous. Hence why I call them [per]versions and not versions of God’s Word. They are not God’s Word, though they contain some of God’s Word, like a devotional might have. At best they are a commentary.
Do you use a modern “Bible” perversion? Do you understand now the issues with this? Or will you remain willfully, stubbornly and proudfully ignorant, searing your conscience and continuing to gladly collaborate with and contribute to the “many that corrupt the word of God” (2 Cor 2:17)?
Have you ever read what Rev 22:18-19 warns?
"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."
Ez 6:11 also decrees how serious of a matter it is to alter God’s Word:
“Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this.”
He was referring to the word of Cyprus, the decree to build the temple at Jerusalem (Ez 6:1-10), which was the inspired Word of God.
In reality, the earthly death of those who have altered God’s Word or have contributed to it while searing their conscience over this serious tampering with the very words of the Living God and Creator of all, is nothing in comparison to what they have waiting for them for all eternity (Rev 22:18-19)
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8)
5. Rebutting Some of the Myths and Lies about the KJV, and Modern Versions.
There are many myths and lies that are perpetuated today by the defenders of the modern Bible versions or perversions, of which the more popular ones will be briefly cleared up below.
There is no issue as important to the Christian world as this issue of Bible versions. This is God’s Word that we are dealing with here, which He has magnified above His own name! (Ps 138:2).
Its important to mention before beginning that Ddefending the KJV does not mean that the KJV was given by inspiration or that it is “advanced revelation” or that it is better than the Hebrew and Greek or that it was perfect in every detail (human errors creep into translations), like the erroneous and heretical position of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger.
It is NOT true that the Bible version issue is largely a choice between the old language of the KJV and the updated language of the modern versions. This is a lie propagated out of ignorance or out of wilful dishonesty. The devil is behind perversion of Scripture as we see right from the start in the Garden of Eden, where he added, omitted and changed the Word of God in his dealings with Eve (Gen 3). Men like Westcott and Hort continued this Satanic tradition, and henceforth, modern Bible translators and textual critics.
It is NOT true that the changes to the modern versions do not affect doctrine. There are some well known men that have propagated this myth and lie over the years but its patently untrue. For instance, Robert Sumner wrote: "The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine." This is false! Doctrine is affected. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: "No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading." False, again. H.S. Miller wrote: "No doctrine is affected." False again. Stanley Gundry stated: "Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us." False again. Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine." False again! Some examples, which are covered in detail in the previous section:
The doctrine of fasting and prayer is gone in most modern perversions.
The doctrine of hell is affected (Mk 9:44, 47 and the word removed or softened from many passages).
The doctrine of salvation in Jesus Christ is affected (Jn 3:15; 6:47; Rom 1:16)
The doctrine of Christ’s sunlessness and Deity is affected (Jn 7:8).
These are certainly major theological doctrines, but there are yet much more, some of which are mentioned in the previous section. 356 doctrinal passages have been changed in the Critical Text that directly affect doctrine, which are listed by Jack Moorman in Missing in Modern Bibles.
It is NOT true that the difference between the Greek Received Text and the Greek Critical Text is minor, amounting to only one page of material. This myth that there is very little difference between the Received Text underlying the KJV and other ancient Protestant versions and the Westcott-Hort Greek text underlying most of the modern versions, is unequivocally false. Westcott and Hort themselves made this claim in their day, and it is widely repeated today. Hort stated: “...the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text” (F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1882, vol. II, p. 2).
The CT is substantially shorter than the TR Greek due to all the omissions. The text is shorter by 2,886 words, which is the equivalent of the omission of the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter.
The CT omits or questions 45 entire verses.
The CT additionally omits significant portions of 185 other verses.
It is NOT true that the KJV is loaded with archaic words difficult to read and understand. So-called archaisms is another logical fallacy to excuse not using the KJV and to replace it with the modern perversions. The claim that the KJV has “many” archaic words and therefore not understandable is overstated. There are only about 200 archaic words in the KJV. These old words comprise only 0.1% of the KJV. A good dictionary like Webster contains entries for most of these words. The Defined KJB published by The Bible For Today Press has the meanings of all the archaic words footnoted. Other great sources of help are the “Bible Word List” published by the Trinitarian Bible Society (free download), and the Believers Bible Dictionary by David Cloud.
It is NOT true that the scholarship of the Reformation era was inferior to that of today. The very opposite is in fact true. I mean polar opposites. The scholarly basis of the KJV translators were second to none, and majority were godly pious men. All of them had mastered English as well as the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, to the scholarly level, and many of them were experts in many other languages, such as the cognate or brother-sister- cousin related languages that shed light on the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek (thus unlocking difficult word translations), for instance Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, Coptic, Syriac, and others. For example, Dr. Lancelot Andrews had mastered fifteen languages. Someone said that if Dr. Andrews had been present at the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel, he could have served as interpreter general. Dr. Miles Smith was an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic. They were almost as familiar to him as his native tongue. Smith went through both the Greek and Latin church Fathers, making annotations on them all. Sir Henry Saville was proficient in both Greek and mathematics. He became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. Saville translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published the same with notes. He published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, the Writers of English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections on the Elements of Euclid. He was the first to edit the complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He was a profound, and exact scholar. John Bois was expert in Hebrew as well as Greek. He studied at his father's knee. In fact, at the age of five, he had read the whole Bible in Hebrew! At the age of six, John Bois was able to write Hebrew in a clear and elegant style. If you know anything about the Hebrew letters, it's difficult to write in an elegant style, or in any style, for that matter. Much more could be said about John Bois. These are only some of the 40+ men that worked on the translation over a span of seven years, who meticulously examined each word no less than 14x, and you can read more about these men in The Translators Revived: A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible (free download) by Alexander McClure. King James of England did not translate it: he only authorized the translation of a new Bible. Modern "translators/paraphrasers" are linguistically illiterate when compared to the men who gave us our KJV. They truly were “giants”! There is absolutely NO comparison between the scholarly environment of that day, with that of today, with majority of so-called “scholars” of our day also being blatant ungodly heretics and apostates. Today’s evangelical scholarship is utterly undependable.
It is NOT true that those who defend the King James Bible believe that the preserved Word of God is only in English and that God’s people should not study Greek and Hebrew. This is only true of a very small minority of people that hold to the position of such individuals as Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. Ruckman held to the view that the KJV is separately inspired of God, contains advanced revelation, and thus superior to the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, which is the same position embraced by other men. (Clicking the link will elaborate their seriously fallacious and erroneous position). Ruckman’s position is heretical because inspiration in the light of what Scripture teaches, such as 2 Tim 3:16, and 2 Pet 1:21, is applicable only to the original writers (OT Prophets and NT Apostles), original autographs (66 books of canonical Scripture), and original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).
It is NOT true that the Westcott and Hort were evangelical Bible believers. They were about polar opposites of Bible believing Christian as one could get. They did not believe in the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration and preservation. They did not believe that the Bible is totally inerrant and infallible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly rejected the "idea of the infallibility of the Bible." Hort said the same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot. When Westcott became the Bishop of Durham, the Durham University Journal welcomed him with the praise that he was "free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration". Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral." Westcott taught that the idea of "propitiating God" was "foreign to the New Testament." He taught that salvation came from changing the character of the one who offended God. This is consistent with his statement that, "A Christian never is but is always becoming a Christian." He held to a view of universal salvation. They denied the Deity of Christ. There are many other areas that reflected the heresies of Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Gen 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the "Christian socialist" movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote "Christian socialism" and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union). Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome. Both honoured rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Frederick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. The list goes on and on. They were evil, heretical, occult-following demos possessed change agents of Satan (2 Cor 11:12-15). They were both strangers to the saving grace of God, and enemies of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is NOT true that the KJV has been updated in thousands of places and revised many times. There have been grammar changes and punctuation changes and spelling changes, with only a handful of word changes. After the KJV was published in 1611, it went through a number of revisions, all of which were completed by 1629. The revisions that occurred between 1611 and 1638 were due to printing errors. The KJV translators themselves, namely, Samuel Ward and John Bois, corrected these errors. In the course of typesetting, the printers had inadvertently left out words or phrases; all such manifest typographical errors had been corrected. For example, Ps 69:32 of the 1611 edition read “good” instead of “God.” This was clearly a printer’s error, and was corrected in 1617. Apart from a slight revision in 1638, there followed several facetious attempts to revise the KJV between 1638-1762 but none were successful. The final revision of the KJV was done between 1762 and 1769. The 1762 revision had to do with spelling. For example, old forms that had an “e” after verbs, and “u” instead of “v,” and “f” for “s” were all standardized to conform to modern spelling. For example, “feare” is “fear,” “mooued” is “moved,” and “euill” is “evil,” and “alfo,” is “also.” All these Gothic and German spelling peculiarities have been Romanised. 1769 saw an updating of weights, measures, and coins. This 1769 edition of the KJV is the one popularly in print today. It is important to note that the 1769 edition is essentially the same as the 1611.
It is NOT true that the King James translators said that all of the versions are good and acceptable, that even the worst English versions were viewed as the Word of God. Those that parrot this lie, treat the translator words in the preface of the KJV like they treat the words of God: with disdain, private interpretation, and corruption. Did the KJV translators really say that every translation of the Bible even if filled with grammatical, translational, or doctrinal errors could be rightly called the Word of God? They certainly did not. The context in which they wrote those words clearly reveals this: “Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace.” It is clear that by the word “meanest” they do not mean “worst” (i.e. “evil in the highest degree”). Who would dare mistranslate the king’s speech? Clearly they were not talking about sense but style. By “meanest” they meant poor in literary grace. When beginning Greek students translate their Greek Bible into English, it may be rough and wooden; but if literal and precise, it is the Word of God. The KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, certainly did not humour wicked or corrupt versions. It is utterly ridiculous and absurd to suggest that they did. Anti-KJVists, especially the Reformed Calvinists, have thus put words into the mouths of the KJV translators to make them mean what they did not mean by “meanest” in a mean attempt to demean the pro-KJV position. But that is how they flow and they do it on a daily basis in practically every debate or argument that they participate.
It is NOT true that those who defend the English Authorized King James Bible and its underling Texts, Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Received Texts, are creating division. These are merely standing in the old paths (Jer. 6:16). The division is actually being caused by those who are introducing the new, the “modern” versions and things.
It is NOT true that the “thees” and “thous” of the KJV should be removed because that was merely Elizabethan English and to remove them has no doctrinal significance. Thee and thou, you and ye are more than style in the KJV; they identify singular and plural. Thee, thou and thine are always singular. Ye, you and your are always plural. In modern English, you and your are interchangeably singular or plural. An example of the need for this accuracy is found in Jn. 3:7: "Marvel not that I said unto thee (Nicodemus), ye (everybody) must be born again."
It is NOT true that the KJV translators claimed to be inspired of God in their work. The KJV translators did not claim to be inspired by God in their translation work, and rightly so because truly they were not. Only the Biblical writers (e.g. Moses, David, Matthew, Paul etc) were inspired of God to write the Scriptures. Nevertheless, it must be observed that the KJV translators recognised with deep reverence that the sacred texts from which they were translating were the inspired Word of God. This is why they ardently desired to make their translation as accurate as possible despite their own shortcomings and imperfections. In contrast to this, majority who are involved in modern Bible translation work today do not have such a high regard for the texts they translate, as evidenced from the bold liberties they are willing to take with the text.
I defend the KJV because it is superior in every way. The KJV has superior texts, both Hebrew and Greek. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek. The KJV has superior technique of translation. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior technique of translation. The KJV has superior translators (men like Lancelot Andrews, William Bedwell, Miles Smith, Henry Saville, and John Bois). This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior translators. The KJV has superior theology. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior theology.
Conclusion
The facts, evidence and proof presented herein speaks for itself. Modern Bible versions are certainly not better than the KJV. They are not even on the same playing field. They are way, way inferior to any KJV, in both the Text issue and the Translation methodology, and cannot even be put into the classification of the Word of God. All modern translations must be rejected because they are translated from utterly corrupted texts that have omitted a large volume of Bible verses and words, added to the Word of God, and changed the Word by routinely translating words in such fashion so as to diminish or remove important doctrines of Scripture.
Historic Baptists, other fundamentalists, evangelicals, and everyone else who affirms the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures must hold to the TR (Textus Receptus) and reject the CT (Critical Text). However, those who believe in an inspired Bible are monumentally inconsistent if they defend the errant Greek Critical Text or employ the modern English Bible versions translated from it. All who believe in a God-breathed Book revealed from heaven should reject as corrupt the Greek CT and the modern English versions translated from it. On the other hand, theological modernists, majority evangelicals and reformed-calvinists and other apostates and heretics are consistent when they defend the Greek Critical Text and the modern Bible versions translated from it and reject the inerrant Textus Receptus and the KJV that accurately translates it into the English language.
It is pretty evident that modern Bible versions are neither the same or better than the King James Version but are indeed corrupt. Saved people however,
“are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:” (2 Cor 2:17a).
The KJV is the best English translation of the Scriptures by a mile, without comparison in fact, translated by godly men from uncorrupted Hebrew and Greek texts that God both inspired and preserved as promised. Among all English Bibles today there is none that can surpass the KJV or even come close. Indeed the KJV is the very Word of God for English speaking people, and fully reliable and trustworthy. Thus it should be used exclusively not only for public ministry but also private study.
A list of excellent resources and references on this issue for further reading:
The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (free electronic copy available here)
The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills (free electronic copy available here)
Thou Shalt Keep Them by Kent Brandenburg (no free electronic copy available, purchase here)
The Bible Version Question & Answer Database by David W. Cloud (free electronic copy available here)
Missing in Modern Bibles by Jack Moorman (free electronic copy here)
Forever Settled by Jack Moorman (free electronic copy here)
What nonsense
Hi Dan,
My apologies for not getting back to your comments sooner, but don’t get the wrong idea — it wasn’t because I was chewing on something you wrote. Not even one thing you wrote was remotely true. There was never even an opportunity to chew on it, as poison was suspected. The below is one part of the antidote for what you wrote.
1. First of all, the Septuagint (LXX) is extremely inaccurate and corrupt, along the same lines as modern corruptions, though not the exact same sort of corruptions, since obviously the foundational issue with the modern versions is the corrupt Critical Text, which came into existence in the late 19th century only. I did actually mention the…
All that ink and not one mention of the Septuagint (and some of the possible problems with the Masoretic being used instead of the Septuagint...which was discovered in Dead Sea Scroll findings) which both Yeshua and his apostolic workers quoted from thus confirming their belief in the Septuagint's accuracy of equivalency to original paleo-Hebrew of OT. Nor did you mention the fact that King James had certain "guidelines" the translators were to follow to preserve certain traditions of that day (1600's) that have altered how we think. If KJV is so "accurate" why the purposeful mistranslation of ekklesia into "church" instead of assembly or congregation? Chew on that one awhile.