Transcript Document

The King James
Only Controversy
Separating Fact
From Fiction
Texe Marrs: “James White, a
boastful King James Bible opponent,
continues on his baseless crusade to
bash King James only believers. It
makes for a rather sad spectacle to
observe critics of the King James
Bible like Mr. White humiliate
themselves and show disrespect for
servants of God. I am praying he
will be given a repentant heart and
know the grave damage he is doing
to the kingdom of our Saviour.”
Elsewhere, Marrs calls White “a
servant of Satan” and “a devil.”
Gail Riplinger,
author of New Age
Bible Versions, calls
White “a rude,
crude heretic” and a
“serial soul-killer.”
Don’t They Have A Point?
Compare:
1 Timothy 3:16, KJV:
without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the flesh….
But look at the NASB:
By common confession, great is the
mystery of godliness: He who was
revealed in the flesh,
And Compare These:
Reference
Modern Vers.
KJV
Matthew 4:18
he
Jesus
Acts 19:10
the Lord
the Lord Jesus
1 Cor 9:1
Jesus
Jesus Christ
2 Cor 5:18
Christ
Jesus Christ
Acts 16:31
Lord Jesus
Lord Jesus Christ
2 John 3
Jesus Christ
Lord Jesus Christ
A test for all the folks using an NIV
in the audience: Don’t think
there’s really much of a difference?
Think your translation is just
“easier to read”? OK, let’s say you
are sitting in your front room with
a Mormon missionary, and he
takes out his Bible (KJV) and asks
you to read with him from John
5:4. Go ahead, look it up. What
will you do?
But the defenders of the
modern translations are not
without their arguments as
well. There are many issues
one can raise in looking at
the KJV. Let’s look at a few
examples:
First, remember the
appearance of “God” at 1
Timothy 3:16 in the KJV?
Well, look at this:
John 1:18, KJV, says:
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.
But the NRSV reads:
No one has ever seen God. It is God
the only Son, who is close to the
Father's heart, who has made him
known.
In the same way, the KJV agrees with
the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT in not
having a reference of prayer to Christ
at John 14:14. Modern translations
agree that here the Lord speaks of
prayer to Himself, while the KJV lacks
the word “me” in the phrase “If you
ask ME anything in my name…”
NASB: “If you ask ME anything….”
KJV: “If you ask anything….”
Compare the KJV at Rev. 1:8:
I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the ending, saith the
Lord, which is, and which was, and
which is to come, the Almighty.
But the NASB:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega,"
says the Lord God, "who is and who
was and who is to come, the
Almighty."
How is this for a Conspiracy?
NASB, 1 John 3:1:
See how great a love the Father has
bestowed on us, that we would be called
children of God; and such we are.
But Look at the KJV!
Behold, what manner of love the Father
hath bestowed upon us, that we should
be called the sons of God:
What happened to adoption as sons?
But, in reality, there is no conspiracy
involved on either side. There are
simple, logical reasons why there are
differences in translations.
Unfortunately, few people take the
time to learn the backgrounds of the
Bible, hence, they are easily misled and
upset by variations that are perfectly
understandable and do not indicate
any kind of evil intention or corruption.
Let’s look at some of the
passages cited above and see…
Let’s start with 1 Timothy 3:16, one of
the favorite passages of KJV Only
advocates. To understand why
modern translations differ from the
KJV/NKJV, we need to know
something about the texts from which
these translations came. The KJV/
NKJV NT’s are based upon a 16th
century Greek text known today as the
“Textus Receptus.” Modern translations are based upon the NestleAland Greek text of this century.
The “Textus Receptus” represents what
is called the “Byzantine” family of
manuscripts. These manuscripts
constitute 4/5th of the extant Greek texts
in our possession. Yet, the vast majority
of them come from the 10th through 15th
centuries. That is, they represent the
later, ecclesiastical text, rather than the
more primitive text of the first centuries.
This is the “Majority Text,” though the TR
differs in over 1800 places from the
“Majority Text” type.
What was the “Majority Text”
during the First Millennium?
Alexandrian Manuscripts
II
III
IV
V
VI
Byzantine Manuscripts
VII
VIII
IX
XVI
XV
XIV
XIII
XII
XI
X
IX
VIII
VII
VI
Minuscules
Uncials
v
Papyri
IV
III
II
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
An example of the style of the early
manuscripts of the New Testament:
dikawqentesounekpistewseirhnhnecomenprostonqsdiatoukuhmwnihso
ucristoudioukaithnprosagwghneschkamenthpisteieisthncarin
Around the 9th century the minuscule
text became predominant, which is
very similar to our modern texts:
Dikaiwqe,ntej ou=n evk pi,stewj eivrh,nhn e;comen pro.j to.n qeo.n
dia. tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n VIhsou/
XVI
XV
XIV
XIII
XII
XI
X
IX
VIII
VII
VI
Minuscules
Uncials
v
Papyri
IV
III
II
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
The “Textus Receptus” was created by
the work of a Roman Catholic priest and
scholar, the “Prince of the Humanists,”
Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus printed
and published the first edition of the
Greek NT in 1516. The 3rd edition of his
text was particularly influential. A total
of five editions came from him; after him,
Stephanus (1555) and Beza (1598)
edited the work, and it was used by the
KJV translators for their NT (1604-1611).
Modern texts, however, are based upon
an “eclectic” text that draws from a
wider variety of sources than the TR,
including manuscripts unknown in the
days of Erasmus. Some of the papyri
manuscripts used in the modern NestleAland 27th edition date to as early as AD
125. But these different sources, being
more primitive, do not show the effect of
long-term transcription seen in the
Byzantine texts, and hence are not as
“full” as the TR.
When we speak of textual differences
between the TR and modern texts, we
need to immediately emphasize
something that is often lost in the
debate. There is no doctrine of the
Christian faith that is based upon any
single text; and no doctrine of the faith
is changed or altered by any variation
of the text. If one applies the same
rules of exegesis to the TR and the NA
27th edition, the results will be the
same. The variations do not change
the message.
Alexandrian
Tradition
Byzantine Tradition
Latin Vulgate
Textus Receptus
Nestle-Aland
KJV
NASB
1611
NIV
NKJV
1960
1984
1978
What does all of this have to do with 1
Timothy 3:16? Let’s see:
The difference between the two passages, as
they would have been written originally, would
be:
KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRI
ONQSEFANERWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN
KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRI
ONOSEFANERWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN
What does all of this have to do with 1
Timothy 3:16? Let’s see:
The difference between the two passages, as
they would have been written originally, would
be:
KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRI
ONQSEFANERWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN
KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRI
ONOSEFANERWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN
QS
OS
= God
= He who
KJV Only literature abounds with
examples of circular argumentation at
this point. Keep in mind that for the vast
majority of KJV Only advocates, this is the
starting point in their thought:
The King James Bible ALONE
=
The Word of God ALONE
When we realize this, we can understand
why they argue as they do.
The result of this mindset is seen in the
language used in this debate: instead of
asking “What did John or Paul or Peter
originally write” we hear about how
modern translations have REMOVED this
or DELETED that or ADDED this or
CHANGED that. All these loaded words
assume that the KJV is the standard by
which all others are to be judged. Some
KJV Only folks go so far as to say the
Greek and Hebrew manuscripts
themselves must be judged by
comparison with the KJV!
How about John 1:18?
The earliest manuscripts of John, P66 and
P75 (papyri manuscripts dating around
AD 200), as well as two of the earliest
uncial manuscripts, a and B, (i.e. Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) all read,
monogenh.j qeo.j, literally, “unique God” or “the
only Son who is God.” The bulk of later
manuscripts read monogenh.j ui`o,j, “onlybegotten Son.” The KJV, following the
TR, reads “son.”
But some insist that the literal rendering, “onlybegotten God,” actually undercuts the deity of
Christ, hence, “it can’t be right.” Allegations of
“gnostic corruption” abound in KJV Only books.
But this is determining the text of Scripture not
on the basis of the best evidence available, but
on the basis of one’s own ideas of theology. In
point of fact, the phrase does NOT necessitate
any idea of inferiority regarding Christ: in fact,
while the phrase “only-begotten Son” was
prevalent in gnostic writings, the phrase
“unique God” does not appear in the extant
gnostic literature from the time period.
1 John 3:1 is an excellent example of a
simple scribal error, an error of sight
that is common to us all. Look at the
passage in Greek:
i;dete potaph.n avga,phn de,dwken h`mi/n o` path.r( i[na
te,kna qeou/ klhqw/men( kai. evsme,nÅ
You don’t have to know Greek to see
how an error could be made here. Look
at the last three words:
klhqw/men( kai. evsme,nÅ
Notice how two of these words end with
the same three letters:
klhqw/men( kai. evsme,n
Just as we often inadvertently skip
something when our eyes come back to
what we are copying because two words
end in a similar ending, such as “-ing” or
“-tion,” so too an ancient scribe, upon
writing klhqw/men then returned to the text
and instead of starting there, saw evsme,n
and inadvertently skipped the phrase.
In the same way, there is no
“conspiracy” at John 14:14.
Here the Alexandrian texts join
with a large portion of the
Byzantine texts in containing
the word “me.” But a part of
the Byzantine tradition does not
contain the word, and this part
underlies the TR. The Majority
Text contains the reading “me”
at this point, demonstrating
that the TR is not identical to
the Majority Text.
• What about quotations by early Christian
writers?
Many Christians quote from the NT in the letters,
sermons and commentaries preserved from the
early centuries of our era. Although we see about
100 writers using the Alexandrian, Western and
Caesarean text families in quotations from before
A.D. 400, the first person known to have used the
Byzantine type of text is John Chrysostom, who
died in A.D. 407.
• What about early translations?
We have translations of the NT made into
Latin, Syriac and Coptic (Egyptian) by A.D.
300. None of these use a Byzantine sort of
text but rather the Alexandrian or Western
text. The earliest Byzantine type translation
is the Syriac Peshitta, but there is no
evidence for its existence before the 5th
century A.D
Likewise, Revelation 1:8, and the
reference to “the Lord God” is another
example of where the TR even departs
from the entirety of the Byzantine
manuscript tradition. The vast majority
of texts, including the later ones, contain
this reading.
The TR in the book of Revelation is
particularly suspect. This is due to the fact
that Erasmus rushed his work on the book
and utilized only one manuscript of
Revelation. As a result, entire words exist
in the TR that are found nowhere else.
Here’s One of the “Big Ones”
Colossians 1:14
KJV
NIV
in whom we have
redemption
in whom we have
through his
redemption, the
blood, even the forgiveness of sins
forgiveness of sins.
It is on the basis of passages such as
this that KJV Only folks have
identified the NIV as the “bloodless
Bible.” But is such a charge true,
accurate, and honest?
No, it is not. First, any person
studying the passage might note that
Ephesians and Colossians contain
parallel passages. The parallel to
Colossians 1:14 in Ephesians is found
at Ephesians 1:7:
Ephesians 1:7
KJV
NIV
In whom we have
redemption through
his blood, the
forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches
of his grace;
In him we have
redemption through
his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, in
accordance with the
riches of God's grace
If the NIV was trying to hide the blood,
why include it here??
In reality the KJV here contains a
reading that goes against not only the
ancient manuscripts, but against the
vast majority of all manuscripts,
including the Byzantine. The earliest
manuscript to contain the added phrase
is from the 9th century. All of four
manuscripts, all dating long after the
original writing, contain the reading.
If KJV Only advocates were consistent
with their arguments, they would reject
this reading. Since they do not, they
prove that they are arguing in circles.
This is nowhere more clearly seen than
in the “textual emendation” found at
Revelation 16:5. Even our hymns have
been impacted by this textual variant.
All Greek manuscripts, of whatever
type, agree in reading as the NASB:
And I heard the angel of the waters
saying, "Righteous are You, who are
and who were, O Holy One, because
You judged these things;
The key phrase is “O Holy One.”
Compare the KJV:
And I heard the angel of the waters
say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which
art, and wast, and shalt be, because
thou hast judged thus.
Theodore Beza made a “conjectural
emendation” at this point: that’s a
change in the text that has no
manuscript support. He felt that the
text made more sense if it read “and
shalt be” than “O Holy One,” and he
thought the Greek words were similar
enough in form to explain it.
That is, he felt that these two Greek
words were close enough in form to
allow him to change the text:
o[sioj
evso,menoj
So against all manuscript evidence, this
reading persists in the TR today, and
we even sing the song, “who wert and
art and evermore shalt be” without
knowing our debt to Beza!
Which KJV do you have? And which
one should be the “standard” we are
to use?
Almost all KJV’s are actually the
1769 Blayney Revision of the AV, not
the 1611. But, there are different
kinds of KJV’s. The two most
prevalent are the Oxford and
Cambridge types. How can you tell
which you have? Look at Jeremiah
34:16:
Oxford Edition
Cambridge Edition
But ye turned and
polluted my name, and
caused every man his
servant, and every man
his handmaid, whom he
had set at liberty at their
pleasure, to return, and
brought them into
subjection, to be unto
you for servants and for
handmaids.
But ye turned and
polluted my name, and
caused every man his
servant, and every man
his handmaid, whom ye
had set at liberty at their
pleasure, to return, and
brought them into
subjection, to be unto
you for servants and for
handmaids.
Well then, has God preserved His Word
or not? That’s the question KJV Only
folks always come back to.
Unfortunately, they always seem to
assume that unless you have a perfect
English translation, you don’t have a
perfect Bible. Of course, English did
not come into existence until more
than 1,000 years after the last words
of Scripture were written. Hence,
making a perfect English translation
the standard is obviously an error.
Think of it this way: let’s say the
Constitution of the US was translated
into the language of a small island in
the Pacific. How much sense would it
make for someone on that island to
take one particular translation of the
Constitution, insist that this one
translation is “the” standard, and then
proclaim that unless this translation is
perfect, then no perfect Constitution
exists anywhere? Yet this is exactly
what KJV Onlyism is saying!
How, then, has God preserved His
Word? He has done so by making sure
that the New Testament was so quickly
distributed all over the known world
that there was never a time when any
one man/group/church could gather
up all copies and make wholesale
changes. By the third century entire
manuscripts were already buried: if
major changes were made after that
time, they would be easily detectable
by comparison with those earlier
manuscripts.
This means we can disprove the claims
of those who say the Bible has
undergone wholesale editing and
changes, such as Mormons, Muslims,
atheists, New Agers, the Jesus
Seminar, etc.
KJV Onlyism undercuts the most
foundational elements of our defense
of the veracity and accuracy of the
Scriptures, all in an attempt to
establish a “final authority” in an
English translation!
So what are we to conclude? First and
foremost that we don’t need conspiracy
theories complicating our lives. There is
no reason to embrace KJV Onlyism, for it
is a system (a tradition) that must
assume its conclusion to prove its
conclusion. As such, it is not something
that Christians, who love the truth, should
wish to embrace.
Next, we recognize that the Lord has
indeed preserved His Word, but He has
done so in a way other than that assumed
by KJV advocates.
And finally, that while there are
modern translations that we could
never recommend, it does not follow
that we must go back to a venerable
translation that exists in a language no
one has spoken for hundreds of years.
If we follow the Apostolic example, we
will give the Word of God to people in a
language that they can understand, not
one that leaves them bewildered.