The Perfect Bible

1. 400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James
Version by Dr. J. D. “Doc” Watson (15 pages)

2. Consistent Text Accuracy in the Authorized, King James,
Version by Dr. Larry Bednar (42 pages)

3. The Argument for the Inerrancy and the King James Bible
by Bryan C. Ross (18 pages)

4. A Defense of the Johannine Comma Setting the Record
Straight on I John 5:7-8 by Timothy W. Dunkin (41 pages)

5. Inspired Preservation - A Study of the Inseparable
Relationship Between Biblical Inspiration and Preservation
by Jesse M. Boyd (53 pages)

6. The Path to the King James Bible of 1611 (24 pages)

7. The AV Defense Booklet (191 pages)
+00 ]rars e| Tih|ita| Trnth

Thr Trgatv e| thr 7ing §anrs lrrsien

Dr. §. D. latsen
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
Editorial Note: This document contains a lecture delivered on December 9, 2011 in commemoration
of the 400
anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible, originally published on May 5, 1611.
Permission is granted to reproduce as along as it remains in its present form and no money is charged for
distribution. It is also available in an attractive 20-page booklet for $2.00 per copy (postage paid). Just
write: Sola Scriptura Publications – PO Box 235 – Meeker, CO – 81641


AY 5, 2011 MARKED THE 400
THE King James Version of the Bible. Many organizations and groups are observing
this landmark and giving this magnificent translation the recognition it so well deserves.
I would like to begin by quoting Isaiah 40:8: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but
the word of our God shall stand for ever. While that beautiful verse is obviously not talking
about Bible translations, it does illustrate, using graphic prose, what has occurred in history.
Since the appearance of the King James Version in 1611, over 150 either complete or partial
English translations have been produced (nine from just 2001–2005), but most have, in fact,
vanished from use. These have sprung up and blossomed for awhile but ultimately just withered
like the grass and faded like a flower. The few that have endured have done so mostly because
of millions of dollars of marketing. Nothing has endured on its own merits like the King James
There are several reasons for this. I would like to take a few minutes to show you these
reasons through three points: a brief history of the English Bible; the development of the King
James Version; and why we should retain the King James Version.

A Trir| tisterv e| thr Cng|ish Tih|r

s early as the 8
-century AD, several attempts were made to bring the Scriptures into both
the Anglo-Saxon and early English languages. Much happened in the next few centuries as
English evolved, going from Old English, which was a Western Germanic language, to Middle
Overshadowing all those early attempts was John Wyclif’s (c. 1328–1384) translation into
Middle English, the New Testament being completed in 1380 followed by the Old Testament in
1382. Since he didn’t know either Greek or Hebrew, he translated the Latin Vulgate. His work,
in fact, demonstrated how far from biblical truth the Vulgate was in some instances, which in
turn resulted in him being accused of heresy and excommunicated. So deep was this hatred for
Wyclif that he was physically attacked even after his death. While he died late in 1384, The
Council of Constance declared him in May of 1415 to have been a stiff-necked heretic and
decreed that not only his books be burned, but that his remains be dug up and burned and the
ashes cast into the River Swift. Such is the hatred of Truth.
The next scene in the story is even more captivating and fascinating. In the annuals of
history, there are few men who can be considered a focal point in time. One such man, however,
was William Tyndale (1494–1536), a brilliant linguist who mastered six languages besides his
native English (French, German, Italian, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin). He understood that the
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
Roman Catholic Church’s allegorical method of biblical interpretation enabled it to isolate itself
from the common people. Since the meaning of the Bible was hidden in such allegory, the people
couldn’t possibly understand it. This was made all the worse by the Bible being written in Latin.
He also discovered that even most of the clergy knew nothing of the Bible, only what was quoted
in the Missal (Mass Book). The story has been told often that in a heated argument one day with
a priest, who said, “It was better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s,” Tyndale responded,
“I defy the Pope and all his laws; if God spares my life, I will cause a young farm boy to know
more of the Scriptures than you do.”
In defiance of the Roman Church, which would never allow an English translation of the
Bible—as Wyclif had experienced—or any other vernacular language for that matter—as Martin
Luther discovered about German—Tyndale defied Rome, went into exile in Europe, and evaded
his pursuers for a decade to carry on his work. It was in 1525, in the German city of Worms—
where Luther had taken his stand just four years earlier—that Tyndale completed the New
Testament and then had it printed, although with great difficulty. Bibles were then smuggled into
England in bales of merchandise, but the Church burned every copy it could find. Finally,
Tyndale was betrayed, accused of heresy, and imprisoned, which included a winter of severe
cold for which he had almost no protection in his cell. After 17 months of cold, lonely misery,
Tyndale was tied to a stake and burned in 1536 at the age of 42.
The reason I say Tyndale was a focal point is that his true genius is seen in his “translation
theory,” a theory that has completely vanished in our day. He took the English and molded it
around the Hebrew and Greek, even going so far as replicating idioms and expressions from
those languages into English. In other words, he made the English serve the originals. Modern
thinking is just the opposite, where translators foolishly mold the biblical languages into English
vernacular, however sloppy that ends up being. This was so critical that almost a century later the
King James Bible translators (themselves outstanding scholars) used Tyndale’s work as part of
their foundation and rarely touched what he had done. Ninety percent of the King James Bible, in
fact, is actually identical to Tyndale’s.
What was the immediate result of Tyndale’s work? It spurred on more work. Tyndale’s
dying prayer—“Lord open the eyes of the King of England.”—was soon answered. Less than
three years later, King Henry VIII, to improve his image and lift his dignity, was persuaded to
publish The Great Bible, the result of the labors of Miles Coverdale, and which was 70-percent
Tyndale’s work. This Bible became what could be called the first “authorized version,” as it was
the first to be authorized for public use.
When Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) ascended the throne in 1553, however, she was
determined to put an end to the Protestant Reformation once-and-for-all and reestablish Roman
Catholicism as the national religion. Almost 300 Protestants were burned at the stake and
hundreds more escaped to Europe. Many of those godly exiles, among whom were some of the
finest theologians and Bible scholars in history, found refuge in Geneva, Switzerland and were
determined to translate a Bible into English, which they did from 1557 to 1560. The result was
the famed Geneva Bible.
It’s significant, indeed, that when the Pilgrims set foot on the New World in 1620, it was
The Geneva Bible they held in their hands, and it continued to be the Bible of the home for 40
years after the publication of the King James Bible and went through 144 editions. It was The
Geneva Bible from which the Scottish Reformer John Knox preached at St. Giles Cathedral in
Edinburgh, and which was the Bible of William Shakespeare, John Milton, John Bunyon, and, of
course, the Puritans.
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
While in the end, the King James Bible (which reads 90-percent the same as the Geneva) is
a better and richer translation, the Geneva helped lay the foundation. In fact, even the preface to
the King James Bible, titled “The Translators to the Reader,” took its own quotations of
Scripture from The Geneva Bible.
The Church of England responded to the Geneva by publishing The Bishops' Bible in 1568,
a revision of The Great Bible commissioned by the great Queen Elizabeth I. While a stunning
piece of work, a large folio with many beautiful engravings throughout, it was a rather poor
translation and never achieved popularity. It did, however, also become part of the foundation for
the King James Bible that was just ahead.
That sets the stage for our second emphasis, which is indeed an astounding story.

Thr Drur|eµnrnt e| thr 7ing §anrs lrrsien

ing James VI became King of Scotland when he was just thirteen months old, succeeding
his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, who had been compelled to abdicate in his favor. He was
finally able to take full control in 1581. It was then in 1603 that he succeeded the last Tudor
monarch of England and Ireland, Queen Elizabeth I, and became King James I of England.
In 1604, Puritan John Rainolds—President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and of
whom it was said he was the most learned man in England—suggested to King James that a new
translation of the Bible be considered. James liked the idea because he despised The Geneva
Bible, specifically its marginal notes, which among other things sanctioned civil disobedience
when rulers violate God’s law (e.g. Ex. 1:19). The project would also unify the Church Bishops
and the Puritans. So, as head of the project, Rainolds assembled a 47-man committee, which is
truly hard to imagine could ever be duplicated, especially in today’s post-modern world.
Lancelot Andrews, for example, was so immersed in the original languages that he
prepared his manual for his private devotions in Greek. He was also a genius of English prose.
The amazing John Bois (or Boys) learned Hebrew at the age of five and was writing it elegantly
by the time he was six. He likewise distinguished himself in Greek. By the time the translation of
the King James Bible commenced, he had read sixty grammar texts of the ancient languages. In
his excellent book about the King James Bible translators, Gustavus Paine writes that these men
were not superb writers doing scholarly work, rather they were just “minor writers, though great
scholars, doing superb writing.”

The group was divided into six smaller groups so that each could work on various portions
of the task and then be checked by the other groups. The final draft was reviewed by one more
committee of six and prepared for printing, thereby raising the level of academic excellence to a
level never known before. The entire work was completed in less then seven years.
It is sad, indeed, that the King James Bible has been under attack for decades, and this issue
of translation is just one of many approaches. One writer, for example, asserts that these
translators “may have harbored less than perfect motivations for their work. Some hoped to gain
favor with the king and advancement in their positions through their work.”
Such is barely
worthy of comment. No evidence whatsoever exists that this was true. The writer himself, in
fact, proves this is conjecture by using the word “may.”
Another popular attack is, “Well, which edition of the King James Bible are you using?”
implying that it has dramatically changed through the years. Such is not the case. The King
James Version has gone through four major revisions—1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769—and a few
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
minor ones. None of these changed the text, rather they merely corrected early printing errors
and updated spelling and punctuation.
One such famous misprint was Psalm 119:161 in the 1702 edition. Instead of reading,
“Princes have persecuted me without a cause,” it read, “Printers have persecuted me without a
cause.” The most infamous of all appeared in the 1632 edition, an error that earned it the
nickname The Wicked Bible because it omitted the word “not” from the seventh commandment,
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
So, the 1762 revision, for example, greatly enhanced the use of italics (which indicated
supplied words not in the original languages) and modernized most of the spelling. It was then
the 1769 Oxford edition that included several additional revisions, including printing errors,
spelling, and expanded marginal and introductory notes, and is the edition that has become the
standard for today’s printed Bibles.
Another mocking attack on the King James Bible concerns its being referred to as the
“Authorized Version,” which it actually never was in the United Kingdom; indeed, only The
Great Bible was ever recognized as “authorized.” On the other hand, for all practical purposes it
became the “authorized” version when the King’s Printer produced no further editions of the
Bishops’ Bible and the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer replaced most of the text from The Great
Bible with that of the King James Bible.
Technically, then, the King James Bible was never adopted as an Authorized Version, right?
Wrong. No, it never was in the United Kingdom, but it was right here in the United States.
Robert Aitken was the official printer of the Journals of the United States Congress. He was a
great patriot and was deeply burdened about the shortage of English Bibles that existed in his
country. In 1771, he produced the first English language New Testament printed in America,
which was eagerly received and went through five printings to 1781. It was in that same year that
Aitken petitioned Congress to authorize, and even fund if possible, the printing of the King
James Bible. On September 10, 1782, he received that authorization, the only instance in history
of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In fact, George Washington wrote a
letter to Aitken in 1783 commending him for the Bible that is now known as the “Bible of the
American Revolution.” How many of us were taught that in school?
It is sad, indeed, that even in spite of its being at the roots of our country—our own
“Authorized Version,” if you will—some evangelicals today go out of their way to undermine
the King James Bible in any way they can. This leads us to one other emphasis.

lhv lr ehen|e ±rtain thr 7ing §anrs lrrsien

hy retain a translation of the Bible that’s 400 years old? Why not replace it with one that
uses today’s language? Wouldn’t that be more relevant? Those questions actually lead us to
the first of six reasons we should, in fact, retain the Bible of the Renaissance and the
Reformation. We emphasize that last phrase because this Bible is historic. It is of staggering
significance and priceless value.

400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
3ts enµrrier Tih|ita| Tangnagr
One of the most common and serious misstatements of our day on this subject goes
like this: “Well, the King James Version was certainly good as the contemporary Bible of
its day, but we need a contemporary Bible for our today.” It is that kind of thinking that
produces Bible translations such as, the word on the street (formerly the street bible) published
in 2003 by Zondervan and described as a “dangerously real retelling of Scripture.” Dragging the
Bible down to the level of the urban style language of the street, it condenses the whole Bible
story into less than 500 pages. Here’s how the first three verses of the Bible sound in this

First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all
up and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! The cosmos in chaos: no shape, no form, no function—just
darkness . . . total. And floating above it all, God’s Holy Spirit, ready to play. Day one: Then
God’s voice booms out, ‘Lights!’ and, from nowhere, light floods the skies and ‘night’ is swept
off the scene.

Well, that is certainly contemporary. That, however, is precisely what the King James Bible
was not. Neither was Tyndale’s, as we saw earlier. Please get his: The English used in both was
NOT the contemporary language of the day. Rather it was biblical language. As noted earlier,
this is evident first and foremost in how Tyndale molded the English around the Hebrew and
Second, it is also evident in the use of the singular and plural second person pronouns, that
is, the so-called “thees” and thous” that so many people abhor. Most people mistakenly say,
“That’s the way they talked then, but we don’t talk like that anymore.” But this again shows the
misinformation that is propagated nowadays. The fact of the matter is that they did not talk like
that. These pronouns were purposely used because they alone could accurately convey the
singular and plural indicated in the Greek and Hebrew; modern English cannot. Tyndale knew all
this and deliberately revived words that had already passed from common use for the sole
purpose of accuracy.
For example, John 3:7 reads, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again”
(emphasis added), while new translations replace both “thee” and “ye” with “you.”
But “you”
does not indicate whether the second person pronoun is singular or plural. In contrast, “ye” is
plural and “thee” is singular. In fact, this is 100-percent consistent throughout the King James
Bible. Every pronoun that begins with “y” (ye, you, and your) is plural, and every pronoun that
begins with “t” is singular (thou, thee, thy, and thine).
While the King James Bible is accused of not being “accurate,” such an attack is patently
false and absurd. The inarguable fact is that because of the Old English pronouns, it is
fundamentally more accurate than modern translations in over 19,000 instances.

Another example of the importance of this is how the King James Version uses “you” and
“thee” in the same verse literally hundreds of times. Just one of these is Romans 1:11, where
Paul writes: “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye
may be established” (emphasis added). In other words, “I long to see all of you as a group, that I
may impart unto all of you some spiritual gift, to the end that each one of you individually may
be established.” To say that these pronouns are not important is simply foolish.

Third, the biblical language of the King James Bible is also demonstrated in the words the
translators chose to use. One graphic example is the often mentioned verse 2 Timothy 2:15:
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.” “Study” is the Greek spcuJazc, which speaks of being diligent or
eager. Many think, therefore, that newer translations are better, such as: “Be diligent” (NASB,
NKJB) or “Do your best” (NIV and ESV). Commentators often insist that “study” is too narrow
because it refers to studying books. But may we lovingly submit, no it does not. That’s an
application, but not the basic meaning. The first meaning, in fact, given in Webster’s 11

Collegiate Dictionary for the noun “study” is: “a state of contemplation.” Webster then says of
the verb: “to engage in study [i.e., contemplation] . . . meditate, reflect . . . to consider attentively
or in detail.” Deeper still, the first entry in Webster’s current Unabridged Dictionary for the verb
is: “To fix the mind closely upon a subject; to dwell upon anything in thought; to muse; to
ponder.” If we may lovingly ask, who is actually being “too narrow” here, the King James Bible
or modern translations and commentators? Let’s be honest: isn’t a word that speaks of fixed
contemplation and meditation better than the weaker idea of diligence or the atrocious translation
of doing our best?
There is a second reason we should retain the Bible of the Renaissance and the Reformation.

3ts enµrrier Cng|ish ane Titrrarv lra|th
As an avid student of the Apollo space program, I am always struck by Apollo 8. While
orbiting the Moon in 1968, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell, and Frank Borman each in-turn read and
broadcast to the world the first 10 verses of the Creation story. Did they read from the Revised
Standard Version, or the New English Bible, or the Berkeley Version, or the Amplified Bible, or
Phillip’s Translation, all of which existed in that day? No. While gazing at that magnificent blue
ball, the only color in the universe hanging in a sea of blackness nearly a quarter of a million
miles away, they read the beauty, majesty, and dignity of the King James Bible, which Borman
had reproduced on fireproof paper and placed in the back of the mission flight plan book.
Dear Christian Friend, my point here is that not only does the King James Version reflect
biblical language, its English is so far above contemporary language that the two are not much
closer than distant cousins several times removed. The richness of the Elizabethan Period was
the pinnacle of English, unequalled before or since. Is this simply the opinion of so-called “King
James Only” advocates? No, it is not! In The Story of English, for example, the companion book
to the PBS television documentary of the same name, the authors write concerning the
extraordinary quality of the English language in the days of Shakespeare and the reigns of Queen
Elizabeth and King James I (1558–1625):

The achievements of these astonishing years are inescapably glorious. During their
reigns, about seventy-five years, the English language achieved a richness and vitality of
expression that even contemporaries marveled at.

It is utterly fascinating that, setting religious matters aside for a moment, the King James
Bible has molded the English language more than any other book in the history of western
civilization. Did you know, in fact, that it would be almost impossible to get through a single day
without consciously or unconsciously using language from either the King James Bible or
Shakespeare? The King James Bible alone accounts for some 257 idioms that we use every day.
Here are but a few:

My brother’s keeper (Gen. 4:9)
A land flowing with milk and honey (Ex. 3:8 and 19 others)
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
Fell flat on his face (Deut. 22:31)
Apple of his eye (Deut. 32:10; Zech. 2:8)
A howling wilderness (Deut. 32:10)
Know for a certainty (Josh. 23:13)
A man after his own heart (1 Sam. 13:14)
With the skin of my teeth (Job 19:20)
All the days of my life (Ps. 23:6; 27:4)
At their wits’ end (Psa. 107:27)
Nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9)
A time and a place for everything (Ecc. 3:1)
Set thine house in order (Is. 38:1)
The leopard cannot change his spots (Jer. 13:23)
Feet of clay (Dan. 2:41)
The writing on the wall (Dan. 5:25)
Reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7)
A baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11)
Salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13)
An eye for an eye (Matt. 5:38)
Turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39)
Walking the straight and narrow (Matt. 7:14)
A house divided against itself shall not stand (Matthew 12:25)
The blind leading the blind (Matt. 15:14)
Signs of the times (Matt. 16:3)
Kicking against the pricks (Acts 9:5)
A law unto themselves (Rom. 2:14)
The powers that be (Rom. 13:1)
Becoming all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:22)
Suffer fools gladly (2 Cor. 11:19)
A thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7)
A fall from grace (Gal. 5:4)
A thief in the night (1 Thes. 5:2)

Dear Christian Friend, please consider this: Does it not grieve us even a little that this is the
heritage we are running away from as fast as we can? Doesn’t it bother us even the tiniest bit that
the Bible is today brought down to even the basest levels of our language, often for the sole
purpose of just selling the consumer another Bible? Do we really prefer something like the Black
Bible Chronicles, which describes Cain getting “bent out of shape” and how God “busts” him
because he killed his brother? Do we really prefer to render Leviticus 19:20, where God speaks
of fornication, this way: “It’s bad to do the wild thing without a blessing from the Almighty. You
have to be hitched?” Is that how we should treat God’s Holy Word? Let’s be honest: are Bible
publishers really concerned about the preservation of God’s Word or the proliferation of their
own wealth? I don’t want that to sound judgmental or unkind. But we need to realize that we are
pulling the Bible down to the gutter.
Another factor here, contrary to popular belief, is the basic simplicity of the King James
language. While Shakespeare has a 20,000 word vocabulary, and Milton 13,000, the King James
Version has a modest 6,000. Additionally, research has revealed that the entire King James
Version averages 1.31 syllables and only 3.968 letters per word. Note the table below. This is a
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
quick test of vocabulary. Comparing the KJV to the NIV, which word is more quickly
understood? And that is only a dozen examples out of over 100.

Genesis 19:1 gateway gate
Ezra 6:2 memorandum record
2 Samuel 21:5 decimated destroyed
1 Kings 7:6 colonnade porch
Proverbs 23:10 encroach enter
Isaiah 40:23 naught nothing
Ezekiel 13:22 disheartened sad
Daniel 10:6 burnished polished
Habakkuk 1:6 impetuous hasty
Romans 2:20 embodiment form
Revelation 4:3 carnelian sardine
Jude 25 forevermore for ever

The fact of the matter is that numerous reading tests have been done on the King James
Bible, including the standard Flesch Readability test, as well as both the Flesch-Kincaid and
Bormuth Grade Level tests. What were the results? The entire King James Bible, on average, can
be understood by a fifth to tenth grade reader. As creationist Henry Morris puts it, “Apart from a
few archaic words or words whose meaning has changed, which can easily be clarified in
footnotes, it is as easy to understand today as it was four hundred years ago.”

Have you also ever noticed something even as commonplace as a greeting card that quotes
Scripture usually uses the King James Version? It would seem that when we wish to speak with
depth, dignity, and seriousness, we defer to the majestic language of the King James. Which of
these renderings of 1 Peter 5:7, for example, honestly touches your heart more: “Casting all your
care upon him; for he careth for you,” or “Give all your worries and cares to God, for he cares
about what happens to you” (NLT)?
We should also note that all this is why the King James Bible is the easiest translation to
memorize, as countless people through the ages can attest. The translators not only stayed true to
the original language, but also succeeded in producing a Bible that “sings” with power and
beauty. British theologian and hymn writer Frederick Faber (1814–1863) once wrote, “It lives on
the ear, like music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert
hardly knows how he can forego.”
Can we not also see how this has effected worship? Just as contemporary language is
destroying the Bible, it is likewise destroying hymns that are based upon this old standard. We
should also note that it is virtually impossible for many congregations to publicly read Scripture
together because there is a plethora of translations peppering the assembly.
One speaker eloquently makes the point of the English and literary wealth of the King James
Bible: “It’s a special Bible, written at a special time, a time when the language was actually
molten, when the language could have gone any way, they shaped it thus.”
Please consider a third reason we should retain the Bible of the Renaissance and the

400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
3ts enµrrier Trxtna| §enneatien
We have time for only brief mention of this, but I do not want to overlook it. It is a complex
subject, but we will make it as simple as possible. Ponder the following scenario: Assume 100
people witness an accident and write down what they saw. The reports of 98 of the witnesses are
very much the same. The other two, however, even though they wrote their statements a month
before the other 98, differ greatly with the 98 and even with each other at times. Now, let’s be
honest: which story are we going to believe?
That is, in fact, exactly what we see between two distinct families of manuscripts: the
Alexandrian and the Byzantine. The Alexandrian are touted as being superior simply because
they are older, which, as just illustrated, any first year student of logic would recognize is
illogical. Further, while the Alexandrian texts (the most “revered” of which are Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus) are very few in number, 80–90% of the 5,360 Greek manuscripts that still exist are in
the Byzantine family (“the 98 out of the 100”). Additionally, the manuscripts in the Byzantine
family are essentially the same. So again, whose story should we believe?
The case for the Alexandrian family is made worse by the fact that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
differ with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone (remember, “the two out of the
100”). Still worse, several eminent scholars have demonstrated the inferiority of these
manuscripts. They have conclusively proved that Gnostic heretics—such as the infamous
Marcion (c. 85–160), Valentinus (c.100–160), and others—flourished in Alexandria and
corrupted the New Testament text by deleting or altering passages. Just as Jehovah’s Witnesses
have corrupted the text in our day, heretics did so then.
How does all this relate to English translations? Simple: Virtually all modern translations are
based upon this inferior text. In contrast, the King James Version is based upon the pure
Byzantine textual family.
Consider a fourth reason we should retain the Bible of the Renaissance and the Reformation.

3ts enµrrier Trans|atien Threrv
The King James Bible is the quintessential example of the “formal equivalence” approach to
translation, which renders the Greek and Hebrew words as closely as possible into English, even
to the use of verb for verb, noun for noun, and so forth. Formal Equivalence is the only method
of translation that is consistent with verbal inspiration, which focuses on the words of Scripture.
In stark contrast, the most common approach to translation in the last several decades has
been “dynamic equivalence,” in which word-for-word translation is replaced with thought-for-
thought translation. In other words, as long as we get across the thought of the author, then the
exact words aren’t really important. The NIV is a typical example. Please get this: It is
indisputable fact that 20–25% of its English words have been added without any support in the
original language whatsoever. On the other side of that coin, about five percent of the Greek
words have not been translated at all simply because the translating committee didn’t think they
were necessary.
Here is a dramatic example. Ephesians 1:3–14 is one of the most beautiful and powerful
passages in the Word of God, but the NIV, if I may be blunt, butchers it. In one long sentence (in
the Greek) Paul expresses several of the most profound truths in the Scriptures. The NIV
committee, however, thought it would be better to chop it into eleven sentences, leave out some
words, and add others. Of its 205 Greek words, in fact, 36 are not translated at all, while 87 of
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
the English words have no backing from the Greek, nor are they warranted by the context for the
sake of clarity. If I may be so blunt, it continues to baffle me why Christians and their leaders
want this kind of translation. If we are not concerned about the words of Scripture, how can we
possibly know the truth of Scripture? Words are what matter.
Again, Formal Equivalence is the only method of translation that is consistent with verbal
inspiration, and that was the foundation of Tyndale’s work and the King James Bible.
This leads us right to a fifth reason we should retain the Bible of the Renaissance and the

3ts enµrrier Dettrinr
It would take a separate lecture (if not 2 or 3) to deal with this adequately, but briefly the
King James Bible is far superior to modern translations in doctrine. There are literally dozens of
examples. We could examine the removal of the clearest statement in Scripture about the Trinity
in 1 John 5:7–8. We could also examine 1 Timothy 3:16, a critical verse about the deity and
incarnation of Christ. Instead of “God manifest in the flesh,” modern translations read “He” or
“who,” with no clear reference in the text to who that actually is. We have time for only one,
however, one that troubles me deeply.
Instead of “only begotten son” in John 3:16 (and other verses: 1:14, 18; 3:18), several
modern translations read “only son” (ESV, NRSV, NLT, CEV, GNB, GWT), or far worse, “one and
only son” (NIV, NCV, MSG). Now, the word “son” is mcnc¡cncs, literally “only offspring.” As
Bible scholar Jacob van Bruggen well says, however, while it is true that mcnc¡cncs can refer to
an only child, it does so only when this fact is actually true (Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38).
Is it true that
God only has an “only Son” or “one and only Son”? Of course not. As 2 Corinthians 6:18, and
other verses, makes crystal clear, all believers are “sons and daughters.” Christ is the only Son of
God by natural means, while we are children by adoption. This phrase, in fact, is a wonderful
summary of Psalm 2:7: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” a glorious reference to
coming Messiah, which in in-turn is quoted and applied to Christ in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5
and 5:5. Modern translations are, therefore, inarguably wrong, and to defend them is foolish at
best and just plain prideful at worst.
If I may also add, while many today insist this is “no big deal,” history rebukes their lack of
wisdom. The framers of both the original Nicene Creed of 325 AD and the later 381 version
recognized this fact, declaring Christ to be the “only begotten” son, as did The Definition of
Chalcedon (451). This was also recognized by the great theological minds that penned The
Heidelberg Catechism (1576), The Canons of Dort (1619), and the two greatest statements of all:
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), and The London Baptist Confession (1689). So, we
are compelled to ask: while the ancient church could recognize the unique sonship of Christ, why
can’t we today? This is basic doctrine, and is certainly a “big deal”!
I would submit with this single example that there is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the
issue of Bible translations and doctrine. While many evangelicals passionately deny that modern
translations have poor theology, and scoff at those who defend the King James Bible, the
evidence is unimpeachable.
This brings us to one final reason we should retain the Bible of the Renaissance and the

400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
3ts Tengruitv
This reason, in fact, is the force behind this little booklet. How many people today have ever
even seen, much less still read, the Revised Version (1881), or its American counterpart the
American Standard Version (1901), or the Revised Standard Version, or the New English Bible,
or the Good News Bible, or a hundred others we could list? How about the New Revised
Standard Version? This was a publishing flop, a truly abysmal failure in the publishing world. It
remained virtually stagnate until the publisher used it as the basis for The Green Bible, a so-
called “Study Bible” for radical environmentalists with contributions from liberal clergymen
such as Desmond Tutu and N. T. Wright as well as Emerging Church leader Brian McLaren. Or
how long will the popularity of Zondervan’s NIV stand against the growing influence of
Crossway’s ESV? Then again, what will be the next translation du jour that will burst onto the
scene, sell a bunch of copies, and then just fade like a flower and wither like the grass?
In contrast to the short “shelf life” of modern translations, the King James Bible has endured
for 400 years, and is still going strong in spite of wave after wave of attack that sweeps over it.
We simply cannot help but wonder why there is so much resistance to this venerable translation.


he book The Story of English we quoted earlier calls the King James Bible a masterpiece of
Someone recently handed me a copy of the December 2011 issue of National
Geographic, which said the same thing—the cover story was titled: “The King James Bible:
Making a Masterpiece.” Of this there can be no doubt. In contrast, I for one cannot imagine
anyone honestly using this word to describe the rambling paraphrase of the NIV, or the dry as
dust prose of the NASB, or the cold rendering of the ESV. But we have nonetheless elevated
these over a true theological and literary work of art. If we were to put all these in an art gallery,
the King James Bible would be the center exhibit while all the others would be no more than a
curiosity in one of the back rooms. It is, indeed, a masterpiece, of form, function, and flavor. But
sadly again, we are today running away from this as fast as we can.
We often hear the argument, “Well, we must be concerned about readability. The easier the
Bible is to read, the more people will understand it.” But that is simply not true, as 1 Corinthians
2:14 makes clear: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Understanding comes only by the Holy Spirit, not by a contemporary English translation of the
Dr. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones was probably the greatest expositor of the 20
filling the pulpit of Westminster Chapel in London for 30 years. Speaking at the National Bible
Rally in October of 1961, he addressed the modern philosophy of bringing the Bible down to
everyone’s level:

. . . we are told [that the Bible] must be put in such simple terms and language that
anybody taking it up and reading it is going to understand all about it. My friends, this is
nothing but sheer nonsense! What we must do is to educate the masses of the people up to the
Bible, not bring the Bible down to their level. One of the greatest troubles in life today is that
everything is being brought down to the same level; everything is being cheapened. The
common man is made the standard and the authority; he decides everything, and everything has
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
got to be brought down to him. You are getting it on your wireless [radio], your television, in
your newspapers; everywhere standards are coming down and down. Are we to do this with the
Word of God? I say, No! What has always happened in the past has been this: an ignorant,
illiterate people in this country and in foreign countries, coming into salvation, have been
educated up to the Book and have begun to understand it, and glory in it, and to praise God for
it. I am here to say that we need to do the same in this present time. What we need, therefore, is
not to replace the Authorized Version with what, I am tempted at times to call, the ITV [the
only British TV channel financed by advertising] edition of the Bible. We need rather to teach
and to train people up to the standard and the language and the dignity and the glory of the old
Authorized Version.

Oh, how we need men today who will stand up and preach like that! How we need seminary
professors and pastors who will train and educate people up to God instead of pulling God down
to the man’s level!
In the original Preface to our Authorized Version, Miles Smith wrote:

We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor
yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good
ones one principal good one.

And that is exactly what that unprecedented body of translators produced—“one principal good
one.” I would, therefore, close with a question: What should be our attitude toward the King
James Version, the Bible of the Renaissance and the Reformation? I leave you with this. Let us:

Remember its posterity,
Recognize its power,
Rejoice in its prominence, and
Reinvest in its permanence.

C|esing |ravrr

ur Gracious Father, we thank you for this evening of fellowship. We thank you for each one
who is present and their desire to be with others of like mind and like faith. We thank you
for the Truth you revealed to the Scripture writers and now illumine to the minds of readers. We
thank you for the absolutes you provide in your Word, for the certainty it gives us in light of the
uncertainty and relativism of our day.
And now, Father, we thank you for this time to look back upon that focal point of 400 years
ago when the King James Bible was born. We thank you for your sovereign control in bringing
to us a translation that is unequalled in accuracy, beauty, and dignity. Father, we pray that each
of us here will, indeed:

Remember its posterity,
Recognize its power,
Rejoice in its prominence, and
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version
Reinvest in its permanence.

And most of all we pray all this to the praise of your glory, in our Savior’s name, Amen.

Gustavus Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version (Baker, 1982 reprint from 1959), p. vii.
James White, The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House, 1995), pp. 70–71.
Note also: Matt 5:29; 21:5; 23:37; Lk. 5:24; 13:34; 22:11; Jn. 3:11; Acts 5:9; Heb. 13:5; Rev. 2:10.
Using QuickVerse 4.0, the data for the appearance of the second person pronouns is as follows:
“thee” (3,827 times); “thy” (4,604 times); “thyself” (214 times); “thou” (5,474 times); “thine” (937
times); and “ye” (3,983 times); total 19,039.
Just a few other examples, picked at random, one from each NT book (except 2 and 3 John), are:
Matt. 5:11; Mk. 16:7; Lk. 6:31; Jn. 16:12; Acts 3:22; Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 2:4; Gal. 1:6; Eph
4:11; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:9; 1 Thes. 2:2; 2 Thes. 3:4; Heb. 5:12; Jas. 2:16; 1 Pet. 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:12; 1 Jn. 2:1;
Jude 1:3; Rev. 2:10. Every instance plainly shows the difference between the singular and plural and
provides better understanding of the verse.
Robert McCrum, William Cray, and Robert McNeil, The Story of English (New York: Viking,
1986), p. 91
A Creationist’s Defense of the King James Bible, p. 12.
John Rhys-Davies (narrator), making a personal comment in the documentary film, The Book That
Changed the Word: The Amazing Tale of the Birth of the King James Bible (Lionsgate, 2010), “Interview
with John Rhys-Davies.”
Jacob van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 2003 reprint of
the 1978 original), pp. 134–135.
Ibid, p. 113.
D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions, 1942–1977
(The Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), p. 112 (emphasis in the original).

The Holy Ghost rides in the chariot of Scripture, and not in the wagon of
modern thought.

Charles Spurgeon (Metropolitan Tabernacles Pulpit, Vol. 37 [1891], 233)

Ahent thr Anther

Dr. J. D. “Doc” Watson (ThD, DRE) entered the ministry in 1974, serving in several
capacities including 28 years in the pastorate, 25 of which at Grace Bible Church in Meeker,
Colorado (as of 2011).
In addition to his other published books, he continues to write and edit the monthly
publication Truth on Tough Texts, which formed the basis for a book of the same title. His
driving passion is the exposition of the Word of God as the sole and sufficient authority in all
matters. This is demonstrated in no better way than in his 3-1/2 year (500,000 word) exposition
of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which he hopes to publish in the future.
400 Years of Biblical Truth: the Legacy of the King James Version

Dr. Watson also serves on the board of On Target Ministry (,
which is committed to international education. He has had the opportunity to serve overseas in
this capacity, including teaching at the Haiti Bible Institute, which was founded by OTM. He
likewise serves on the board of the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, which is committed to
defending the Traditional Text of the New Testament. He has been involved for over 20 years in
the textual issue and Bible translations and has taught and written on these subjects.
Dr. Watson has also contributed articles to other publications, including a weekly column in
his local newspaper based upon his pulpit ministry. He also maintains the blog, Expositing
Ephesians: The Christian’s Wealth and Walk (
The other loves of his life are his wife, Debbie (since 1974), his son, Paul (since 1988), and
golf (thankfully, in that order).

A|se hv thr Anther

A Word for the Day: Key Words from the
New Testament (AMG Publishers, 2006)

A Hebrew Word for the Day: Key Words from the
Old Testament (AMG Publishers, 2010)

Truth on Tough Texts: Expositions of Challenging
Scripture Passages (Sola Scriptura Publications, 2012)

S So ol la a
S Sc cr ri ip pt tu ur ra a

Sola Scriptura Publications
PO Box 235 – Meeker, CO – 81641

Editorial Note: This document contains a lecture delivered on December 9, 2011 in commemoration
of the 400
anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible, originally published on May 5, 1611.
Permission is granted to reproduce as along as it remains in its present form and no money is charged for
distribution. It is also available in an attractive booklet form for $2.00 per copy (postage paid). Just write:
Sola Scriptura Publications – PO Box 235 – Meeker, CO – 81641


Consistent Text Accuracy in the Authorized, King James, Version Consistent Text Accuracy in the Authorized, King James, Version Consistent Text Accuracy in the Authorized, King James, Version Consistent Text Accuracy in the Authorized, King James, Version

by Dr. Larry Bednar

A consistent accuracy in our traditional English Bible makes a strong case for total text accuracy,
something indicative of providential intervention in text history. Consistent KJV accuracy is
most striking in passages where scholars greatly contest accuracy, and numerous examples of
argue strongly for preservation of a fully accurate textual basis, further preserved in fully
accurate translation. We’ll illustrate consistent accuracy, starting with a Psalm 12 promise on
preserving God’s Word that scholars contest, perhaps because their preferred Alexandrian New
Testament text was lost for ~1500 years, doing little more than collecting dust in archives.

The Inerran The Inerran The Inerran The Inerrant Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Translation Accuracy t Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Translation Accuracy t Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Translation Accuracy t Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Translation Accuracy

True accuracy in translation is realized only through formal-equivalence principles that enable an
exact equivalent by means of wording and syntax that follow literal Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic
text language as closely as possible, while preserving exact context and meaning.

1. Handling a grammar difference: Preserving God’s Word or His people? Ps.12

1. Help Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2. They speak vanity every one with his neighbor: with flattering lips and with a double heart…
3. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4. Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5. For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the
Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
7. Thou shalt keep them O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
(5)…Now I will arise,” says the Lord; “I will set him in the safety for which he longs.”
(6) The words of the Lord are pure words…(7) Thou O Lord, wilt keep them. Thou wilt
preserve him from this generation forever.
(5)…I will now arise,” says the Lord. “I will protect them from those who malign them.
(6) And the words of the Lord are flawless…(7) O Lord you Will keep us safe and
protect us from such people forever.

The KJV verse 12:5 says of God’s words on oppression of the needy godly man…saith the Lord,
I will set him in safety. 12:6 says God’s words are pure (true), and 12:7 says He keeps (performs)
His words. Context stresses deliverance of the godly, but that depends on what saith the Lord,
His promise. His words alone promise deliverance of the godly man, and the main emphasis is
on the words that bring deliverance. Psalm 12:7 emphasizes God keeping and also preserving
them, His words certifying His deliverance of the righteous in David’s generation and forever.
God’s words are all canonical, and their declared eternal preservation identifies them as written
scripture, His words still certifying deliverance of the righteous today and forever.

*The present writer’s Hermeneutics text provides many such examples, in addition to those noted here.


Some say them in 12:7 refers to the 12:5 people, but them loses certainty of meaning if separated
from its 12:6 immediate antecedent, words. If the people were meant, the text would be faulty,
making the pronouns ambiguous and confusing passage sense. Some dismiss the antecedent
factor, saying gender discord here denies word preservation. In 12:7 them (a verb suffix) is
masculine, and 12:6 words (substantive) is feminine, and Hebrew pronouns and their antecedents
usually agree in gender. But Gesenius’ grammar says masculine suffixes (especially in the plural)
are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives.
Waltke & O’Connor say, The
masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent.
(e.g. a feminine wells in Gen.26:15,
midwives in Ex.1:21 and daughters in Is.3:16 are antecedents of a masculine them). Hebrew
gender discord is rather common, but antecedent discord can’t be without widespread confusion
of sense. And Hebrew passage sense takes precedence over grammar issues like gender discord,

and the Psalm 12:6,7 sense ties them to words in the immediate context
Emphasis on God’s words directs interpretation here. In Hebrew simple poetic parallelism, a
theme repeats in new words, as seen in 12:6-7, a 12:6 theme on purity of God’s words repeating
in 12:7 to tie them to His words. 12:6 likens purity of His words to that of truly refined silver to
stress that they’re not idle words, but pure ones that will be kept; this is directly followed by a
12:7 clause on keeping them, tying them to 12:6 pure words, and the words (the 2nd them) are
preserved forever to signify being kept forever. 12:7 further stresses purity by stressing God as
word-keeper, making Thou in the first clause a separate word in the Hebrew, an emphasis device
(thou will normally be a prefix on the Hebrew imperfect verb). And thou recurs in the word-
preservation clause. In the KJV the added emphasis is retained with Thou at the start and O Lord
at the end of the first clause on word-keeping and thou in the next clause on word-preservation.
The emphasis increases as Hebrew-text gender discord ties them to words (gender discord by
design - see Gesenius on Nahum 3:15
). A masculine pronoun and feminine antecedent reflect
Hebrew use of masculine gender to signify power/greatness and feminine to signify compassion/
Ps.12:6,7 ties feminine words to masculine them to relate compassion (stressed in
12:5) of the words to almighty God’s power to keep/perform them, in accord with Hebrew prior-
gender masculine language inclusive of a feminine persona
(as the Psalm 12 godly man signifies
men and women). And in compassion God preserves His words forever to certify to His people
forever that He obligates Himself to keep/perform them forever. By right pronoun/antecedent
usage, the KJV rightly relates God’s compassion to His power to keep and preserve His words.

Dr. Thomas Strouse, Emmanuel Baptist Seminary, Newington, CT notes normal gender discord
at Psalm 119:111,129,152,167. Here feminine nouns representing God’s Word (testmonies) link
to masculine pronouns (they/them/thy). This too is gender discord by design, relating our need of
God’s testimonies for sustenance (feminine) to His power as provider (masculine) to stress
loving and revering His Word to our benefit, reflecting a relationship of the churches to Christ.

An NASV them in 12:7 suggests keeping of God’s words, but a him replaces the second them,
suggesting verse-5 people are objects of preserving, when they’re objects of word-keeping, and
teaching on preservation of words certifying care of people is lost. And him ties to them/words,
mixing the singular and plural to create ambiguity of sense (them can be words, but him implies
them can be the people). This writer finds him is too literal, missing a difference in grammar, for
him is good Hebrew, but poor English; this 3
-person/singular/masculine pronoun denotes, not
people, but 3
-person/singular/masculine word (same as words of God). Hebrew has no neuter
gender, him/he often referring to neuter terms rendered it/that in English

(e.g. In Nu.22:20 God
speaks to Balaam, and the Hebrew says, the word that I shall speak to you, him (it/that) you shall


do - more examples involving God’s Word are Dt.30:14, Jer.18:1, Ezk.12:25). Thus Psalm 12:7
Hebrew says, Thou shalt keep (perform) thy words (them) O Lord, thou shalt preserve thy word
(or words/them) forever. Word has a plural sense (thy words comprise thy word), justifying them
for him.
Number discord in the Psalms Hebrew is usually a poetic-style factor, but here the shift
from them (words) to him (word) is didactic, emphasizing God’s written words preserved for His
people forever. Words is spoken or written scripture, but word stresses the written (God’s verbal
word is like a document: i.e. we have his word on it, not words). It’s for us God’s words must be
preserved, requiring the written form. God preserves His Words in writing forever to show us He
obligates Himself to keep them forever (by the Living Word). The KJV second them doesn’t lose
the purpose of the shift, a declared eternal preservation (for us) establishing the written form;
them is rightly used twice for clarity (it/that is awkward and would confuse readers).
The NIV, like the extant Septuagint text, has a wrong us for the double them in 12:7. Us,
incorrect by definition in the first use and by pointing in the second, makes the people, not
words, objects of keeping and preservation (people are objects only of word-keeping). Us can’t
fit passage sense without altering language, and this generation is made such people. This
generation is right, reflecting scripture preservation from the time of David to forever. In the
NIV context, this generation would suggest protecting the righteous forever from one generation.
No one needs eternal protection from one generation that can’t live forever, and such people
supports use of us, but isn’t right translation, for from people isn’t the right sense; this generation
is that of David and joins with from and to / for to note a period from that time to eternity (the
Hebrew says this), or for ever.

And this acts as a relative pronoun,
so such is poor (i.e. we read,
from the generation this [which] is, to forever, not, from the generation such is to forever).

Scholars discount God’s scripture-preserving role, perhaps because they think the true New
Testament text was lost for ~1500 years. In support of their opinion, they claim God’s Word is
scattered among manuscripts, so men must decide what is or isn’t His Word, which only ensures
error. They say preservation exists only in heaven judging by the Psalm 119:89, For ever O Lord
thy word is settled in heaven. But the sense of the Hebrew is that settled in heaven means heaven
is where preservation is verified/supervised to make truth available to all, as there’s no confusion
by men in heaven. Passage context supports this, word preservation on earth being why the
psalmist can obey God’s testimonies (119:88) and why earth and its people endure by God’s

*It’s said verses 12:5-7 reflect chiasmus poetic style connecting 12:5 & 7 as parallel verses of like content that
both refer to people, separated by a dissimilar 12:6 on God’s Words. That’s refuted by a resultant ambiguity of
pronouns that confuses passage sense, and by style factors disconnecting 12:5 & 7, including excessive content
differences of separated verses, different speakers in 12:5 & 7 and a disconnect of the first 12:7 them from 12:5
him. Psalm 12 has two non-chiastic styles, one of simple parallel clause couplets in each verse, and a wider one
of triplet/couplet/triplet verses developing a theme. Regarding the wider style, in 12:1-3 David speaks of the
godly man in danger, evil men as the cause and trust in God’s response. 12:4-5 is a couplet of two verses
antithetical to each other; evil men directly speak a wish (we will!), and God directly speaks a response (No, I
will!). In 12:6-8 David speaks of the purity of God’s response, the certainty and duration of it and why it’s
needed. Chiasmus would require the last triplet to repeat content of the first in inverse fashion, which isn’t the
case. And 12:5 & 7 differ by speaker, indicating they don’t connect in parallel, and thus don’t both refer to
people, but 12:6 & 7 connect by speaker, connecting God’s words to them. And the 12:4-5 couplet antithesis,
the evil men’s intent to hurt the godly man, denied by God’s words of deliverance, combines verses 4 & 5 in a
separate unit, separating both from 12:7 and them. Finally, passage gender discord relates to the wider poetic
style, the 12:5 godly man (m) being delivered by God’s 12:6 words of compassion (f), and the 12:7 them being
words also of power (m) to deliver.


laws (119:91). Verse 119:96 notes an end, or a limit, to all earthly perfection, but calls God’s
commandments, His words, exceeding broad, meaning there’s no limit to their perfection, so
God’s words known to the psalmist on earth are perfectly preserved. KJV formal equivalence
respects that perfection of the literal Hebrew and achieves total communication with total
accuracy, despite a grammar difference, one that troubles other translators.

2. Unique word choice; Easter in Acts 12:4. Scholars scorn the KJV rendering, Easter for
pascha, a term they say must be rendered Passover, as it is in modern versions.

12:2 And he (Herod) killed James the brother of John…
12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also.
(Then were the days of unleavened bread).
12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison…intending after Easter
to bring him forth to the people.

Scholars say the KJV followed Tyndale here in substituting Easter for passover in the New
Testament. But the KJV has passover for pascha everywhere except in Acts 12. We should ask if
the term has a unique sense in the Acts passage. Indeed something unique has been preserved
here in the KJV. The case is like that of Isaiah 7:14 on Mary as a virgin regarding Jesus’ Virgin
Birth. The Hebrew for virgin has various possible meanings and can be rendered "maiden” or
"young woman." But it can only be rendered virgin in Isaiah 7:14 since passage context and
related word choice demand it. The pascha in Acts has more than one possible meaning, and
Resurrection Day, or Easter, is the one demanded by context in relation to history.

In verses 2,3 Herod kills James and imprisons Peter in the days of unleavened bread. As others
this can refer to the 6-day feast of unleavened bread following an initial Passover day
(Lev.23:5-6, Ex.12:18 say Passover falls on the 14
day of the appropriate month, and the feast
of unleavened bread is the 6 days from the 15
until the 21
day - Including Passover day makes
7 days of unleavened bread of Lev.23:6). By this interpretation Acts 12 says Jewish Passover day
was over when Herod killed James and imprisoned Peter in the days of unleavened bread. Thus
in verse 4, where Herod keeps Peter in prison until after Passover, this would be a Passover day
coming after the Jewish one, and Acts 12 would refer to a day other than normal Passover,
stipulating a different rendering. Indeed the Passover will prove not to be the Jewish one.
Yet passover can signify the feast day plus 6 days of unleavened bread. Its use as a 7-day
event is seen in Ezekiel 45:21 that says…in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the
passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. Acts 12:4 can seem to say
Herod killed James and imprisoned Peter during a 7-day Passover that hadn’t yet ended, and that
he meant to kill Peter after this 7-day Jewish Passover, but that interpretation proves to be wrong.

Context and history determine translation of the Acts pascha, and this denies rendering pascha
“passover.” That can only mean Jewish Passover in this passage on days of unleavened bread,
and that doesn’t fit context/history. The lack of a fit relates to Herod’s friendship with Roman
Caesar Caligula (hated by Jews) and his ancestry as an Edomite, people historically antagonistic
to Israel. Herod’s rule was complicated,
but he endured by ingratiating himself with the Jews,
favoring their culture and religion.
Acts 12:3 says Herod took Peter prisoner since the Jews approved of killing James. Likely
they saw James as an enemy as fast-growing Christianity threatened their religion and way of
life. Herod would want to further ingratiate himself by killing Peter right after James, so he had


no reason to wait until after Jewish Passover, the first day or the 7-day feast. There was no
problem with the Jews in executing Peter right after James. Yet he intended to wait, risking a
problem with the Jews by a suggestion of changing his mind in acting against the foremost leader
of the fast-growing church.
And scholars are wrong in saying Herod would wait until after Jewish Passover, as Jews
disliked executions during their holy days. That was usually so, but there was no such concern at
this time. Christians were now considered heretics by the Jews, and a public execution reinforced
the Jewish position. As Acts 12:3 says, the Jews approved killing of James during holy days of
unleavened bread at that time. Thus context denies interpreting Acts 12:4 to mean Herod would
wait until after Jewish Passover to kill Peter.

But Pascha as Resurrection Day fits context/history. The 1
-century Jewish church observed a
pascha based on the Crucifixion/Resurrection, knowing Christ is the ultimate Passover fulfilling
and replacing the Jewish one. The only initial 1
-century basis for timing of pascha was that of
Crucifixion/Resurrection relative to Passover timing,

calling for a 3-day Crucifixion/Resurrection
observance at the same time relative to 7-day Passover, with both Passovers starting in the
evening to keep them closely related.
This fits Acts 12 days-of-unleavened-bread context. The
Crucifixion was on a preparation day the day before Passover began that evening (Mt.27:62).
Herod might kill James and imprison Peter on an evening that began Passover, or the next day,
which would be in the days of unleavened bread, and he might wait to kill Peter until after the
third day, Resurrection Day. That this was the case is indicated by Herod’s political situation.
Herod was accepted by the Jews, but despised by the governing Romans of Judea,
political tension. Pleasing Jewish leaders would be his priority, but with his Roman situation,
Herod couldn’t antagonize any large segment of Judea’s population that could cause political
unrest and give Roman leaders an excuse to get rid of him (they’d need a good excuse, for
Caesar appointed Herod). Herod would worry about reaction of Christians to Peter's execution
(the sizeable Christian population still had political status since the governing Romans wouldn’t
persecute them for another 20 years). While he killed James without repercussion, Herod would
worry that killing famous Peter, right after James, might incite an uproar, especially if he did so
on, or just before, Resurrection Day. To Christians the day of Christ's victory over death is holy,
a time when public execution of Christ’s most famous disciple would be very politically
antagonistic, indicating mockery of Christ's resurrection victory over death. In doing so, Herod
would make a political statement like, “Is this your day of victory of eternal life over death? I’ll
kill Christ’s most famous disciple at this day and make it a day of death. I’ll show you what I
think of your God and faith.” Christians endured persecution, but Herod saw that killing Peter
and insulting Christ might incite an uproar. By executing Peter a few days after Resurrection
Day, he could satisfy Jewish leaders without unduly risking widespread Christian protest adding
to his Roman problem. This would seem wise to Herod and is the reason he would wait until
after Christian Passover, not Jewish Passover

*In the 1
-century church, pascha was a Crucifixion/Resurrection observance starting in the evening as Jewish
Passover began (the no. of days, is uncertain). In the 2
-century eastern church, a 1-day pascha at the same
time likely reflects 1
-century timing of a 3-day pascha starting that day. By starting pascha observance on
Passover Day and making it a 1-day event, Resurrection-Day observance is on the day signifying Crucifixion
Day, an irregularity likely deriving from an earlier 3-day event (see Easter and Paschal Controversies.
“Evangelical Dictionary of Theology” 1984. Baker).


Thus the Acts 12:4 pascha denotes Christ, the Passover of Christians (1 Cor.5:7). For Jews
Passover lasted 7 days, as in Ezekiel 45:21. But Christian Passover would have lasted 3 days
from Good Friday to Easter. Herod meant to execute Peter after Christian Passover to avoid
political antagonism, or more specifically, after Resurrection Day.
Indeed Acts 12:4 can only refer to Christian Passover. Christ’s Passover superseded the
Jewish one in the Resurrection, so pascha can only be Christian Passover in the New Testament
after the Resurrection, or after John’s gospel where it occurs three times. Its use in Hebrews
11:28 isn’t pertinent, referring to Old Testament times. Its use in 1 Cor.5:7 shows Christian
Passover superseding the Jewish one, so it must be rendered passover, and it clearly denotes
Christian Passover since Christ and the Cross are its basis. The third use, after pascha in Acts
12:4, can only be “after Christian Passover” (more specifically, “after Resurrection Day,” better
understood by all readers). Easter rightly signifies Resurrection Day, even though 1
observance was uniquely different.
Some reject Easter as anachronistic since it had no Christian sense until well after the New
Testament was written. That’s true, but Pascha was Resurrection Day specifically by the 4

century, and Resurrection Day was Easter by the 8
. Ever since the 8
century, the KJV after
Easter has been the proper current way to note the end of the 3-day Passover Herod had to wait
out to execute Peter. So why are 17
century KJV translators scorned for proper use of current
terminology? Modern translators do this often and are praised for communicating with modern
readers. For example, the NIV uses gallons (Lk.16:6, Jn.2:6), which is fine for today. But the
word is anachronistic, out of place in time, and it’s out of place in culture, having never applied
to Hebrew, Roman or Greek culture, so gallons is less applicable to a New Testament setting
than Easter is.
Only the KJV preserves Acts teaching on Christian Passover superseding the Jewish one,
and use of Easter indicates the KJV alone is God’s authorized Word in English. KJV formal
equivalence achieves total accuracy and respects Greek language in using Easter to communicate
rightly the final day of pascha, and thus avoid an appearance of uncertainty arising from the
changing number of days pascha lasted in early centuries.

3. Importance of italicized words: Who killed Goliath? 2 Sam. 21:19 & 1 Chr. 20:5.

2 Samuel 21:19 (KJV)
And there was again a battle…with the Philistines, where Elhanen the son of Jaare-oregim, a
Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s
1 Chronicles 20:5 (KJV)
…there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanen the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother
of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.

In modern versions at 2 Samuel 21:19, Elhanen kills Goliath, and at 1 Samuel 17 in these
versions, David kills Goliath, all in accord with literal Hebrew, and confusion results. Some
conservative scholars suggest copyist error in the Hebrew text, and liberal scholars suggest a
contradiction, saying Elhanen, not David, killed Goliath.
In the KJV 2 Samuel, Elhanen kills the brother of Goliath, and the brother of is in italics, not
being in the Hebrew, but added by the translators. This is the right rendering, as in 1 Chronicles.
The Hebrew of 2 Samuel isn’t saying Elhanen, instead of David, killed Goliath. Rather, 1 and 2
Samuel render Goliath as a symbolic name for two different giants, and Chronicles identifies


Elhanen’s giant specifically. Early Hebrew readers would know Goliath was symbolic, and
others learn this through the later Chronicles.
Israel wouldn’t know proper names of Philistine strangers, especially since God required
separation from idol worshippers. The Samuel text assigns to the giants names symbolizing great
size, except for a verse 21:20 giant described by unique physical features, a clear indication his
proper name was unknown to text scribes. All the giants are of one family (or tribe), and in
21:16,18, the giants’ father (or tribe progenitor) is called the giant, a generic name, indicating
text scribes didn’t know his proper name, so names of his sons (or tribal descendants) were
unknown. But Hebrew giant-killers in 2 Samuel 21 have proper names and are identified as sons
of men with proper names (the scribes would certainly know proper names of their people). In
the much-later Chronicles, Hebrew names don’t change, indicating ongoing use of proper names,
but names of giants change, symbolic names changing to invented proper names, as we’ll see.
The only suggestion of a Hebrew name change is Jaare-Oregim (means, forests of weavers)
in Samuel, rendered Jair (he arouses/rises [against]) in Chronicles. Oregim is an added symbolic

for it disappears in Chronicles where, as we’ll see, symbolic names are discarded. Oregim
attaches to Jaare to stress the son’s valor in defeating a man so big his spear shaft was like a
weavers’ beam.
Despite the different meaning, Jair isn’t a different name, just a variation on
Jaare preferred in the later Chronicles. Jair is a proper name spelled much like Jaare to retain
the man’s identity, and the new meaning still reflects the son’s valor to compensate for loss of
oregim. This is indicated, for Jair derives from a marginal note, a textual comment serving here
to up-date spelling.

The meaning of the name Goliath is uncertain, but a suggested conspicuous
(by great size) is
likely correct. That Goliath is symbolic of great size is indicated by use of Saph for a giant killed
by Sibbechai (2 Sam.21:18). This was the name of the head of an Arabic family in Palestine with
sons of great height and strength (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown com.), so it signifies great size. And
a giant killed by Abishai (2 Sam.21:17) was named, Ishbi-benob (means my seat is on a high
place), symbolic of one of great stature or size.

A symbolic Goliath for Elhanen’s giant, and a mutual Bethlehem origin, relate Elhanen to David.
God raised up a tribe of Bethlehemite giant-killers by David, the original giant-killer who set the
example, killing the first Goliath as all Israel cowered before him. When another Bethlehemite
killed a giant, David’s leadership of the tribe was recognized, indirectly or directly, and Goliath
and Bethlehemite do so indirectly. The truth of this is seen as David is recognized directly in 2
Samuel 21:21 where another Bethlehemite giant-killer, Jonathan, is tied to David through his
father, who is said to be David’s brother in the text. This giant needs no name, his unique
physical features identifying him (Similar recognition of David is in 2 Sam.8:13, his leadership
being recognized in a victory of his nephew Abishai over Edomite Syrians in 1 Chron.18:12).
And David is recognized directly as Abishai (kills Ishbi-benob) is called in 2 Samuel 21:17, a
son of Zeruiah (David’s sister). Goliath doesn’t apply, for Abishai wasn’t a Bethlehemite. He

*It’s said scribes accidentally joined oregim (weavers) to Jaare since weavers beam is nearby in the text,
that error is too great to attribute to meticulous Hebrew scribes. Error is claimed since Jaare-oregim (forests of
weavers), can’t be a man’s name. But oregim is a symbolic name tied to a proper one, and the compound name
can’t be translated as one, as Ed the giant, a large man, can’t be rendered Ed Giant. And error is claimed since
oregim isn’t in the Chronicles name, but Chronicles discards symbolic names, as we’ll see. Oregim was added
to Jaare to reflect the son’s valor. In Hebrew patriarchal society, with men identified by the fathers’ names,
(son of Jesse, son of Saul, etc.), recognizing a father for his son’s exploits is no surprise.


wasn’t in Jesse’s line, his mother being David’s sister (1 Chr. 2:15,16) by marriage of David’s
mother to Jesse after marriage to Nahash (2 Sam.17:25). And Goliath doesn’t apply to the giant
of Sibbechai, a Hushathite Hebrew unrelated to David. Saph and Ishbi-benob distinguish non-
Bethlehemites not called to be giant-killers, but following the Bethlehemite example.

1 Chronicles 20:5 identifies Elhanen’s giant as a brother of David’s giant (giant family/tribal
relationships would be known by reputation). Chronicles assigns proper names to giants based on
identities of the Hebrews who killed them, the only basis other than symbolic names Israel had
for differentiating giants. In Chronicles the giant Saph killed by Sibbechai is Sippai that reflects
salient parts of the name Sibbechai, indicating a Hebrew proper name invented for this giant (Sa
is now Si, and a double consonant pp reflects bb – the Hebrew for p and b are phonetically
related, both being labials pronounced with emphasis on the lips, and ai is a common Hebrew-
name suffix, eg. Haggai, Barzillai, Abishai, etc). And Lahmi (means my bread) is a Hebrew
proper name derived from Elhanen’s Beth-lehem-ite identity (lehem is bread).
A Hebrew proper
name, Lahmi, is given to Elhanen’s 2 Samuel 21 giant to differentiate the giants of Elhanen and
David, while continuing to associate the two Hebrews by a mutual Bethlehem origin.
Knowledge that Goliath was symbolic couldn’t be retained indefinitely, so Chronicles
clarified matters. When Chronicles was written ~500 years after Samuel, Goliath had become the
proper name for David’s giant, and proper names were given to other giants. KJV translators
applied the truth of 1 Chronicles 20:5 to 2 Samuel 21:19 to prevent confusion. KJV formal
equivalence achieves total accuracy through use of italics that respect the Hebrew, not changing
the text, while preserving exact passage context and meaning.

4. Precise grammar: Referencing God’s Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 1:11.

KJV: …the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ…
NIV: …to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted
the sufferings of Christ…
RSV:…indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the
sufferings of Christ…

The KJV it in reference to Christ’s Spirit (Holy Spirit) is grammar disliked by many, but it is
correct. The Spirit is normally referenced by neuter gender in the Greek, and at times this is
proper in English, and at times it’s not. For example, the Spirit can appear as a dove so that it is
proper, as in John 1:32. And the Spirit at times is treated as part of Christ’s person, so it is
correct, as our spirit is it, part of our person, not the entire person. This latter circumstance is
illustrated in 1 Peter 1:11, and in also Romans 8 where Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ in 8:9 and
says the Spirit itself in 8:16 and 8:26. But when the Spirit is spoken of as an individual personage,

*Lahmi signifies the giant was my bread (my meat), made to order for my needs, as in Nu.14:9 that calls giants
in Canaan battles, bread for us. Now since Lahmi derives from Bethlehemite, it’s said the latter is a corruption
of an original Samuel reading like that of Chronicles, Lahmi, brother of.
But Lahmi is an invented Hebrew
name, and Hebrews wouldn’t know Philistine proper names. To incur the suggested error, a scribe had to read
’-t Lahmi as Bét hal-Lahmi, an error too great to escape an extremely meticulous Hebrew scribe. He’d have to
mistake the sign of the definite direct object (’-t ) for a word (b-t) and to mistake the word for brother (’-h) for
(’-t ), sign of the direct object
Such error seems likely to non-Hebrews, but is most unlikely for Hebrews
accustomed to use of a term to signify a grammar principle. They would not mistake the sign of the direct
object, a grammar principle, for a word, any more than we’d mistake English punctuation marks for words.


he is required, as in John 15:26 where He is the Comforter, an individual personage sent to earth
by Christ in heaven.

The RSV committee skipped the pronoun, which is usually acceptable, but here the meaning of
the passage is affected. KJV translators accepted God’s use of Greek language and gender for the
New Testament, perhaps reasoning that God had a purpose in this passage that emphasizes the
work of the Holy Spirit regarding the person of Christ on the Cross. This purpose may have been
an emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in testifying to Christ's person and foregoing any
emphasis on His own person. Scripture says the Holy Spirit’s work is to testify to the person of
Christ, not to His own person (Jn.16:13,14).
The RSV rendering is grammatically correct, but it loses emphasis on the work of the Spirit
in glorifying Christ. In the NIV a personal pronoun is preferred, which is incorrect grammar,
and, like the RSV, it alters teaching likely intended by the Spirit Himself on the primacy of
Christ’s person to us. KJV formal equivalence achieves total accuracy, preserving context with
exact grammar and avoiding human preferences.

5. Precise language: Straining at, or straining out, a gnat? Matthew 23:24.
Ewert claims KJV error at Matthew 23:24 that says of Pharisees and scribes, they, strain at a
gnat and swallow a camel. The supposed right reading is strain out a gnat,
and modern
versions render it that way. Now strain out usually translates the Greek here, but it’s not correct
in this context. The metaphorical language here signifies acceptance or rejection of doctrine and
practice. Swallow a camel notes easy acceptance of great error, as in “swallow a huge lie,” and
strain at a gnat rightly notes intense effort in rejecting or accepting trivial matters. The Pharisees
and scribes didn’t separate (strain out) trivial matters from great ones, but ignored (swallowed)
great error and fussed over (strained at) trivial matters. KJV formal equivalence achieves total
preservation of textual accuracy even in minor matters, not just relying on the most common
word definition, but recognizing another controlling factor, the role of metaphorical language.

6. Precise syntax: Psalm 22:8. Modern translators reject the KJV, that he would deliver him…
and confuse the sense of prophecy fulfillment.

KJV: He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him…
NIV: He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him…
NKJV: He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue him; Let Him deliver him…
ESV: He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him…

The KJV deliver translates two Hebrew verbs that modern translators say are slightly different in
meaning. They offer deliver and rescue, but can’t differentiate the two.

The ESV and others have
the order deliver-rescue, but the NIV and others have the opposite, rescue-deliver, contradicting
the assumed difference in meaning.
And in other verses with comparable syntax, the ESV and
others render deliver for the Hebrew of their rescue (e.g. Ex.5:23, Is.44:20). Only the KJV fully
maintains prophecy fulfillment here.

* In 1 John 5:8 the Spirit can be noted with a small s, He being part of Christ’s person here, or can be noted
with a capital S since Greek language here implies the Holy Spirit

**See footnote on the next page.


7. Classical Diction: Emphasizing the majesty of Christ: Titus 2:13-14.
KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us…
NIV: while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God
and Saviour, Jesus Christ Who gave himself for us to redeem us…

White feels the KJV here separates Christ from the title the great God, supposedly suggesting
He’s not to be called "God;" supposedly modern versions correct this.
But the KJV rightly
follows literal Greek, using majesty of language to convey a message on the majesty of Christ
our God. By speaking of His deity and salvation role separately, the KJV emphasizes a totality of
His majesty. An of in the expression blessed hope and the glorious appearing of, directly relates
the expression to the entire phrase, the great God and our Savior. The expression refers to Christ
in the Second Advent, so the great God and our Savior can both refer only to Christ. What the
KJV says so eloquently is that Christ is the great God on the one hand, and our great Savior on
the other hand; this is a great reason to rejoice, for this means our salvation is totally secure. This
is a literary device of emphasis by diction that KJV translators were skilled in.
Critics don’t grasp English/Greek literary riches so superior to contemporary language. The
NIV is only linguistically correct, not communicating fully by negating emphatic language. In
the process it claims for Christ only the title of our great God, as if he were only our God. As in
the KJV, He is the great God, the God of all creation, and He who is so great as this consented to
be our Savior. Thus the effect in the KJV is the exaltation of Christ, which is the opposite of
White’s perception.
Does White think saints and faithful brethren (Col.1:2) separates saints and faithful brethren
as if they were different types? Or does he think God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
(Col.1:3) separates God and the Father, as if the Father were not God?
KJV formal equivalence again achieves total accuracy, preserving syntax to the extent that
even the beauty of classical English/Greek diction is perfectly communicated.

*They need a difference to avoid repeating let him deliver. Their two emphatic clauses let him…with jussive
verb sense (wish) require a colon/period pause after, He trusts in the Lord, not justified by Hebrew accenting/
language. Their semicolon/comma pauses are efforts to justify two emphatic clauses. These pauses don’t apply
after He trusted in the Lord, the only clear one being that signified by a colon before the KJV, let him deliver.
Modern translators miss the issue here, effect of language/grammar on verb sense. In their two emphatic
clauses, the verb in the second is jussive by context and accenting, justifying the emphasis and colon link (this
clause can link directly to He trusted on the Lord, as in Mt.27:43). But the first verb isn’t clearly jussive,
nothing beyond a contingent sense being justified, to yield the clause, that he would deliver him, with no
pause. This clause fits Ps.22:8 grammar as the object of the associated verb trusted; the object is God’s deliver-
ance of David (Jesus the Savior by resurrection), and deliverance is contingent on the trust and God’s will.
With no clear pause, the clause is rightly linked by that. Modern-version language omits the object of trust,
relating the trust to nothing specific and to deliverance only by implication (trusts for what? – faithfulness,
justification, a calm mind?) And repeating, let him deliver /rescue him, is pointless and diminishes the sense of
prophecy fulfillment in Mt.27:43 that is the very reason the passage has been dictated by the Holy Spirit (see
last section on text endowment). But the KJV, that he would deliver him, is of basic importance as the object
of trust, so it’s understood in Mt.27:43 and need not be repeated there, as seen by the Mt. 27:43, if he will have
him, that refers to deliverance by/to God as the object of trust. That there’s no need to repeat, that he would
deliver him, further indicates that rendering two emphatic clauses, let him deliver/ rescue him, is erroneous.


KJV changes in new editions don’t affect accuracy
Over the centuries, development of grammar and textual knowledge led to KJV modification
like up-dating grammar and spelling and perfecting italics and marginal notes (e.g. othes
changed to oath’s). Drs. Paris and Blayney in the 18
century and Scrivener in the 19
instrumental in this. Up-dating to variant language convention and textual knowledge doesn’t
impact text accuracy. It’s a providential use of responsible scholars to extend God’s supervision
of the Word even to minor matters that don’t affect inerrancy. Scrivener’s work is apt to be the
last responsible one of this type due to poor language education and irresponsible attitudes on the
historic text today. Terminating of the full understanding of true historic scripture is perhaps
God’s will for irreverent modern society.

End Notes

1. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. ed. and enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Oxford. Clarendon
Press. 2
English Ed, Cowley, A.E. 1910. Paragraphs 135-o & 144-a.

2. Waltke, B.K. & O’Connor, M.P. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Eisenbraums. Winona Lake, IN. p106-09.

3. Gesenius. Op, Cit. paragraph 110k

4. Gesenius op. cit. paragraph 122h – see footnote #3

5. Gesenius, Op. Cit. paragraph 122-g

6. Gesenius, Op. Cit. paragraph 126-y. Gesenius said the Masora teaches that the
Hebrew word is used as a relative pronoun

7. Moorman, Jack A. Conies, Brass & Easter. Way of Life Literature. Also in The
King James Bible Page, Articles.
8. Broadman Bible Commentary. 1970. Vol.10. Nashville.

9. Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia. Vol.13.

10. Brown – Driver – Briggs Commentary. 2005. Hendrickson. Peabody, MA.

11. Archer. Jr, G.L. 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan.

12. Ewert, D. 1983. From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations. Zondervan. p202.

13. White, J.R. 1995. The King James Only Controversy. Bethany. p201


Consistent Translation Accuracy Includes Consistent Consistent Translation Accuracy Includes Consistent Consistent Translation Accuracy Includes Consistent Consistent Translation Accuracy Includes Consistent Science Accuracy Science Accuracy Science Accuracy Science Accuracy

Today men of science and their supporters sometimes say that scripture is inaccurate in matters
of science. Many churchmen don’t know how to answer them, respecting education credentials
of experts in science. Some seek to preserve a basic traditional outlook on biblical authority by
adjusting their interpretation of the Bible to agree with respected scientists. Others feel the Bible
is accurate only in spiritual matters and doesn’t need to be so in technical matters. Some don’t
worry about accuracy and confine themselves to central truths in the Christian life.
But those who concede errors in scripture in some matters need to consider the implications
of partial authority. If scripture isn’t an authority on science, why is it an authority on salvation
or morality? A work errant in one area may be so in others. Did not the God who inspired
scripture create the natural world with all its technical features? Why then do some in churches
today agree with notions that there’s no reliable biblical revelation from God in science and yet
believe there is in spiritual matters? Is God only the God of spiritual matters, and if so, how can
we consider Him to be the God of creation?
To acquiesce to negative evaluations of scripture accuracy in matters of science is to ignore
presumption and unenlightened pre-judgment common to all areas of human endeavor, including
science. As a retired research engineer, the present writer has expertise in a broad scope of
technology, and finds true scripture to be fully accurate in all matters of science it deals with.
Claims of scripture inaccuracy regarding science arise from one-sided interpretations of what the
Bible teaches. It’s easily shown that negative opinions of fallible scientists on technical matters
in scripture are not objective and are not backed by irrefutable evidence. Most of these experts
show an unreasonable disrespect for anything not reflecting materialistic thinking, so they
automatically dismiss anything of the supernatural. Such people have never encountered the
reality of the spiritual dimension of life and judge reality only from a materialistic perspective.
The complete accuracy of scripture in technical matters will be evident from representative
illustrations taken from the KJV. What we’ll find is that KJV formal equivalence achieves total
accuracy in matters of science, revealing science truth obscured by other translators who don’t
grasp the full literal truth of scripture, or perhaps don’t respect its implications.

1. Jonah’s big-fish experience: Are whales fish? Jonah 2 and Matthew 12:40.
Rather recently in history, scientists restricted the term fish to water dwellers that have gills and
skeletons of bone or cartilage and that move through water by means of fins. But prior to this
restriction, the term referred to all creatures living habitually in water, including lung-breathing
whales. The more general earlier meaning is seen today in language convention that persists so
that scientists themselves use the terms "jellyfish" and "starfish" for creatures with no skeleton or
fins and "lungfish" for a creature with gills and lungs. Thus scholars aren’t credible in faulting
the KJV for identifying the fish of Jonah 1:17 as a lung-breathing whale in Matthew 12:40. In
Jonah the more general earlier meaning of the term is used, and as we’ll see, whale in Matthew is
the correct term for the specific type of large water-dweller.

Scholars fail to discern whale as appropriate in other places in scripture, as in Genesis 1:21,
Ezekiel 32:2 and Job 7:12. A little study shows that an Old Testament term for a large water
dweller is at times rightly translated whale due to implications of language and context. In
Genesis 1:21 scholars use an indefinite “sea monsters,” but here the term refers to large sea
creatures in a context of the waters bringing forth of the abundance of creation. Thus whales is
the proper specific term since this is by far the most abundant of large sea creatures. And in
Ezekiel 32:2, pharaoh, king of Egypt, is described in terms of a lion, the king of land beasts, and


in terms of a large sea creature that logically is the whale, king of sea beasts. Modern scholars
are unnecessarily vague here, rendering monster or dragon; some even render crocodile, not
realizing a concluding phrase in 32:2 on troubling of rivers (where crocodiles live) is a separate
thought on Pharaoh unrelated to that of the whale.
In Job 7:12 Job says, Am I a sea or a whale, that thou settest a watch over me? Study shows
whale is correct here. Job tells of his suffering by overpowering constraints placed on him and
asks why he’s important enough to get such special treatment. He can see why the sea is so
important that a watch, or guard, must be placed on it by the land to constrain its freedom of
traverse. And regarding creatures, he sees why the whale, the greatest of them, is guarded or
constrained in freedom of traverse by limits imposed on the sea by the land. In their uncertainty,
scholars render sea monster, sea serpent or dragon for the passage reference to a large sea
creature. But the passage refers to the sea and a whale, the likely commonality being limits on
freedom of traverse of both. The whale is the only known large sea creature that compares with
the sea in terms of limits of freedom, for like the sea, the whale is constrained in its freedom of
traverse only by limits imposed by land. Whales travel all over the globe to various climates and
to great depths in the sea, and they truly are kings of the sea as Ezekiel 32:2 suggests.

Regarding Jonah’s fish, its identification as a whale in the KJV Matthew 12:40 is the crucial
matter revealing scientific reality in Jonah's 3-day survival in the fish's belly. This refutes those
scholars who say the account is mythical, thinking a man swallowed by a huge fish has no air
and can only be a meal. Some think Jonah died and was resurrected in the fish, but the KJV text
says, When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the Lord, meaning Jonah’s soul was about
to part from his body, but he was spared (other versions say likewise). Some see the account as
symbolic truth, but Christ treats it as literal reality in Matthew 12:40, likening Jonah's 3-day so-
journ in the hell-like environment in the whale to His own soul's 3-day sojourn in hell where He
descended after the Cross to deal with this enemy. Actually a little scientific bible study reveals
the literal reality of the account and shows there’s no need to invoke miracles to support it.
Context shows the fish is a whale in saying it dives to great depth in the sea. Jonah's fish
takes him to the bottoms of mountains (and so the sea), and there are submerged mountain
ranges in the Mediterranean Sea west of the seaport Jonah sailed from. Whales are the only large
sea creatures that dive to great depths in the sea. Sperm whales often exceed 5000 ft, the
approximate average depth of the Mediterranean, and have exceeded 10,000 ft. A sperm whale
was God's likely choice, being the one whale that dives to such depths and is also big enough to
swallow a man (It swallows giant squid larger than a man). A current failure to detect sperm
whales in the Mediterranean Sea doesn’t forbid their presence there on occasion and doesn’t
forbid their presence there in the past.
A sperm whale is immune to crushing by deep-sea pressure effects due to incompressible
liquid in its body tissues, which is similar to the way a deep-sea bathyscaphe protects men at
great depth. The whale’s incompressible body would protect Jonah the way a bathyscaphe
protects modern men.
A whale resists, and Jonah would resist, bends sickness induced by nitrogen in air during
rapid whale ascents from depth. A whale filling its lungs for a dive takes in limited nitrogen,
much of which is absorbed by oil in a foam that collects in whale sinuses for discharge in the
spout, limiting access to the blood stream of the whale and that of Jonah.
A sperm whale’s teeth are for seizing prey, not chewing it. It swallows its food, "chewing"
by crushing agitation in its large first stomach. It eats squid or fish, and the alien taste of a man
covered with clothing wouldn’t induce agitation. The first stomach produces no digestive juices,


and the opening to the second is too small to admit Jonah for chemical digestion. Jonah would
only give the whale an upset stomach, which is why he was later vomited up (at God’s
command). The whale had to fast 3 days to protect Jonah from stomach agitation, which suits a
whale since it often endures famine, living off its own blubber.
While at great depth, the whale eats giant squid that live there, so seawater has restricted
stomach access, and the stomach holds air under all conditions. A seawater fish couldn’t offer
oxygen to Jonah, for its gills take in only air dissolved in water, and seawater that it often drinks
could easily drown Jonah in the stomach. But a sperm whale, though it breathes through its
topside blowhole and usually has its head underwater, forces air into its stomach when it
breaches (lunges), coming partly out of the water head-first, and it might do this just before, or
while, swallowing Jonah.
But a breach couldn’t give Jonah enough oxygen to survive a typical prolonged dive. More
would be available if normal stomach isolation from respiratory-system air were somehow
bridged, which is what’s meant by Jonah 1:17 saying God prepared the fish for Jonah (not the
NIV or NASV provided or appointed based only on word definition). Jonah’s main oxygen
supply would be that stored in a whale’s blood hemoglobin and muscles as it prepares for a dive,
and this source had to be tapped somehow. Perhaps preparation involved a birth defect allowing
blood oxygen into the digestive tract and stomach anytime the whale wasn’t eating, as was the
case with Jonah in its stomach. Or it might involve bleeding in the first stomach at a wound
caused by mechanical agitation of food for digestion (sharp debris collects in whale stomachs).
In any event, carbon dioxide accumulation accompanies oxygen consumption in a whale’s blood
in a dive, and carbon dioxide releases oxygen from blood hemoglobin, providing oxygen to
Jonah in the first stomach. In the process, rich oxygen content of muscles could be tapped. Some
carbon dioxide would also be released, and build-up of this, and that in Jonah’s breath, could
suffocate him, necessitating fresh air and limiting time spent at depth. Whale muscles continue to
work well in a dive as oxygen is used up and the remainder is sent largely to the brain. Reduced
oxygen to the brain due to Jonah’s use would induce early resurfacing for new air. And a sick
whale, while continuing its habit of diving for food, wouldn’t eat and wouldn’t stay long at
depth, as needed to protect Jonah from excessive carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide would be
partially absorbed by natural chemicals in limited seawater normally in the stomach for whale
body-fluid needs, helping Jonah breathe. He nearly died, likely by near-suffocation in a deep
dive, but he would recover as the whale returned him to land, exchanging old air for new by
periodic breaching at the surface due to irritation from the stomach ache and oxygen deprivation
at depth. Or, if oxygen flowed to the stomach due to a birth defect, all the whale’s surface
breathing would give Jonah a steady oxygen supply.

The author of Jonah wrote in full accord with modern whale technology, and a technical validity
of his account reveals its reality and confirms the fish’s identity as a whale. And how can a bible
book written ~2800 years ago reveal how deep whales dive when men didn’t discover this until
recent centuries? God is the only one who knew this so long ago and the only one who knew the
whale’s location at the bottom of the sea and near undersea mountains (not Jonah in the whale’s
stomach). God is the ultimate writer of the book, the one guiding the human writer. God, who
knows all about whales, put His signature on a bible book scholars call mythical; the signature is
retained in the KJV, but it’s erased in modern versions that fail to reveal the fish as a whale.
Regarding the theory that Jonah died inside the creature and was later resurrected, he’s alive
in chapter 2 as the whale consumes substantial time diving to the bottoms of submerged
mountains. And the mountains are located a great distance from the coast Jonah first sailed from,


and to which the whale will travel to deposit him again, showing he was alive and breathing
inside the creature for a long time, logically the entire 3 days.
It might seem Jonah died and was resurrected due to modern-version word choice in verse
2:6. The NIV is typical saying, You brought my life up from the pit, suggesting resurrection from
the grave, but the grave was only figurative. Pit can translate the Hebrew here, but it doesn’t fit
this context. In the next NIV verse, Jonah says, When my life was ebbing away (on the verge of
death, but he was spared). The NIV confuses the passage sense with contradictory suggestions. It
can even imply Jonah went to hell if pit is connected with verse 2:2 where Jonah cries out of the
belly of hell, or Sheol that’s often rendered pit. Pit isn’t adequate here, suggesting a location
(grave and hell) when a status on death’s ruin, or corruption, is indicated. The KJV brought up
my life from corruption is correct, indicating healing from the death process, not the grave.
Jonah crying out of the belly of hell (Sheol) denotes a figurative hell in a figurative grave.
The whale’s stomach would’ve been like a grave, dark, wet, oxygen-thin and very conducive to
claustrophobia. The digestive tract would emit ghastly food-decomposition odors, and no stable
posture would be possible on the whale’s wet stomach lining. Jonah would toss and roll back and
forth with every motion of the whale, inducing constant sea-sickness and vomiting and retching
in a hell-like experience.

2. The earth and the sun in space: The Bible doesn’t teach that the sun revolves around the
earth. The ancients of medieval and earlier times thought the sun did so.

2 Samuel 23:4 And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth...

Scholars think the terms “rising and setting” of the sun imply erroneous ancient thinking that the
sun revolved around the earth, but the terms are used today in the science of meteorology. They
signify the language of appearance that has always been a simple method of communication. To
men the sun has always seemed to rise and set, and we still use the terms for convenience with
no danger of being misunderstood. There should be no objection to using popular convenient
language to communicate simple concepts.
But scholars who suggest the Bible is inaccurate here should consider the temporal state of
their own science knowledge and the long tenure of the Bible. The Bible was written for ancient
and modern man and has had to communicate to both perfectly. The ancients understood the
language of appearance perfectly, and it was quite sufficient for their needs. But suppose the
Bible had satisfied the complaint of modern skeptics. Suppose, instead of referring to "sunrise,"
it had used a modern technical description like the phrase, "the apparent revolution of the sun in
one direction due to the rotational motion of the earth in the opposite direction." This would not
only have been awkward in usage, it would also have made no sense to the ancients who needed
to have confidence in scripture that they might believe its timeless lessons. If scripture had used
the suggested contemporary description, the ancients would have seen the Bible as a strange
book of wild speculation that was not to be taken seriously. Thus language of appearance is the
scientifically correct method of expression for a book that speaks to men in all eras of world
history, including early eras when God didn’t give accurate technical knowledge of the physical
universe. Now modern man can rejoice in new knowledge revealed to him with science progress
in the providence of God. But he should not consider his God-given knowledge superior to that
of the Bible, but should feel humbled and privileged to receive the benefit of God's pleasure in
amplifying truth of the natural world in the fullness of time. In God's providence modern man
still justifies use of the language of appearance, and it’s still sufficient for his practical needs.


3. The Bible doesn’t teach that the earth is flat. Isaiah 11:12

…gather…the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Some say a pre-scientific mentality is evidenced in that the phrase four corners of the earth
suggests the ancient erroneous flat-earth belief. Again we ask if moderns use such terminology,
and they do, and again there’s no loss of meaning. This is figurative language, another popular
and valid language feature. This is a figurative reference to the far reaches, or far extent, of a
land or a domain. Actually we can envision four figurative corners of the earth in its north, south,
east and west extremes of direction.

4. The Bible doesn’t say the earth rests on giant pillars. The ancients thought it rested on
giant pillars or giant animals, but Job, written ~4000 years ago, judging by classical scholarship,
shows modern-science knowledge here.

Job 9:6
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Reference to pillars of the earth is figurative language on the foundation, or powers, keeping
earth in stable condition. This is seen in Job 26:11 that says, The pillars of heaven tremble…
Clearly the writer would never have imagined giant material pillars supporting the heavens, the
sky and clouds. The language is figurative, referring to invisible forces stabilizing the features of
the heavens and earth. Such language is very common, even being used to speak of law-abiding
citizens as pillars of a community.
All who say the Bible teaches a flat four-cornered earth supported on giant pillars must
explain Job 26:7 that says, He (God)...hangeth the earth upon nothing. The ancient writer didn’t
know the earth requires no material support, weight having no significance in outer space. The
earth hangs upon nothing as part of a universe that hangs upon nothing, all bodies being
positioned relative to each other by interactive gravity and relative motion. When the book of Job
chooses to be more literal, it shows us a modern-science view of the earth at a time in history
when man thought the earth was supported on giant pillars or giant animals. Now where did the
writer of the book of Job get this understanding if not from intervention by the Creator with His
inerrant knowledge?

5. The Bible teaches a "modern-science” principle of wind generation on the earth.
What is the technical explanation for wind generation on the earth’s surface? Can we find out
from the oldest book of the Bible, written before the time of Abraham, about 4000 years ago
(contrary to modern scholars who usually assign a late date).

Job 38:24 A question by God for Job.

KJV: By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

NASV: Where is the way that the light is divided, Or the east wind scattered on the

NIV: What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where
the east winds are scattered over the earth?

Wind is generated by solar energy heating the earth's surface, causing heating and rising of air
and consequent lateral air flow to fill the void that would be left by rising air. The ancient book
of Job reveals this "modern" science concept, saying light scatters (moves) the east wind upon
the earth. Light is the right term, for conversion of light energy to heat on absorption by the


earth’s surface is the heating that generates wind (light conversion to heat is seen by burning
paper with a lens that concentrates the sun’s light, not its heat). The ancient writer of Job
couldn’t have known something so technical, so it must be due to Providential leading. Indeed
the mechanism would’ve been hidden from ancient non-technical mentalities by occurrence of
night winds arising from temperature differences like that prevailing between the land and sea
after daytime solar heating. God as the ultimate writer of this scripture is revealed in the Hebrew
text and the KJV.
The wind-generation mechanism in Job offers all that laymen need to know about wind. But
it goes a step further and gives specific detail to inform modern technical people. In the phrase by
what way is the light parted, the Bible concisely reveals the most basic technical aspect of wind
generation. By what way, in reference to east wind (long-distance wind), denotes the way in
terms of both the manner and the direction involved as sunlight is parted (its intensity is divided)
to move air and generate winds of variant specific force around the world. That is, the language
denotes involvement of angular directionality of the sun's rays in long-distance wind generation.
More specifically, sunlight strikes the earth at various angles from the vertical at different
longitudes and latitudes due to the curvature of the earth's surface so that earth heating varies
with the angle of inclination of solar radiation. Because of parting (division) of light intensity
according to the angle of inclination, variant earth surface temperatures arise, producing wind
cells in which air moves from a cooler higher-pressure region to a warmer lower-pressure one.
Thus, to the question By what way is the light parted, the answer in terms of manner is, by
the curvature of the earth’s surface, a fact alluded to in Job but unknown at Job’s time. The
answer in terms of direction is, along curved earth paths on which varying sunlight angular
directionality varies earth heating just enough in many adjacent regions to produce many wind
cells of numerous specific ranges of force and direction under the influence of earth rotation.
This advanced science knowledge, concisely revealed in an ancient bible book, can only be due
to the Creator’s omniscience, and He alone knows precise details of the matter.

Knowledge of the light/wind connection proves the divine hand on the scripture text, but modern
translators break the connection, evidently due to a lack of knowledge of a well known science
concept, and they remove knowledge of the divine hand on the text. They render, or for which,
and neither word is in the Hebrew, the right one being derived by context/grammar. Which fits
the context, reflecting true science, but modern versions alter the science and context. Which is
correct, reflecting Hebrew grammar that makes parted passive voice (light is acted on, it is
parted) and scattereth active voice (light acts on, it scatters wind). The result is two concepts in
one thought. Modern translators alter the grammar, making both verbs passive and separating the
concepts into two thoughts to make linguistic sense of the verse in the absence of their
knowledge of the light/wind connection. Their scholarship is lacking, contradicting grammar
rules and missing a well-known science concept. The KJV rightly reflects Hebrew grammar, and
is correct technically, despite lack of knowledge of the light/wind connection in books of that
day. The KJV proves to be an authorized true version by faithful translation of Job that reveals
science truth long before men knew of it, while modern versions don’t offer that insight, despite
ready availability of the science knowledge in modern textbooks.

Modern versions exhibit other lack of science knowledge here, the NKJV diffused and NIV
dispersed being indicative of light scattering, when precise parting is needed to generate winds
of specific force (wind, not light, is scattered). And they exhibit other incorrect language due to
Hebrew syntax brevity and variant word sense that complicate translation. The Hebrew under-


lying the KJV By what way implies a two-fold question (“how,” what manner and “where,”
direction, along what path) that must be preserved in translation. The NASV rightly uses divided,
but limits the question to where, saying, Where is the way (path) that the light is divided. This is
obscure language, and it has a sense of location, missing the sense of direction. Where is the way
on which light is divided is needed just to make linguistic sense in terms of location (but is still
an incorrect sense); By what way is needed to make technical sense and preserve the linguistic
senses of “manner” and “direction.” A sense of angular directionality of light striking a curved
earth path isn’t visible in NASV language, but it’s visibility in the Hebrew is seen in the KJV, By
what way (by what manner and along what path). In the KJV, technical people can see the
manner of light intensity division as light angular directionality due to the well-known curvature
of the earth’s surface, which enables them to see path direction as that along each curved earth
path on which variable angular directionality varies earth heating in many adjacent regions to
produce wind cells of variant specific ranges of force and direction on a rotating earth.
The NIV uses what but limits the question to where, saying, What is the way to the place
where (the underlined words are added to Hebrew-text language to make where the only
question, the addition showing the question isn’t just where). And place denotes location,
missing the sense of direction. Further, the NIV lightning is incorrect word choice due to lack of
knowledge of the light/wind connection (the Hebrew term here isn’t the normal one for
lightning, and while it can refer to light from lightning at times, neither that kind of light nor
lightning fits the Job 38:24 context).

6. Man's pre-scientific medical practice corrected by the Bible.
a. Blood-letting: Man's “scientific cure" for disease.
A theory that disease was due to bad blood led to centuries of blood-letting. It was still in use in
the late 18
century, being performed on George Washington. It continued in the 19
, despite the
century discovery that blood circulation is vital to life. If “doctors" of earlier days had
believed Leviticus written about 1450 B.C, they’d have known how foolish blood-letting was.
Leviticus 17:11 said blood is the essence of physical life ~3000 years before man recognized
this. It says, For the life of the flesh is in the blood.

b. Tonsils and the appendix: Useless" leftover vestigial organs?
The Bible says all body organs are important, but evolutionists wrongly say some organs are
useless leftovers of evolution. Man’s pre-scientific mentality in medical science continued in the
20th century in the theory that some body organs are vestigial, useless leftovers from evolution,
and are best removed. Tonsils and the appendix were in this category not long ago, but now we
know they’re important in disease-prevention.
Many folks who had an uninfected appendix or
tonsils removed would have fared much better by trusting scripture written ~3000 years ago.

Psalm 139:15-16
15. My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret...
16. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect (unformed in the womb); and in thy
book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there
was none of them.

This tells us God knows each part of the body before it develops in the womb, so each is
important to God and not without a function. David wrote in the 11th century B.C. when
evolutionists say man had a modern body. David’s tonsils and appendix weren’t useless vestiges,
for they were so important as to be in God’s book before David’s birth.


7. Dinosaurs and other giant reptiles are in the Bible
Evolutionists say dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before man “evolved,” so they say the
Bible, that began to be written no more than 4000 years, ago, knows nothing of dinosaurs. But
they are in Job, the oldest bible book, and the Bible refutes their supposed existence millions of
years before man, saying God made dinosaurs when He made man (Job). The term "dinosaur" is
modern, so it isn’t in the Bible, but Job gives details on dinosaurs known to scientists only in
modern times. The book indicates Job was acquainted with dinosaurs, and he lived in Uz that
was close to the land later called Israel, so dinosaurs evidently roamed that region in pre-Israel
days, explaining why the river Jordan is connected with dinosaurs in Job 40:23. Thus the book of
Job reaches far back into antiquity when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and, as the only bible book
that speaks of dinosaurs, it is by far the oldest one (see further comment in end-note #2).

a. Job 40:15-19,23,24 God speaks to Job of land-based dinosaurs.
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass…
16…his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17. He moveth his tail like a cedar...
18. His bones are as strong pieces of brass…
19. He is the chief of the ways of God…
21. He lieth under the shady trees…
23. Behold, he drinketh up a river and hasteneth not: he trusteth that he can
draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24: He taketh it with his eyes…

Behemoth is a giant dinosaur of the brachiosaurus/apatosaurus class that, like behemoth, ate
grass. Like behemoth, such a dinosaur was chief of the ways of God, the largest creature in man’s
sight on land. This dinosaur was the only creature with a tail that moved like a cedar tree in
respect of size and force. Behemoth had to be as big as a giant dinosaur to fit the figurative
language on drinking up rivers. And, in full accord with modern dinosaur facsimiles, strength
exertion, like that of behemoth, was centered in the belly to power the huge legs and tail.
(dinosaurs didn’t have a navel, but the term here means center, the basic dictionary sense). This
dinosaur, unknown to scientists until the 19
century, fits the description of behemoth written in
Job ~4000 years ago. Job 40 revealed dinosaurs millennia before man discovered their existence,
so the Bible is the final authority on dinosaurs, and no evolutionist speculation can compete with
the Bible that says God made man and dinosaurs together.
Evidence that dinosaurs have existed within our known history is seen by a recent find of
soft flexible tissue and blood vessels in bone fossils of a Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaur said by
evolutionists to be 68 million years old.
This organic matter decomposes too rapidly in bone
fossilization to endure many thousands, let alone millions, of years exposure. Decomposition is
slowed greatly by burial in flood sediments, but even then, with most contributing factors absent,
shorter-term decomposition results from unavoidable natural radioactivity. Sediment from a
fairly recent flood undoubtedly was involved, perhaps the Great Flood of ~4400 years ago.

RSV/NIV/NASV scholars don’t defy the evolution agenda, the footnotes suggesting behemoth is
a hippopotamus. The RSV verse 17 (followed by ESV/HCSV) says, he makes his tail stiff like a
cedar, a possibility linguistically, but contextually, "stiff like a twig" would be needed to denote
the small fan-shaped hippopotamus tail. In the Hebrew cedar is logically and contextually used
in the sense of a huge tree bending by swaying.


The NASV verse 23 says, If a river rages, he is not alarmed; he is confident, though the Jordan
rushes to his mouth. The NIV says, When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure though
Jordan should surge against his mouth. This language masks the great size and dinosaur identity
of behemoth, suiting a much smaller river-dwelling hippopotamus. It offers incorrect syntax and
word choice, distorts verse poetic style and misses verse division into two thoughts.
Passage syntax stresses behemoth’s great size in a reiterative poetic style (behemoth this &
behemoth that, with he or his most often opening a verse as the subject or subject possessive
pronoun). This style makes behemoth the subject of the four clauses of verse 23 by 3
pronouns (he). Indeed the NASV/NIV must follow this style and make he, behemoth, the subject
of the very brief 2
and 3
clauses. But they deviate to make rivers subjects of the 1
and 4

clauses, masking behemoth’s great size. Verse 23 begins Behold, stressing he, the central-figure
behemoth, as the subject. Poetic style and a transitive verb make river a clause direct object, and
making it a subject and using If or When for Behold favors unrealistic interpretation. It favors
reading the Hebrew literally (NASV language) as, If a river rages, he (the river) is not alarmed;
he (the river) is confident though the Jordan rushes to his (the river’s) mouth; this is clear if the
correct Behold is used. Actually, it’s not that a river rages, but that behemoth conquers a river.

He drinketh up a river (poetic language), consuming it in the sense of conquering it in crossing it
easily, so he hasteneth not to cross a river, for it’s no threat due to his great size.
This is like the
sense of Job 39:24 that says, he (the horse) swalloweth the ground, or consumes/conquers
(Poetic style and context make he a clause subject and ground a direct object). Modern
translators are required by Hebrew language to follow this syntax. But they deviate in 40:23
where language makes it possible to imagine an alternative that avoids he (behemoth) as the
subject and river as the direct object to mask behemoth’s size. Lamsa’s Peshitta version shows
that river isn’t the clause subject, saying, Behold, if he plunges into the river, but its, if he
plunges, avoids the dinosaur identity.

Modern versions follow poetic style to make behemoth a clause subject where language forbids
alternatives, as in 40:15,19,21, and they make other animals clause subjects in 39:3,7,8,14-
16,18,21,22,24,25. But 40:23 is susceptible to an imagined alternative, as is 40:17. The NIV
alters 40:17 as it does 40:23, ignoring poetic style and a transitive verb that make behemoth a
clause subject. It makes the tail the subject, stressing tail motion over size, which further masks
the dinosaur identity. Other modern translators didn’t do this in 40:17, and they had no good
reason to do so in 40:23

*Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Com. stipulates overwhelm, similar to conquer. Hebrew-language expert, prof. R.
Gordis confirms the verb as transitive and says the raging-river concept is dubious translation.

Context here is one of emphasis as God contrasts His wisdom and power with Job’s. The first clause and
first word emphasize the main subject, behemoth, and include a pause, so the interjection Behold with a com-
ma or exclamation point is indicated. The RSV/ESV, Behold, if the river…is supportive of Behold and a pause,
but wrongly adds if to make river a clause subject (it’s Behold or If, not both). If /when are adverbs not
invoking emphasis or a pause. The NRSV Even if the river… HCSV though the river…and NKJV Indeed the
river…are inadequate, minimizing emphasis and eliminating a pause. And in 40:15, where the 1
clause opens
in a way similar to that of 40:23, modern versions render Behold or an equivalent with a pause, as they must
since behemoth is named there (the NASV has, Behold now Behemoth, …and the NIV, Look at the behemoth,
…), but they open 40:23 differently. All this variety suggests modern translators trying in their own ways to
discount the dinosaur identity and thus avoid defying evolution theory.
**The NIV/NASV he is not alarmed isn’t justified; the Hebrew imperfect verb here isn’t stative (state of being
with verb is); the KJV intransitive fientive (action) verb hasteth not (JFB trembleth not) is correct grammar.


Another logical thought arises from that above, that behemoth can draw up Jordan into his
mouth, which has a dual sense. Figuratively, draw up, like drinketh up, means that behemoth
conumes/conquers Jordan, but now in the sense of traversing its full length, drawing all the way
up into the river’s (his) mouth. And draw up is literally “drink” (poetic exaggeration; a Heb.
Athnah at hasteneth stipulates a colon, the second thought developing the first to suggest a size
great enough to imagine ingesting a river).
The NASV/NIV miss the true second thought, making the two one and missing the nature of
Jordan’s motion. It’s not that Jordan rushes/surges, for poetic style and a transitive verb make
behemoth the subject and Jordan a direct object, and the verb as a transitive means bring forth,
draw up
(NASV to his mouth is ok; NKJV into his mouth and Brenton’s Septuagint up into his
mouth are good, yet these versions miss the other important points).

The NASV/NIV reiterate the first thought in new language, something common to Hebrew
poetry, but here the second thought doesn’t just repeat the first, but develops it, adding new
meaning. The clause he is confident/secure serves only to justify the incorrect, though the Jordan
rushes/surges that continues the improper raging-river notion and makes Jordan the subject of a
clause unrelated to context on behemoth’s size. A KJV that in that he can draw up Jordan gives
the right syntax, rightly tying trusteth to a clause with the object of trust, conquest of Jordan, to
construct the second thought by proper continued emphasis on behemoth’s size.
Job 40:24 also
stresses behemoth’s size, saying he takes Jordan with his eyes (owns it), and a hippopotamus is
too small to justify this figurative language on size, so Jordan is made the 4
clause subject.

The NASV/NIV miss both thoughts of verse 23 with private syntax and word choice. Dinosaurs
are well known today, but modern scholars mistranslate to mask behemoth’s identity, perhaps
yielding to the modern notion that dinosaurs aren’t in the Bible. The far lesser hippopotamus size
requires changes to emphasize rivers twice when behemoth’s great size is the one emphasis,
underlying verse poetic style, syntax and word choice. By totally accurate translation, the KJV is
fully correct, though dinosaurs were unknown in 1611, which is a unique distinction marking a
Providentially-ordained version.

b. Job 41:1...31 God speaks to Job about sea-going dinosaur relatives
1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook…
2. Canst thou put a hook into his nose…
10. None is so fierce that dare stir him up…
14. Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible…
17. They (scales) are joined one to another, they stick together...
21. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22. In his neck remaineth strength...
26. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold...
27. He esteemeth iron as straw...
31. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot…

*Jamieson, Fausset, Brown stipulates draw out. Gordis says draw forth and confirms the verb as transitive.

**The imperfect verb rendered trusteth in the KJV is that, or the stative, is confident, so behemoth trusteth, or
is confident he can draw up Jordan into his mouth; grammar suggests either one applies, but trusteth is right,
better reflecting verse syntax and poetic style; is confident serves only to support the raging-river distortion.
The two statives in verse 23 of modern versions can even be used to remove behemoth from verse 23 totally,
through an implied English poetic metaphorical sense of the raging-river concept, that the river isn’t alarmed
(unmoved) and is confident (undeterred) as it rages, when that’s not part of the passage subject matter.


Many think this account is a myth, the seeming fire-breathing capability invoking "fire-breathing
dragons" of ancient legends. But it’s a fully credible technical description of a giant sea-going
dinosaur relative, and the existence of ancient large sea-going reptiles like the plesiosaur is well
known. Leviathan is very large from the satirical expressions about the foolishness of trying to
fish for him, trying to put a hook in his nose. Clearly he’s a large sea-going creature, and the note
in verse 31 about "boiling the deep" is poetic language referring to a large wake of air bubbles
that he produces in moving through the sea, giving the appearance of boiling of the deep. Large
sea-going reptiles likely would have been very strong in the neck, in keeping with verse 22.
From verses 10,22,27, Leviathan is obviously large, fierce and strong. The description of his
scaly flesh in verses 15-17 shows that, like a dinosaur, he’s a reptile. From verse 14, he clearly
has great teeth like those of a dinosaur. In this anatomical detail, the ancient book of Job is
consistent with modern knowledge of giant reptiles not discovered until the 19
century A.D.
Of course passage technical credibility rests on the accuracy of the note on fire coming from
the creature's mouth, but here the Bible gives a physiological detail of certain large reptiles not
recognized by modern scientists. Some would say it’s impossible for flesh to house fire, but
that’s a non-technical way to view the creature. The logical way it could emit fire from its mouth
is by containment of a flammable chemical in its body that is ejected from its body before
ignition. The principle is as simple as that of a flame-thrower, a weapon of war. A soldier's
equipment doesn’t contain fire, but directs a flammable chemical through a nozzle for external
ignition. The chemical is a pressurized organic compound ignited externally and propelled a
distance. In an animal it’s only necessary that its body contain sacs of a combustible organic
liquid propelled by muscular action, ignition being automatic through the presence of an oxidizer
that reacts with the compound to generate adequate heat for spontaneous combustion. If this
sounds incredible to the reader, he should consider that just such a system is found in the
anatomy of an insignificant insect called the bombardier beetle that uses it for self-defense
against birds, frogs and the like. The insect's body produces a combustible organic compound
and an inorganic oxidizer contained in sacs. Mixing the two results in an exothermic (heat-
generating) chemical reaction so energetic that spontaneous combustion occurs, and an explosion
is possible. The insect needs a way to slow reaction until the chemical mixture is ejected from its
body, and this is achieved through a third chemical in its body, an inhibitor that slows reaction
until the mixture contacts air. Thus a fiery hot emission outside the insect's body arises from a
built-in chemical system in this creature's anatomy serving as natural self-defense similar in
principle to a flame-thrower. Now if such a sophisticated self-defense system has been provided
for a mere insect, why can’t a similar one have been provided for a complex reptile?

The Job passage isn’t at all technically incredible. It was once thought that men flying in the
atmosphere was too incredible a notion to be taken seriously. But progressive revelation in
science that God permits shows us the incredible of today is the routine of tomorrow. We should
rethink "legends" on fire-emitting scaly dragons (great lizards, or dinosaurs?) so common in
world cultures from the Americas to Europe to Asia to Australia. Legends are always based on a
kernel of central truth, and the idea of giant reptiles spread throughout the world's cultures at one
time after their creation is hardly incredible, unless you have preconceived notions about their
extinction "millions of years before man evolved." It isn’t scientifically correct to dismiss
persistent accounts in the life of several widespread early cultures. Matters that pertain to science
would have been experienced by ancient mankind, and the manner and means of reporting them
would be primitive, simply because of a lack of sophistication in knowledge and understanding.


An RSV footnote saying Leviathan is a crocodile is absurd regarding the fire-emitting capability
and the size so great he treats iron like straw. And Leviathan's domain isn’t rivers and ponds of
crocodiles, but the sea, as evident from Job and Psalm 104:25-26. Isaiah 27:1 calls Leviathan the
dragon in the sea, fitting for a sea-going fire-emitting reptile.
The New English Bible substitutes "crocodile" for "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" right in the
bible text, even calling the crocodile the "chief of beasts" and "chief of God's works," defying
common sense. And this version refers to the crocodile, not as eating grass, but eating cattle as if
they were grass, and it’s difficult to imagine such a prodigious appetite in a creature whose
stomach is much smaller than one cow. And supposedly, the crocodile emits leviathan's fire from
its mouth. This version just indulges in fanciful speculation and text manipulation to justify the
committee's evolution-supportive private interpretation of the identities of the beasts noted. But
in this it receives very little support from other versions. While the RSV calls Leviathan a
crocodile in its footnotes, it doesn’t attempt much supportive text manipulation here.

End Notes

1. Parker, G. 1994. Creation Facts of Life. Master Books. Col. Springs. p47-56

2. Bednar, L. 2003. Systematic Theology. Mechling Bookbindery. Chicora, PA. p44,45.
Notes on Job dating: While biblical world history begins with Genesis by Moses, that does not
mean this was the first book written. Likely Job was the first revelation inspired by God to begin
the process of inscripturation as early as 2000 B.C, judging by classical scholarship. Job seems to
be the earliest book, preceding the Pentateuch since it shows Job following the personally-
administered animal sacrifice of Abel and Noah that preceded a priestly-administered one of
Moses’ time. And nothing in the book deals with Israel’s origin, suggesting it was written before
Israel began with Moses and so before the Pentateuch was written. Job could be a son of Jacob’s
son Issachar (Gen.46:13), which would place him around 1800-1700 B.C, but this is likely just
another use of the respected name of famous Job, for there’s nothing tying this man to the
greatness of Job seen in the book of Job. And the book says nothing of Abraham, the greatest
figure of his time, and Job was the greatest of all the men of the east (1:3), so the book was likely
written before Abraham’s time, likely around 2000 B.C. The name Uz, Job’s land, is very old,
likely deriving from Noah’s great-grandson Uz (Gen.10:21-23). That Job preceded Abraham is
seen in that Job’s life span was the 140 years he lived after his trials (42:16) plus preceding years
in which he fathered 10 children old enough to commit sins (1:1-5), for a likely possible total of
~200 years. This is comparable to the 205 years of Abraham’s father, Terah, and greater than the
175 years of Abraham, the 148 years of Abraham’s brother Nahor, the 147 years of Abraham’s
grandson Jacob and the 110 years of Jacob’s son Joseph. Very likely, this places Job near
Terah’s time in history as man’s life-span steadily decreased from a near-1000 year level of pre-
flood history, a longevity associated with the pre-fall promise of eternal life.
But we ask why Job’s friends Eliphaz and Bildad had personal and/or tribal names identified
with descendants of Abraham (Esau, Shuah, Jokshan - Gen.25:2) and of his brother Nahor
(Gen.22:20,21). And why are Chaldean and Sabean tribes and the tribe of the friend Elihu noted
tied to descendants of Abraham and Nahor? Well, the name “Chaldeans” preceded Abraham’s
time, for his first homeland was Ur of the Chaldees (Gen.11:31), and the name “Sabeans”
originated very early with Seba, Noah’s great grandson (Gen.10:1-7). And the Naamathite tribe
of Zophar, Job’s friend, originated still earlier with the name of Cain’s great granddaughter (Gen.
4:22). Indeed there’s evidence that names in Job precede those of Abraham and Nahor and their
lines of descent. Eliphaz in Job is called a Temanite, while 1 Chronicles 1:36 says the Teman in


Abraham’s line was a son of Eliphaz. A father can’t continue a clan of which his son is the
patriarch, so Eliphaz in Abraham’s line is a different Eliphaz. It looks like names in Abraham
and Nahor’s lines are repeat uses of earlier names and descent lines of Job and his friends. This
isn’t surprising, for as Abraham was the outstanding man in his age, so Job was in his, and
children would be named after names in Job, this being the one existing scripture book at
Abraham’s time and for the next 500 years. Chronicles established historic record-keeping in
Israel and is crucial for clues on how Job’s and Abraham’s genealogies might be related (The
chroniclers, Ezra et al, restored the Old Testament text after Babylonian Captivity). Further
evidence that names in Abraham and Nahor’s lines are repeats is an inexact correlation of
genealogy. Regarding Elihu the Buzite of Job, his father Barachel isn’t noted in the line of
Nahor, father of Huz and Buz (Gen.22:21), and Job’s Ram in the line of Buz isn’t in Nahor’s
line, the one other Ram in scripture being in Abraham’s line (1 Chr.2:9 – note: Aram in Nahor’s
line isn’t Ram, these being different names in Hebrew, both names perhaps being patterned after
the Ram of Job). And Nahor’s Huz and Buz are likely names derived from Job’s land of Uz,
reflecting a trend in Nahor’s clan in that his name derived from the name of his town and his
brother Haran’s name derived from the district that the town of Nahor was located in.
3. Schweitzer, M.H. et al. Science. Vol.307. #5717. Mar.05. p1952-55.

4. Gordis, R. 1978. The Book of Job. Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies.
Jewish Theological Seminary of America. N.Y.C.

5. Clarke, A. Clarke’s Commentary. N.Y. Abingdon-Cokesbury Press


The Inerrant Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Accuracy in the Textual Basis The Inerrant Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Accuracy in the Textual Basis The Inerrant Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Accuracy in the Textual Basis The Inerrant Autographs Still Speak: Consistent Accuracy in the Textual Basis
Clearly, if a translation is to preserve accuracy, its textual basis must have done so also, and the
KJV basis shows evidence of this that is very convincing to true bible-believers.

The KJV Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic Textual Basis Shows No Faults

A. Passages in the traditional-type Greek text, missing in the critical-type text
1. The angel at the pool – Not a lost verse. John 5:2-7 NIV
5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the sheep gate a pool which in Aramaic* is called
Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.
5:3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie…
5:5 One who was there had been an invalid for 38 years.
5:6 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long
time, He asked him, “Do you want to get well?”
5:7 “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred.
While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”

An omission in the NIV critical Greek text is clear from context so that verse 4 is left blank. In
the absence of the verse, the passage makes no sense. In response to the Lord’s question on
healing, why did the invalid say he had to get into the pool, and why did he have to go in ahead
of others, and what did stirring of the water have to do with healing? The KJV has a verse 4 that
answers these questions. It says, For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and
troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made
whole of whatsoever disease (disturbance of ease in body functions, dis-ease) he had. This shows
why the pool is important, what stirring of the water is all about and why the man wanted to get
into the pool ahead of others.
Many scholars reject the KJV verse 4, despite its logical solution to the problem and despite
the fact that a great majority of Greek manuscripts have the verse as seen in the KJV.
reject it just because a few non-traditional manuscripts they favor don’t have verse 4. They prefer
to believe the genuine verse 4 was lost rather than accept the KJV rendering. This would suggest
that scholars and their opinions are crucial in bible preservation, and that we’re at their mercy in
having “all the Word of God still available” at our disposal.

The verse has also been attacked on the basis that some in the 2
century church disputed the
existence of such a miraculous pool in Jerusalem since it wasn’t found at that time.
But such
healing devices were only for Old Testament purposes and thus would pass away after Calvary
when Christ became the sole focus of our healing.

*The NIV interprets here, for the Greek text says Hebrew, not Aramaic. Aramaic was common then, but
Hebrew was used in some matters, especially religious ones. Actually studies suggest Bethesda is a Hebrew
word, while the Aramaic equivalent is Bethzatha (Hodges, Z.C. The Greek Text of the King James Version. in
Which Bible. Ed. Fuller, D.O. Inst. For Bib. Text. Studies. Gr. Rap. p29

imagines a necessity for inclusion of such a verse could make a scribe add it to the text, so he
suggests impairment of his favorite text-type is normal so that correction by men is expected. He stresses the
danger of adding to the text, which he thinks occurred in the traditional text, and he objects to speaking of a
deletion here, even though the NIV language here plainly reveals deletion.


2. The last 12 verses of Mark: Not a lost passage. Mk.16:9-20

16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed:
neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Scholars suggest Mark's Gospel ends at verse 16:8 on a note of fear by women at the tomb,
saying the last 12 verses in the KJV Mark aren’t authentic, even though the subject matter is in
other gospels. They suggest Mark's gospel omits events like the report of Mary Magdalene to the
disciples, the Emmaus Road meeting with Jesus, the great commission and Jesus’ Ascension.
Scholars have Mark's Gospel ending on a note of fear instead of Resurrection triumph. Some say
Mark ended his gospel here, making it abnormally different. Others say there’s a lost true ending
different from that of the KJV Mark.

Such theories arise just because two Alexandrian and one Latin manuscripts, and an old Syriac
version omit the 12 verses. But many Greek and Latin manuscripts and many old versions and
commentaries have the verses. And the Latin manuscript omitting them shows evidence of
Docetist tampering, indicating omission by tampering. Supportive Traditional-Text material is
very cogent, and the bible-based church and others have revered and retained the verses for

centuries. All scholars offer to justify their view is their manuscript preference and imaginative
arguments like a writing style of the 12 verses supposedly different from Mark's typical one.
Expositors today teach that the 12 verses aren’t authentic on the basis of speculative aspects of
style and grammar. White discounts the major manuscript support and defends the omission with
mere speculation.

B. Passages present only in certain select traditional-type Greek manuscripts
Scholars say a true bible reading may be found in just a few manuscripts to support their theory
that their preferred Greek text is best, a text that often has scant manuscript support. In this
scholars grasp a textual truth but apply it to the wrong text. Alexandrian manuscript readings
inferior in doctrine and accuracy, and indicative of heresy at times, can’t reflect a providentially
preserved text for an entire true church. But a small number of true readings do have minor
manuscript support for logical orthodox reasons.
A reading affirmed by a majority of traditional manuscripts is a preservation norm. Earliest
text copies would circulate in all churches, a majority (consistent) reading being a true one. But
preservation of all readings would be realized only in churches retaining a biblical basis, accurate
manuscripts being protected there in reaction to many other churches becoming unbiblical and
tolerating tampering.
Gnostic influence, the main cause of extreme corruption at Alexandria,
likely had some influence on other eastern churches. The Greek church at large grew unbiblical,
and many traditional manuscripts show a minor degree of variance with certain readings being

*White, The King James Only Controversy, p256, imagines anomalies in the 12 verses, like Jesus appearing in
another form in verse 12, thinking this denies a physical resurrection body, but Jesus’ resurrected physical
body was supernatural (Lk.24:33-40). And he notes 11 disciples at the table in verse 14 (no Thomas makes
10), but the 11 were those of John 20:26 that included Thomas. And he says it’s unlikely Jesus would rebuke
the disciples for unbelief in their fearful post-Crucifixion state, but Jesus earlier rebuked them for unbelief
when they were fearful (as in Mt.8:26). Such objections conjured up from imagination can’t disqualify
scripture passages.
a. Burgon, J. The Revision Revised. Ed. Fuller, D.O. 1983. True or False. Gr. Rapids. Internatiional
Publications. p137-159 b. Hoskier, H. The Codex Vaticanus and its Allies. Ed. Fuller, D.O. 1975. “Which
Bible.” Inst. for Biblical Textual Studies. Gr. Rapids. p136-141


mildly distorted, while most, or nearly all, of them, exclude a few true readings. Manuscripts like
these would eventually predominate as an unbiblical eastern-church sector grew large and many
scribes made many copies of slightly altered texts with a few lost true readings. Manuscripts
confined to biblical churches would preserve all original readings, but the proportion of these in
the total would diminish greatly as small true churches became obscure in the post-apostolic era.
Thus minor, or even scant, manuscript support of a few true readings is no surprise.

With total preservation marking true churches, a movement toward true faith will multiply copies
of the true text, as in the case of the Reformation. In preparation for this event, the Traditional
Text was renewed in the west as Constantinople fell to muslims in the Roman-empire east in
1453 A.D. Fleeing Greek scholars carried this text west where the Latin Vulgate ruled. With
invention of movable-type printing at ~1450, the text was soon fixed in print and no longer
subject to tampering in hand-written manuscripts. These events preceded the Reformation in the
near future, so the west was providentially being prepared for Reformation-era translations to
guide those seeking a return to biblical faith.
Regarding text history, God’s people must place faith in His sovereignty above the views
and opinions of scholars. God’s Word is mainly for His people who discern it by the Spirit, so
usage in the biblical church, where God’s people are, will identify the true text, as Dr. Hills
Thus the present writer views renewal of the true text in the west as correcting a minor
degree of error in the Traditional Text to restore its original total accuracy, resulting in the
Received Text. Restoration as a process explains a history of minor variations of the Received
Text as progressions toward a perfected final form in today’s KJV. Critics deriding historical
changes in the Received Text don’t realize God won’t abandon the text to the devil’s servants
that ever seek to alter it, but will ordain and guide His servants to maintain His truth.
If God
inspired men of old to write scripture, He can certainly direct later men to correct error. This
would be the logical reason why Beza resorted to an unidentified textual source at Revelation
16:5, seeing that Erasmus’ text missed the future aspect of God’s sovereignty, only the present
and past aspects being given. It’s why Beza, while disagreeing with Erasmus’ text on Luke 2:14,
nonetheless retained a rendering contrary to his own doctrinal belief, being guided by something
greater than his preferences. What looks to critics like unorthodox text development is actually
God’s way of restoring a text without glorifying men. Text adjustments ended when the text was
finalized in the KJV of the biblical church, the only legitimate further changes being language-
convention up-dating and textual commentary like that of Scrivener in the 19

Now scripture is mainly for faithful laity who never imagine the text needs changes, but revere
and preserve it, so translations in common vernaculars can be as important as Greek manuscripts
in preserving the text. God may intervene to preserve the text in translations to override scholar
corruptions in Greek manuscripts. While there’s always been a true Greek text in true churches,
God’s Word can be fully preserved in other languages. True churches are vital in God’s plan for
His Word, so there’s great value in the Italic Old Latin text of a biblical non-Roman European
church originating in apostolic times. This church would safeguard the text for full preservation
in Latin. A true translation should be providentially favored over altered Greek manuscripts to
preserve the true text, and the Italic would’ve been a vital textual source for correcting a minor
degree of error in the Traditional Text to help produce the Received Text crucial to Europe.

True translations of biblical churches help sustain text accuracy, as in the case of Latin versions
and the Greek Received Text produced by Erasmus. The Roman Vulgate New Testament was


based on the Italic version of the true Latin church, and “Vulgate carryovers” in Erasmus text
had a high probability of being true readings. Scholars disdain his occasional use of the Vulgate
when Greek manuscripts were lacking, suggesting his Roman background influenced him. But
he favored Vulgate revision by traditional manuscripts, preferring the Greek. He held certain
Roman doctrines, but he had no bias, being a bold reformer of this church, even ending his days
with reformers separated from Rome.
And scholars criticize what they call Erasmus' limited manuscript source, saying he could’ve
avoided resorting to the Vulgate by recourse to the Alexandrian text, but this assumes that text is
useful. The Traditional-type manuscripts of Erasmus were part of a progressive restoration plan
utilizing the best available texts, so quality was quite good, and a few manuscripts sufficed to
provide the entire text rather well. Scholars fail to see a providential intervention limiting
Erasmus' choices to the best available manuscripts.

Erasmus' text was providentially timed, barely preceding the Reformation, for which it doubtless
was intended. This timing was ensured in a unique way, an ambitious printer who wanted to have
the first published Greek text, rushing Erasmus to finish his text before release of the competing
Complutension Polyglot of Spain (God uses the foolishness of men to effect His will). Now this
providential timing precluded the later popularity of Alexandrian manuscripts so that they could
have no real influence on Erasmus’ thinking, despite their availability in Vatican archives and
elsewhere. Further, this providential timing allowed the popularity of the Latin Vulgate at this
time in history to force Erasmus to consider it, despite his preference for the traditional Greek.
Thus Providence was in control when Erasmus resorted to the Vulgate at times.
What we must realize is that the Italic Old Latin Bible underlying the Vulgate was the text of
a bible-based western church from at least the mid-2
century on, and later a text used for
Reformation-era versions. Augustine testified of the good Italic textual state in the 4
calling it the best in fidelity to the Greek. In the late 4
century, Jerome chose the Italic for Old
Latin revision, recognizing it as the best basis for revision. He made some changes toward the
Alexandrian Text (his misguided idea of revision), but pro-Alexandrian changes were limited,
especially limited outside the gospels, so his Vulgate was a far better source for Erasmus than the
Alexandrian text. And the certainty of providential intervention in text history maximizes
confidence in Erasmus' text and the KJV based largely upon it. That “Vulgate carryovers” in
Erasmus’ text were actually original Italic readings of the biblical western church, is indicated by
various examples, the most famous one being 1 John 5:7,8, the so-called Johannine Comma.

1. The Johannine Comma: Truth restored for lovers of truth. 1 Jn.5:5-9, KJV.

5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by
water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost and these three are one.
8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water and the blood:
and these three agree in one.
9. …this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
6…And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7: For there are three that testify: _____________?____________
8: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


Introduction: Scholars reject the Comma (underlined words) in the Received Text since its
primary support is Latin manuscripts. White dismisses it due to minor manuscript support
beyond the Vulgate,
reversing his position against major manuscript support of the last 12
verses of Mark 16. Evidently he endorses minor manuscript support only for his preferred critical
text. A total of 10 Greek manuscripts, including an 8
century one, have the Comma.

Scholars say Erasmus opposed Comma inclusion in the text, its presence being due to a rash
but there are no accidents in God’s Word. That Erasmus opposed it is speculation, and
even if he did, it’s in his text from the 3
edition, and an inability to exclude it would show how
God confounds the wise. He said he found it in a Greek manuscript, one scholars say was written
at Erasmus’ time, but that’s just a biased view, and the date is uncertain.

The Comma pre-dated Jerome’s Vulgate revision of the Italic. His prologue shows he knew of it,
but omitted it; it was inserted around 800 A.D.
(the Vulgate N.T. was finished an unknown time
after 384 A.D). An early Comma origin is seen by Old Latin manuscripts of the 5
and notes of 3
century Latin bishops.
Priscillian quoted it before 385 A.D. In 258 A.D.
Cyprian said, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, interpreting Word
as Son.
Tertullian in 215 A.D, said of the Father, Son and Comforter, which three are one,
In the 484 A.D. Council of Carthage, 400 North African bishops affirmed Comma
authenticity, indicating it was a long-standing tradition under attack at that time.

verified the Italic as of Traditional-text type. Warner said, The version current among
the western heretics (Waldenses, called heretics by Catholics) can be shown to be based upon the
Greek (Traditional) and not the Latin (Vulgate).
-century scholar Allix said of Waldensian
worship, The liturgy has the Psalms and diverse other texts of Scripture of the ancient version
called the Italic.
And extant Waldensian Tepl/Romaunt Old Latin versions and the Vulgate are
based on the Italic New Testament, but the versions agree together against the Vulgate at places,
suggesting they follow the Traditional Text where Jerome imposed the Alexandrian.
A bible-based Latin church traces back to a Reformation church, on back to a 12
Waldensian church and finally to a 2
-century Vaudois church (dwellers in Alps valleys). The
Italic endured in the non-Roman western church down to and beyond the Reformation, while the
Roman church began Vulgate use in the 5
century. Italic preservation continued in Erasmus’
Greek Text of Reformation churches seeking a return to biblical faith, and it later continued in
the KJV. Comma lineage extends all the way from ancient Vaudois churches, to Waldensian
churches, to Reformation churches and to today’s KJV churches, in accord with the concept of
preservation of the true text in churches desiring to be biblical.

Textual analysis: Bible-believing scholar Dr. E. Hills.
noted grammatical evidence of Comma
authenticity. Its absence creates a textual issue, relating masculine descriptive modifiers directly
to neuter-gender terms Spirit, water and blood and treating neuters as if they were masculine,

a. Dabney, R.L. The Doctrinal Various readings of the N.T. Greek. Discussions: Evangelical &
Theological. 1891. Vol.1. p350-390.
b. Nolan, F. 1815. An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate… London.
c. Kenyon, F. 1951. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. N.Y. Harper. p169-171.
d. Warner, J.H. 1922-28. Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge. MacMillan
e. Allix, P, D.D. Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albig-
enses. Ch.7, p51. 1989 ed. Reprinted from 1821 ed. Checked against Allix 1690-92 ed.
f. Hurst, J.F. 1897. History of the Christian Church. Vol.1. N.Y. Eaton & Mains. p834.


contrary to Greek grammar. Without the Comma there’s no explanation, but with the Comma
present, the problem disappears. Comma masculine nouns of the Trinity, Father and Word
control gender treatment of neuter nouns they associate with, and the Comma itself has
masculine descriptive modifiers treating the neuter nouns as masculine. Scholars say arbitrary
personalization caused the unique variation, but Hills noted that in that case Spirit in verse 6 of
the passage would have been seen as personalized and treated as masculine, but it wasn’t. White
dismisses all this on the basis of style that supposedly allows such grammar deviation as normal.

Linguistic evidence of Comma deletion in the NIV Greek text is seen in verses 7, 8 that are each
an incomplete thought/sentence, a need to combine two Greek-text verses to complete one
thought/sentence suggesting deletion. And deletion is indicated in that Spirit, water and blood of
Jesus in verse 8 are by nature earthly witnesses to His deity, so the Comma portion, And there
are three that bear witness in earth looks necessary. And evidence of deletion arises in that
omitting the Comma omits Word in the Comma Trinity, the name John normally applies to the
eternal Christ (Jn.1:1, 1 Jn.1:1, Rev.19:13).
Contextual evidence of deletion is seen in that 1 John 5:9 verifies Comma authenticity in
relating the Comma heavenly witness to the verse-8 earthly witness, saying, this is the witness of
God (witness of the Trinity of the Comma) which he hath testified of His Son (in the form of the
verse 8 earthly witness). And the Spirit links the heavenly and earthly witnesses, being in both in
verses 7 and 8. And the initial Comma portion, a heavenly testimony to Jesus as God’s salvation,
accords with John’s gospel (In Jn.5:37, the Father sends and bears witness of Jesus, and in 1:1,14
& 8:14 Christ the Word bears witness of Himself, and in 16:13,14 the Spirit of truth [the Holy
Ghost] witnesses of Jesus).

Other contextual matters affirming Comma authenticity relate to early heresy. A heresy of some
significance, docetism, postulated a phantom spirit Christ who only seemed to have a body, and
1 John 4:3 refutes this in declaring Jesus as God in the flesh. Gnostic adoptionist heresy
postulated a mere man Jesus temporarily indwelled by the eternal Christ, and John’s refutation of
this heresy has a role in proving Comma authenticity, as we shall now see.
Contrary to scholars, verse 5:6 water and blood refer, not to Jesus’ baptism and shedding of
blood, but His deity. Verse 5 declares His deity as God’s Son as the basis of salvation victory,
and 5:6 further discusses His deity, saying it is, not by water only, but by water and blood. Greek
grammar indicates by has the sense, by means of,* saying Jesus came to earth by means of divine
power signified by water and blood. Verse 5:6 reveals water and blood, in conjunction with
Spirit, as signifying a human trinity (Son of man, Jesus) paralleled by a divine Trinity (Son of
God, Christ) so that humanity and deity were in each aspect of His Trinitarian person. Spirit,
water and blood in Jesus’ earthly form testify to His authenticity as the divine Savior. The Spirit
relates Jesus’ human spirit to the Holy Spirit, both being an integral part of His person (Rom.8:9
equates the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ Spirit). The water relates Jesus’ word spoken on earth through
His human soul (that calmed a storm at sea) to the divine eternal Word of heaven (that spoke the
world into existence), both being an integral part of His person (Eph.5:26 relates Jesus’ word to

In the 1
clause of 5:6, water and blood are in the genitive case and are unexpectedly with the preposition dia
(by), and they appear in a more usual dative case with the preposition en (by) in the parallel 2
clause. Dia
with the genitive usually means through in the sense of, passing through the midst of, which is awkward here.
Using dia with the genitive case is rare for John, the only other case in 1 Jn. being 4:9 (Findlay, G.G. 1989.
Studies in John’s Epistles. Kregel. p397). A meaning of the preposition common to both cases in 1 Jn.5:6, is
indicated, instrumentality (by means of), and this is clearly the meaning in 1 Jn.4:9


water, the church being sanctified by washing of water by the word, and in John 15:3, His Word
cleanses us, or has the nature of water). And the human bodily part of Jesus’ person relates to His
divine blood (Acts 20:28 calls Jesus’ blood that of God - Only divine blood, free of sin-stain of a
human father or mother, could cleanse us of sin. The Holy Ghost would’ve created the human
body Christ dwelled in, consisting of directly-created divine blood and a human body indirectly
created from Mary’s genetic make-up and excluding her contribution to the blood.
) The Spirit in
Jesus testifies that Christ came not by water alone, or not as the Eternal Word of heaven occupy-
ing a body, as in Gnostic adoptionism. He came also by blood, divine blood in His own body
able to redeem us, not the powerless blood of a mere man occupied by the eternal Word.
Jesus’ divine water and blood witness of His salvation mission is seen also in John 19:32-37
noting water and blood of His pierced side on the Cross in prophecy fulfillment related to His
deity (Zec.12:10 on the pierced Messiah’s 2
Advent, Ex 12:46 on God’s Passover lamb with no
broken bone & Ex.17:1-7 on the water of life from the rock that is Christ – see 1 Cor.10:4). In
relation to these Crucifixion prophecies, blood and water signify His normally-veiled deity
within His humanity, and prophecy fulfillment in relation to this informs John on Jesus’ deity.

Now why does the Comma treat the Spirit, water and blood as masculine? For the same reason
the Spirit is it as part of Christ’s earthly person, but He as a separate personage.
In 5:8 the
earthly testimony is water signifying the divine word, and blood signifying divine blood
embodied. Attesting the water and blood is the divine Spirit in Jesus. The 5:8 nouns of earthly
testimony are treated as masculine since, though each is part (it) of Jesus’ earthly person, each
signifies a sovereign entity (He) in His person by the Trinity heavenly witness in the Comma
(5:7 syntax creates a parallel 5:8 syntax, so 5:8 verifies Comma authenticity). The Father in
heaven of the Comma testifies of His relationship to Jesus by divine blood, so the blood (it)
representing the Father (He) exhibits masculinity (an earthly father/son relationship is one of
blood, and Jesus’ divine blood symbolizes a pure Father/Son relationship in body - a divine
eternal body with hand/foot wounds in resurrection - Lk.24:39, 40). The Eternal Word in heaven
of the Comma testifies by water of Jesus’ word that He as the Son came in holy flesh and blood,
so the water (it) representing Him exhibits masculinity. The divine Holy Ghost in heaven of the
Comma testifies of His earthly ministry as Jesus’ Spirit (it) verifying the water/blood testimony,
so the Spirit (He) on earth exhibits masculinity. Thus the earthly three that agree in one are of
divine nature, this being veiled in their earthly form, but revealed in 1 John 5:7-8. Jesus’ Spirit is
divine and masculine but has an apparent neuter form in His earthly state, and the divine blood in
His earthly body and the divine Word in His earthly speech reflect masculinity veiled in their
earthly form. In their deity the three agree in one (act as one), reflecting the Comma heavenly
Trinity that are one. Jesus in His three earthly aspects of personage reflects the divine Trinity
(image of God) verified by the Comma heavenly witness. He came to earth by divine power
signified by water and blood that are attested by the Spirit. Thus the Comma and earthly
testimonies reflect the dual Trinity of the Son of God and Son of man.

*Blood forms in the fetus, both parents contributing; with only one human parent involved, normal human
blood cannot result (Henniger, H. 1990. 20 Tremendous Truths. Springfield, Mo. Baptist Bible Trib..p88).
*The Spirit’s neuter gender in verse 7, due to His impersonal title, is rendered if He is portrayed as part of
Jesus’ person in a verse like 5:8 (a part of a personage is it, not he). Yet Spirit masculine gender is visible in
5:8, despite invisibility in 5:7. This shows how deliberate masculine gender treatment is, reflecting the image
of sovereign persons of the Trinity in Jesus’ person. It also shows Erasmus' text and the KJV recognize the
Holy Spirit as a person, despite Greek neuter gender.


The Spirit water and blood that agree in one (in one person) refute the idea of a mere man
adopted by eternal Christ, the divine blood proving this by the testimony of the divine Spirit. The
Trinity of heaven verifies the divine earthly witness, the Spirit witness of the water and blood,
totally nullifying adoptionism. Thus the Comma is authentic, being crucial to verse-8 meaning.

Manuscript history: A pure Traditional Text renewed in the Received Text
Adoptionists, who called Jesus a man inhabited by eternal Christ, were refuted by the Trinity’s
Comma witness. This irrefutable witness is easily removed without distorting syntax flow, so
easily that scholars prefer gnostic tampering to biblical truth. Evidently gnostics were able to
eliminate the Comma from the traditional text, but couldn’t corrupt the overall text freely as they
did the Alexandrian, and they couldn’t corrupt the Comma in the Italic.
In view of great potential for manuscript tampering and copyist error, a logical reason for
good general Traditional-Text condition is periodic providential renewal to widen access to truth,
using chosen servants and the biblical-church text. Renewal is part of text history (e.g. God
restored tables of the law broken by Moses [Ex.32:15, 34:1], and Jeremiah restored a God-given
text burned by a king [Jer.36]). Restoration of corrupted New Testament manuscripts is expect-
ed, and the 10 later manuscripts with the Comma can signify pre-Erasmus renewals. The Comma
is in margins of 4 of the 10, suggesting a step toward renewal by scribes knowing of its validity.
Now Comma presence in the Received Text and the 2
-century Italic connects the Received
Text to the Greek text underlying the Italic. Manuscripts of the Italic Greek text are closest in
time to originals, just half a century or so from the Revelation autograph. Thus Comma presence
in the Received Text is indicative of renewal, correction of a minor degree of error imposed on
the Traditional Text over the centuries to restore it perfectly in final form as the Received Text of
the KJV. Comma presence in the Italic (indirectly by the Vulgate) so close to the autographs
authorizes Comma inclusion in the Received Text, overruling minor Traditional-Text support as
attributable to error repeated many times by many copyists in a large unbiblical church. In the
Comma and other likely renewal examples, the Received Text has the earliest known connection
to the autographs. Other likely renewals supported by the Latin and having minority or scant
Greek manuscript support are Jn.7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, Eph.1:18, 3:9 and Col.1:14 (the latter tells
of salvation by Jesus’ blood). Also likely is the Rev.22:19 book of life having scant Greek
manuscript support. Indeed the textual history of Ephesians 3:9 implies providential intervention,
with text renewal halting corruption at a point in time; a faulty administration replaces the true
fellowship, but the true through Jesus Christ is intact. This has been the state in the Traditional
text for centuries, a snapshot of a partially-corrupt verse frozen in time, suggesting intervention
halting corruption by satan’s agents at this point. The halt would mark ordaining of the Received
Text, in printed form difficult to corrupt, to renew the Traditional Text in perfect original form.

Conclusion: The Comma endured in the Italic of biblical churches true to God’s Word in
Middle-Ages persecution. God ensures full preservation of His Word for biblical churches in
select texts, the Italic long ago, the Greek Received Text later and the KJV today, favoring them
over altered Greek manuscripts endorsed by scholars who disdain the Comma and prefer gnostic
tampering. The Received Text and the Comma were God’s great restoration plan, following
shortly after invention of movable-type printing that ended scribal tampering in hand-written
manuscripts and shortly after Greek scholars brought their Traditional-Text manuscripts west at
the fall of Constantinople. It appeared shortly before the Reformation that spread true Bibles in
Europe at that time in history and provided the true text for today’s biblical churches.


Latin biblical-church testimony authenticates the Comma, but the eastern Greek biblical
church once held it too. Both churches dwelled in the shadows of large post-apostolic churches.
The eastern is barely known in history, so Comma status in its text is unknown. The general
eastern church early forsook reverence of scripture, losing God’s guidance needed to retain the
Comma. This happened through Jerome in the general western church, but only temporarily.
Perhaps the Comma returned to the entire west one day since many kept to the Old Latin Bible,
resisting Jerome's version for centuries. But in the biblical Latin church it was never lost and rose
again to prominence in the Reformation, for it’s an original bible truth, not a Vulgate carryover.
For all who love God's Word, the Comma endures, despite scholar error. It’s vital to true
believers in its unusual revelation of the sacred relationship of our Savior in the Trinity that
guarantees success of His mission and scripture preservation. Comma preservation shows us true
scripture can never die. This encourages total devotion to Christ’s Word and service in all those
loving the Word through terrible persecution, for they too can never die and will receive rewards
beyond imagination (1 Cor.2:9). Comma retention in the KJV and the Received Text continues
God’s ancient plan, and all who prefer other versions reject a privilege providentially accorded to
true bible-believers.

2. The woman taken in adultery: An “unauthentic” passage can’t remain in
God's Word for many centuries. Jn.7:53-8:11

Modern scholars disdain the passage on the woman taken in adultery. It’s not in their favored
manuscripts and lacks support by most others,
and they reject passages with much more support.
They say it should not be taught as scripture, and NIV translators boldly question its authenticity
with a note in the text just above the passage saying, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts
and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." But many early Latin and some Greek
manuscripts (the earliest Greek are a few 5
-century ones), early scripture lessons and references
of church elders verify the passage authenticity. Augustine said it’s a true reading removed from
many manuscripts of his day due to intolerance of forgiveness for one guilty of adultery.

The passage endured in part of the church for many centuries, unlike the Alexandrian text,
and how can that be if it’s spurious? It’s in the Old Latin Bible, indicating truth from the text of
the bible-based church, and it looks like this text was once very much an object of censors. And
how can such a lengthy passage be in some traditional text copies if it isn’t genuine, removal
from some being far easier, and thus much more likely, than invention and addition to others?
And if it’s just an invention of dishonest men, how can we account for its high doctrinal quality
and full compatibility with other scripture?

Language/grammar considerations: Immediately preceding the account of the woman is a
passage in chapter 7 about the chief priests and Pharisees questioning officers sent to the temple
to arrest Christ and explaining why they did not. Christ isn’t present here. This passage ends with
John 7:53 where all parties leave, and the next morning we deal with the account of the woman
taken in adultery. In 8:12 we deal with a discourse between the Lord and the Pharisees.
As bible-believing scholar John Burgon noted
over 100 years ago, trying to eliminate the
account of the woman and relate 7:52 directly to 8:12 produces linguistic nonsense. It would
have the Pharisees speaking to the officers in a lengthy episode where the Lord isn’t present,
followed immediately in 8:12 by, Then spake Jesus again unto them. The result would be quite
incomprehensible, as we see by examining the passage in detail. The so-called unauthentic
passage in the KJV is set off, and a few of the preceding and following verses are given below.


7:45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why
have ye not brought him?
7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
7:47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
7:50 Nicodemus saith unto them…
7:51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and look: for out of
Galilee ariseth no prophet.

7:53 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 Jesus went up unto the mount of Olives.
8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and
all the people came unto him; and he…taught them.
8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when
they had set her in the midst,
8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery…
8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest
8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped
down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one,
beginning at the eldest, even unto the last; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman
8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her,
Woman where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
8:11 She said, No man Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and
sin no more.

8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world…
8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself…

Verse 8:12, which all consider to be genuine, says, Then spake Jesus again unto them. Where did
He speak the first time to them? The only answer is the supposedly unauthentic passage on the
woman where the Lord said to scribes and Pharisees, He that is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone at her. Grammatical/syntactical considerations require the personal pronoun
them to refer to someone recently noted in the immediate context (Pharisees and scribes of 8:9) if
the pronoun is to have meaning. In the prior passage, the Lord isn’t present to speak to anyone,
and that passage relates to the previous day. Thus there’s no one else anywhere in the near
context to relate them to, and the supposedly unauthentic passage has the only possible answer to
the question of the identity of them.
Indeed 8:12 logically follows the account of the woman. But the NIV 8:12 says "when Jesus
spoke again to the people, he said I am the light of the world." This changes contextual sense,
allowing verse 8:12 to stand alone, not needing the preceding account of the woman to make


sense. “When” introduces a new thought and removes the sense of an 8:11-to-8:12 sequence.
And “the people” suggests 8:12 action involves a discourse with the people, not the Pharisees
and scribes. The NIV eliminates the need for 8:12 to refer to the account of the woman accused
by the scribes and Pharisees, as if the account could be considered not genuine. But this is
incorrect paraphrasing, as seen by other modern versions with the same type Greek text used for
the NIV. They render the passage with the same critical words that the KJV does.

NASV: 8:12 Again therefore Jesus spoke to them saying, I am the light of the world…

RSV: 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world…

Thus the contextual-sense change in the NIV only seems to make 8:12 stand apart from the
account of the woman. The Lord addresses the same persons in 8:12 He addressed in the account
of the woman (scribes & Pharisees), so 8:12 refers back to the account of the woman. This is so
since we know them is the correct word in the Greek text, and them are scribes and Pharisees
from the account of the woman, not the people in general. Their identity is evident since after the
Lord speaks to them in 8:12, in 8:13 the Pharisees are the ones who answer Him in all versions,
including the NIV. In suggesting the them the Lord speaks to in 8:12, is the people, the NIV
mistranslates its Greek text with inaccurate paraphrasing. Even if we were to assume them did
refer to the people so as to eliminate the so-called unauthentic account of the woman, there’s no
place where the Lord spoke a first time to the people recently enough for them to refer to the
people. In the fairly long 7:45-52 passage preceding the account of the woman, the Lord wasn’t
present to speak to anyone, only officers, priests and Pharisees being present, and this event
happened the previous day. The Lord's last discourse with the people prior to the account of the
woman was the previous day in 7:39, much too distant for them to refer to the people. A pronoun
can’t link to such a distant noun when there’s much intervening material. Thus, while we can’t
accept the general error resulting from skipping the account of the woman and linking 8:12 to
7:52, we can’t accept the specific error of the NIV. The NIV “solution” serves only to justify the
inaccurate text note on a supposed lack of authenticity of the passage. The account of the woman
won’t go away, and that’s no surprise, for truth is uncooperative with opinion.
One might think use of "the people" is justified by verse 8:2 where Christ teaches the people
before the woman arrives, but this verse is part of the passage that scholars would eliminate.
Clearly, in 8:12 the Lord speaks to the scribes and Pharisees, and this logically follows His first
comment to them in the authentic account of the woman.

Thus we see evidence of a genuine passage removed from the text in preferred manuscripts of
scholars, the verses following this passage being those with which it logically connects. The
same is true at the first verse of the disputed passage. Verse 7:53 of the so-called unauthentic
passage fits exactly with the last verse of what scholars say is true scripture in 7:52. Verse 7:52
concludes the conversation between officers and the Jews, and verse 7:53 follows perfectly in
that it tells us each man then went to his own home. Does the reader not see the hand of
Providence here in that those who tampered with the text were made to do so in such a way that
the evidence of their tampering would be obvious? Clearly the passage in dispute fits perfectly
into surrounding text at both ends and is absent in preferred manuscripts of scholars because, as
Augustine said long ago, it was removed. John Burgon pointed this out over a century ago but
was mostly ignored. Can churches lose part of God’s Word if they’re determined to? Evidently
so, forgiveness for adultery illustrated in the account of the woman being repealed for them by
omission from their bible texts if they want it that way. And such folly that excludes knowledge


of forgiveness for a certain sin can be continued into our times by scholars who reestablish the
texts of faulty ancient manuscripts.

History and logic considerations: Those in the early church disliking the passage felt Christ
pardoned the woman too easily (as if one might question the judge of the world). Man classifies
sin in categories of severity, but the smallest sin will send us to the same hell that adultery will if
we are not forgiven. These early-church objectors erred, not realizing the woman experienced
salvation in this encounter with Christ. Salvation by simple belief produces forgiveness of all sin
and has always seemed to many as too easy a route to heaven. The woman received salvation since
Christ said to her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. One not condemned by the Lord
Himself has forgiveness of sins and salvation. And the Lord wasn’t condoning adultery here, but
was imparting Christian morality to a newly saved person in telling her to go, and sin no more.
We readily see salvation at work here when we realize this poor trapped woman would’ve been
convinced that in a few moments cruel Pharisees and scribes with rocks in hand were about to
crush her skull for a sin condemned without reservation by God’s Word. She would see herself
as about to die in her sin and descend into hell for fiery eternal punishment. It’s easy to see that
in her moment of dreadful heart-stopping anguish, her deliverance from destruction by Christ's
wisdom taught her a lesson in morality that she never forgot and that she went away from that
encounter a firm believer in the God of morality and forgiveness.

Legalists complain that the law of God demanding punishment for adultery was too easily set
aside here by the Lord. But such people forget that the New Testament changed many things.
Forgiveness replaced condemnation when a person truly repented of sin, and there’s no question
that the woman truly repented of her sin in this incident. Forgiveness upon repentance is the best
news sinners could ever receive, and it is the whole basis for the good news of the Gospel.
Yet the law is holy and good, and the Lord didn’t ignore it. He showed the elders the law
was too holy for them since no man is righteous enough to qualify to stone anyone. He did this
by challenging any who were without sin to throw the first stone. What He did in this passage
was to accomplish a major aspect of His mission to fulfill the law. In fulfilling it, He overruled
judgment rights by unholy man under holy law, and declared God as the only righteous judge,
accepting upon Himself God's judgment of man for violation of the law. He introduced mercy as
the ultimate basis of judgment, giving a second chance to sinners and empowering them for
better things by which they might fulfill the spirit of the law. This was the basis for introducing
the church and the New Testament era to fulfill the law in the ultimate degree.
In the Old Testament era, law enforcement and judgment were established through Israel’s
leaders to show sin as very serious in the sight of God. But the law was a schoolmaster to bring
us to Christ (Gal.3:24), revealing defilement of sin that renders us helpless in anguish and defeat
under the deadly consuming fire of holy law and man's imperfect judgment. In Christ we are
victorious over condemnation by the law, despite our sin nature, because His power conferred in
forgiveness of sin in salvation changes the sinful heart. In this we become able to fulfill the spirit
of the law, the matter of crucial importance.
The crucial doctrine by which Christ gives us victory over condemnation of the law is
introduced by illustration in the New Testament here in this passage scholars would trash! Here
in the account of the woman condemnation by unholy man under the law is overruled by higher
authority, showing God as the only righteous ultimate judge. Since God accepts Christ's sacrifice
on our behalf, Christ pays for us the price of condemnation for our violations of the law, and we
are not destroyed. Thus Christ now fulfills the law for us in accepting its judgment for us,


introducing mercy, while showing us how awful sin is and changing our view of it forever in the
suffering of its penalty by the divine innocent one. To refuse this New Testament passage on the
woman undermines the most important doctrine of the church, the vicarious atonement, and
refusal is an attempt to restore condemnation by unholy man under the law!

And the passage itself shows us just how necessary and righteous it was for Christ to overrule the
judgment of men, for we see here a perfect example of just how devious man can be in his
supposed righteous judgment by the law. We see this as we dig deeper into the context, which
shows us the Lord did not just ignore the law. There is much more to the passage than what the
fault-finding scholar sees.
The scribes and Pharisees were always trying to discredit the Lord by trying to trap Him in
His words in front of witnesses, and they are trying to do that here. Indeed that is what the
passage itself says in John 8:6. It is plain that these evil men enticed and induced an unwise
woman into this sin to use her to attack the authority of the Lord before many witnesses. He
would not have served the justice of the law by giving in to the evil plan of these men who would
sacrifice a hapless woman's life in order to attack Him.
To see this plan, we should ask how the scribes and Pharisees just happened to catch a
woman in the act of adultery just when the Lord was teaching the people in the temple. And how
did they happen to be close enough to the temple to get her to Him before He moved away from
witnesses? And there are always two parties involved in adultery, and the law commands the
man and woman to be stoned, so where is the guilty man? The scribes and Pharisees set a trap,
picking a crony to lure an unwise woman into a trap to use her against the Lord. A likely way to
do this would be to pre-select a needy poor woman and offer her much-needed money to submit
(entrapment). They push the crony aside and accost the woman, calling the attention of witnesses
to her. They plan to create a situation in which the Lord must condone stoning a woman just
entrapped in sin or else ignore the law. If He condones the stoning, the crony speaks up and says
he arranged the affair to prove Jesus was not from God, for if He were, He would’ve known the
woman was just induced and entrapped (He did know and so didn’t satisfy their demands). Thus
the Lord would look very unlike the omniscient Messiah. Worse yet, if He condoned the stoning,
they could go ahead and stone her (they had rocks in hand), and they could then destroy Christ's
ministry by having the crony reveal the inducement and entrapment of the woman. They could
also further ensure destruction of His ministry by saying He violated His own New Testament
teaching since He taught that mercy had replaced condemnation in fulfillment of the law in the
New Testament era (Mt.9:13, Lk.9:56). Thus He couldn’t advocate stoning without denying His
own teaching and reverting to Old Testament concepts of the Pharisees.
The Lord knew all this and would never condone stoning. To do so would be to condone the
evil plan of scribes and Pharisees and would at the least destroy people's confidence in Him as
the Messiah. And it could easily lead to the sacrifice of the life of a misled entrapped woman,
while destroying His own teaching ministry. And He’d have trouble with Roman authorities who
controlled capital punishment. But if He didn’t condone the stoning, He’d be represented as
ignoring the Mosaic law and thus out of God's will and not the Messiah promised by Moses
(Deut.18:15). The plan seemed foolproof, but, the Lord with leisurely wisdom, totally destroyed
that plan. In His sovereign plan He illustrated a vital New Testament doctrine by challenging any
of them who was without sin to do the stoning. Of course each one was reminded of his own sin,
and beginning with the oldest, who had accumulated the most sin, they began to drop their rocks
and slink away sheepishly, showing that no one is qualified to stone others. As we find elsewhere
in genuine scripture, the scribes and Pharisees are trying to trap Him in His words, and in this


passage of genuine scripture, as in others, the Lord uses wisdom against them, and they fall into
their own trap. No, Christ didn’t ignore the law; He took it to its highest fulfillment in the New
Testament era, showing that only God is ultimately qualified to judge sinners. He refuses to
honor misdeeds of outwardly-sanctimonious vile men who, with rocks in hand, would kill a
misled entrapped woman just to make the Lord look bad, while they claimed to honor the law.

Such falsity isn’t possible in an account introducing vital doctrine like the overruling of man's
judgment rights to provide the basis for the vicarious atonement and deliverance from capricious
condemnation by man as Christ fulfills the letter of the law for us to enable us to fulfill the spirit
of the law. And here we see Christ’s omniscience in knowing the plan of men misusing the law
to sacrifice a life for selfish intent, and defeating this in New Testament fashion. Such a crucial
passage can’t be invented by dishonest men, and the issue is vital doctrine and Satan’s corruption
efforts. This caused removal of the passage from many manuscripts through unwise churchmen
and continuance of this folly by scholars today. Those churchmen challenged God’s sovereignty
and would have Christ doing just what evil men wanted Him to do. But He doesn’t relinquish
His righteous sovereignty. And He ordains a true Greek text and true translators like KJV
scholars to ensure that we retain all of His Word.

End Notes

1. Hills, E.F. 1984. The King James Version Defended. Christian Research Press. Des Moines,
Iowa. p146.

2. White, J.R. 1995. The King James Only Controversy. Bethany. p156

3. Hills, Op. Cit. p193, 209.

4. White, Op. Cit. p60-62, 85-86

5. Clarke, A. Clarkes Commentary. N.Y. Abingdon-Cokesbury Press. p931-33.

6. Bultmann, R. 1973. The Johannine Epistles. Philadelphia. Fortress Press. p81.

7. Hills, Op. Cit. p211, 12.

8. Hills, Op. Cit. p150-59.


The Inerrant Text Endowed: Scripture Teaches the Dictation Concept The Inerrant Text Endowed: Scripture Teaches the Dictation Concept The Inerrant Text Endowed: Scripture Teaches the Dictation Concept The Inerrant Text Endowed: Scripture Teaches the Dictation Concept

We’ve seen consistent KJV accuracy in passages where accuracy is much contested by scholars,
and many examples of this argue strongly for preservation of a totally accurate textual basis
further preserved by totally accurate translation. All this is possible only if God chooses and
guides certain copyists and translators over the centuries and only if He intervenes in text history
to overcome human error and tampering by satan’s agents.

But can autograph originals written by mere error-prone men be totally accurate? Plenary/verbal
inspiration, is the concept of an inerrant-text origin in God, each word and idea deriving from the
Holy Spirit. This is achieved only by mechanical dictation, the Spirit determining words in the
human intellect to ensure inerrancy. Scholars reject the dictation concept due to text human
writing style and supposed error. We’ve seen evidence that true scripture has no error, and
human writing style is present in the text since, contrary to how scholars’ define it, dictation
doesn’t invoke a trance suspending writer intellect.
Dictation takes various forms, and at times style is eliminated in verbatim oral dictation.
Exodus 34:27 says, And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of
these words I have made a covenant…Indeed in various Exodus verses, God speaks the very
words of the law recorded therein. In Exodus 34:1 God has Moses make two stone tables, saying,
I will write upon these tables…which is equivalent to dictation, divine writing rather than divine
speaking being provided for mechanical copying. And verbatim oral dictation to the prophets is
seen in a passage like Jeremiah 30:1,2 that says, The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord,
saying, Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken
unto thee in a book.
Dictation by a vision introduces the writer to the realm of God and speaks to his eye and his
ear, and even then scripture indicates a writer has full faculty possession. The prophet in
Habakkuk 2:1-3 says, I will…watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer…
And the Lord answered me, (faculties intact) and said, Write the vision, (verbal dictation is
required to write) and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is
yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak (dictation in the form of vision fulfillment)
…though it tarry, wait for it…(faculties intact).
Habakkuk 2 indicates a vision invokes verbal dictation, as is the case in Revelation 1:10,11,
2:1. John says…I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice…
saying…What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches…Here verbatim
oral dictation to the ear accompanies inspiration to the eye, as in Revelation 2:1 where Christ in
the vision tells John the words he is to write, saying Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus
write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand…. and Christ continues,
speaking the exact words to be recorded. John’s intellect isn’t suspended, for he retains normal
human responses to his vision. He hears a voice behind him, so his audio faculties are intact, and
he falls at the feet of the glorified Savior (Rev.1:17), as proper for one with operative faculties in
the presence of a representation of God. And he must observe the vision, so his visual faculties
are intact and he must record words he hears, so all his intellectual faculties are intact.
Dr. Phil Stringer of Landmark Baptist College, FL notes scripture’s most unique example of
dictation, that involving Balaam’s donkey. God spoke to the prophet through the animal, as seen
in Numbers 22:28 that says, And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto
Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? Dictation
power is so great that it extends even to dumb animals.


Scripture indicates dictation doesn’t suspend human intellect. Even Balaam’s donkey, that
had no possible intellectual input or speaking style, showed an appearance of this. The creature’s
words reflect her expected “feelings” over mistreatment by Balaam. She seems involved by
“intellect and speaking style,” an impossibility, indicating God preserved her “viewpoint.” Thus
we expect preservation of a human writer’s viewpoint in dictation so that he exercises
intellectual faculties and writing style. Of course human faculties must be guided by the Spirit in
the inspiration process to ensure inerrancy.

Dictation applies to texts showing no evidence of it, for it can be so unique that a writer retains a
grasp of his subject and normal writing style, while Holy Ghost supervision of his writing by-
passes his awareness. Consider Luke 1:1,3 where Luke says…It seemed good to me also, having
had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write…He seems to write at a whim
from memory, but his motivation can be due to the moving of the Spirit, and his words can be
dictated without changing writing style, word choices being supervised without his awareness.
Scripture reveals such dictation as God works His will on us in ways we’re unaware of.
Consider Jesus’ mother Mary, great with child (Lk.2:5) as the birth neared in Nazareth ~75 miles
from Bethlehem. If she or Joseph knew Micah 5:2 prophecy on a Bethlehem birth, in hardships
of the final stage of pregnancy, she’d never want to make a difficult trip to Bethlehem. And
Joseph would dread a donkey ride with hazards of labor pains, miscarriage or premature delivery
in a deserted place on the way. God had to see to such details, but how would He get her to
Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy? He’d stir the mind of Caesar Augustus, a pagan with no interest
in Christianity, to see a need to finance the empire in ways better than resented harsh taxes
(Lk.2:1-5). There likely was a fear of rebellion over taxes at this time (Acts 5:37 notes a tax
rebellion when the Roman governor of Syria was Cyrenius,
who ruled a little earlier as Mary
and Joseph went to Bethlehem - Lk.2:2). God would move Caesar to require empire residents to
enroll for taxation at their cities of origin to establish each person’s connection to family assets
through local authorities (most likely the harsh old publican system with private contractors was
altered, using locals to make it fair, but graft by locals like Zaccheus would continue). All would
pay according to ability, richer ones paying their share, and the masses not being affected enough
to incite rebellion. Caesar introduced a graduated income/property tax, likely congratulating him-
self on “his brilliant idea” (Thompson says the tax enrollment began with Augustus,
as is logical
since it accords with his Pax Romana, a time of peace, prosperity and tax reform). All this served
to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, their city of origin as descendants of David. And the
summons was timed too close to the birth to allow delivery of the Child before both had to go to
Bethlehem. Thus God subtly dictated His will to a vast empire without anyone realizing it.
And in Psalm 22:18, David says, They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my
vesture, prophesying of the Son of David, God’s Messiah at the Cross ~1000 years in the future.
Roman soldiers fulfilled this prophecy, verifying Jesus as God’s Messiah in Matthew 27:35 that
says, They

parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. How can
idol-worshipping Roman soldiers, with no interest in Christianity,

possibly do such a thing? Only
if God dictates acts of heathen oblivious to Him. This was a free-will act, based on desire for a
little property, yet it fulfilled God’s will.
Now in Psalm 22:8 we switch from dictation of acts to dictation of words. Here David
speaks words of enemies who persecute and taunt him, and he prophesies of Christ, saying, He
trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him… David’s persecutors speak
the words of Jesus’ persecutors at the Cross 1000 years later. In Matthew 27:43, priests, scribes
and elders taunted Jesus saying, He trusted in God; let him deliver him. In exercising a free-will



Jesus’ worst enemies fulfilled David’s prophecy on His behalf, verifying Him as Son of
David, God’s Messiah, the last thing in the world they would willingly do.
They couldn’t have
known this meaning of their words, or they’d never have spoken them. This is word dictation

passing speaker awareness in free-will word

choice, literal word meaning and irreverent speaking

It’s said they mocked Jesus with David’s prophecy, but they revered

David and

never identify themselves

with those vilifying him. And they

would never relate David’s words

Jesus, lest they represent them as

prophecy fulfilled by their own words to testify of Jesus as
Messiah. Actually they wouldn’t see the verse as prophecy useful for mockery since, in itself it
contains nothing indicative of prophecy.
Now if the Holy Ghost worked in these men, dictation occurred against their will, using their
intellect and speaking style with no appearance of dictation. But would He work in men just

used by satan? In Matthew 27:42 they said of Jesus...let

him now

come down from the
Cross, and we will believe him, which was an attempt of satan to eliminate our salvation. The
only imaginable alternative to a role of the Spirit here is God placing just the right men with just
the right free-will mentalities in just the right place to fulfill His will in just the right way at the
Cross. With the prophecy made ~1000 years before the Cross, this would mean God controlled,
genetically or logistically, millions of people in 40-50 generations for ~1000

years. And that
would mean God can choose to supervise all details of natural processes and human affairs,
connecting results of free-will decisions in a way that establishes His will. That’s what Matthew
10:29,30 teaches, saying, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing (of little value)? And one of
them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all
numbered. One way or another, God can make evil men in control of their faculties and speaking
style, speak His words, contrary to their will, and with no appearance of dictation.
Thus the Spirit can certainly dictate to obedient servants, using their intellect and writing
style with no appearance of dictation, motivating free will and permitting or negating writer
word choice. Looking at matters this way, we see Luke 1:1,3 very differently. Luke seems to
write at a whim from memory. But the Holy Ghost moving on his mind explains Luke’s perfect
understanding, and a moving without his awareness explains why he’d say, It seemed good to
me…to write…Luke writes a letter by free will according to his intellect and style. But Spirit
motivation of free will, and editing of word choice can be God’s way to dictate each word while

*Some suggest Psalm 22:8 should read as the imperative, Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him
(NASV), not the perfect tense, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him. But this suggestion, that
negates Mt.27:43 fulfillment of the Psalm prophecy, links a 2
person command (Commit yourself) to a 3

person declaration (;let Him deliver him) in one inclusive thought. This is impossible grammar/syntax, but
scholars try to justify it, saying the clause after the imperative is an aside, with taunters talking to each other.
Well, declarative clauses in different persons can link in poetic/prophetic Hebrew to vary perspective (e.g.
Is.52:14, 61:7). But linking a command to a declaration in combination with a difference in person, all in one
thought, is absurd. The proposed imperative is a separate thought requiring separation from the declarative by
extra words not in the text.
Perfect tense is correct, as verified in the inerrant New Testament and in the Septuagint. Ps.22:8 relates to
Mt.27:43 where priests, elders and scribes address the people but aim their talk at Jesus to taunt Him, not
wanting to address Him directly. This is clear in the Mt.27 context, the indirect taunting of these men being
distinguished from a direct taunting of others (27:40,44). With no Hebrew verb form for indirect address, an
imperative is used in the brief Ps.22:7,8 context to indicate words aimed at David as the men speak to others,
paralleling the indirect address to Christ. Thus a perfect-tense rendering is correct, and the imperative is
rendered only in a true direct address (e.g. Ps.37:5, Pr.16:3).


preserving human style. The same thing would apply to other scripture letters, the epistles of
Christ’s disciples. 2 Peter 1:20,21 suggests such inspiration, saying, the prophecy came not in old
time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Psalm 22:1-18 shows such dictation as David, in very human writing style, tells of his trials by
persecutors. His words are both his and those of Jesus on the Cross in verse 1, then only his in
verse 2. This shows that Christ pre-incarnate is dictating David’s words from the outset, even in
verse 2. At verse 7 David begins a progressive transition from his words on his trials to words of
Jesus on the Cross, ending in speaking entirely of Jesus in piercing of His hands and feet and
casting lots for His clothing. The transition is like parting of a curtain to prove the pre-incarnate
Christ dictated all David’s words from the outset. David couldn’t have any knowledge, by human
faculties, of words in the mind of Jesus as He was on the Cross 1000 years in the future.
Psalm 69 shows similar dictation as David beseeches God over his reproach and persecution,
implying such matters of the Son of David on the Cross, most notably in verse 9. In verse 21 he
speaks Jesus’ words on His reproach and persecution, noting vinegar and gall offered to Him at
the Cross (Mt.27:34). Transition from David’s words on himself to those of Jesus on the Cross
again reveals Christ dictating David’s words.
Zechariah 11:12,13 prophecy on betrayal of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, is 3-way dictation.
It says, And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price…So they weighed for my price
thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter…And I took the thirty
pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. The speaker saying my price
can only be Christ pre-incarnate speaking by (dictating to) Zechariah. Judas betrayed Jesus for
money in a free-will act. He was not a man inclined to right-thinking, but is moved in his mind
(dictated to) by Christ to do the right thing, to return the blood money to the priests and elders,
and he casts it down in the temple in disgust that he’s sold his soul for money. And the priests
and elders who caused the Crucifixion, normally covetous men who can avoid unlawful placing
of the money in the temple treasury without giving it away (giving it to a crony for a future
favor), decide to use it for a potter’s field to bury strangers, being moved in their minds (dictated
to) by Christ to do the right thing. Christ figuratively cast the silver to the potter, casting it down
in the house of the Lord by dictating thoughts of Judas and priests and elders.

End Notes

1. The King James Bible Commentary. 1999. Nashville. Thomas nelson. p1343.

2. Thompson, J.A. 1962. The Bible and Archaeology. Gr. Rapids. Eerdemans. p375.


In recent years, popular books and movies such as Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci
Code have done much to popularize the secular view that the Bible is riddled with
mistakes and therefore should not be trusted. A causal stroll through the local Barnes and
Noble turns up many volumes, such as Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, all of which
seek to paint the Bible as less than trustworthy as a source of truth in modern society.
While these attacks on the veracity of the Scriptures are nothing new, they do appear to
be increasing in our day as the notion of absolute truth continues to be challenged by
postmodern thought. As a result, many sincere although ungrounded believers have had
their faith rocked by assertions that the Bible is full of mistakes as well as political and
sexist conspiracies. How should one respond to these attacks on the accuracy and
reliability of the Bible? Simply stated, is the word of God inerrant?

Christian philosophers and theologians have spilt much ink debating the doctrine
of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. In his book, Basic Theology, Charles C. Ryrie outlines
the ongoing debate amongst Evangelical Christians regarding this issue. In Chapter 12
entitled “The Inerrancy of the Bible,” Ryrie asks the following important questions with
regard to inerrancy:

How important is this doctrine then? If it is a biblical teaching, then to
deny it is to deny part of the truthfulness of the Bible. But consider this: If
the Bible contains some errors, however few or many, how can one be
sure that his understanding of Christ is correct? Perhaps one of those
errors concerns something about the life of Christ. It would not be
impossible that there might be an error about the crucial matter of His
death and resurrection. What then would happen to one’s Christology? It
would be changed, perhaps so drastically that there would be no Christian
faith to embrace.

The modern critics referred to above are endeavoring to sow the seeds of doubt in order
to overthrow the faith or some and/or cause people to view the Bible as unreliable.
Consequently, a detailed study on the issue of the veracity of the Scriptures is paramount
given the state of our current culture.

Unfortunately, much of professing Christendom is not equipped to deal with the
issue of inerrancy because their own teaching on the subject is inconsistent. For example,
conservative evangelical theologians will argue for the inerrancy of the original
autographs and then admit that the original manuscripts have been lost and all that
remains are copies which are subject to error. If only the originals were inerrant and they
are lost, how can the Bible still be without error? While in Bible College, this author was
ridiculed for holding the position that the King James Bible was God’s perfectly
preserved word for English-speaking people. Apparently, only uneducated believers
were foolish enough to believe that the same God that could exercise the supernatural
energy to verbally inspire every word of scripture could also exert the same supernatural
force to preserve that which He inspired.

Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986), 77.


In short, if only the originals were inerrant, then maybe the modern critics are
correct. Perhaps the Bible has been altered by the work of a sexist church leadership bent
on oppressing woman and maintaining male authority as suggested by Dan Brown in The
Da Vinci Code. While my former professors would dispute Dan Brown’s suppositions
and affirm that the Bible is inerrant and reliable, something is drastically wrong because
these same men also teach that there is no such thing as a perfect Bible. Herein lies the
goal of the current essay, to utilize scholarly arguments for inerrancy in an attempt to
show the logical inconsistencies of those who would asset that a perfect Bible does not
exist. In short, why argue for inerrancy if what you’re arguing for has been lost?

The Logical Argument for Inerrancy

In When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties, Dr. Norman
Geisler and co-author Thomas Howe articulate the argument for the inerrancy of the
scriptures using the following logical syllogism:

 Premise 1: God Cannot Err
 Premise 2: The Bible is the Word of God
 Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible Cannot Err

In other words, if one could prove that God cannot err and that the Bible is the Word of
God, it would logically follow that the Bible cannot err and is therefore inerrant. Geilser
and Howe summarize the situation as follows, “The conclusion, then, is inevitable. The
Bible cannot err. If the Bible erred in anything it affirms, then God would be mistaken.
But God cannot make mistakes.”

To evaluate whether this conclusion is correct we will examine each premise
under the microscope of Scripture. The Bible clearly supports the claim of Premise 1:
God Cannot Err.

 Hebrews 6:18—That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for
God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay
hold upon the hope set before us:

 Titus 1:2—In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before
the world began;

In John 14:6, Jesus Christ states, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man commeth
unto the father but by me.” Notice that Jesus Christ, who calls himself the truth in this
passage uses the same terminology in reference to the word of God in John 17:17. The

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties.
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 11.
Geisler and Howe, When Critics Ask, 11.

verse states, “Sanctify them through they truth: thy word is truth.” It is therefore clear
that Premise One: God Cannot Err is true.

Premise Two asserts that the Bible is the Word of God. As shown by Dr. Geisler,
the fact that the Bible is the Word of God can be discerned from the following five
Biblical affirmations:

(1) the Bible is God-breathed
(2) the Bible is a prophetic writing
(3) the Bible has divine authority
(4) the Bible claims to record what God has said
(5) the Bible is called the Word of God.

In II Timothy 3:16 the Apostle Paul writes, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
Inspiration is the process whereby God breathed through the pen of human authors the
very words that He wanted written down. Before God moved to inspire even one word of
Scripture, it had already been settled in heaven according to Psalms 119:89.

Consequently, inspiration is the process whereby God, communicates through human
authors to mankind the words he had previously settled on. Accordingly, Jesus responds
to the devil’s temptation to turn stones into bread in Matthew 4:4 by quoting the Old
Testament, “. . .man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeded out
of the mouth of God.”

How then did God accomplish the communication of his very words to mankind?
II Peter 1:20-21 clarifies how God took his eternally established Word and communicated
it to humanity.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private
interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

These verses and many others illustrate what Geisler calls the prophetic nature of the
Bible. In short, the prophets as the mouthpieces of God, spoke only the words that God
put in their mouths.
Consider the following passages:

In Volume One of his four volume Systematic Theology, Dr. Geisler goes into greater detail describing
how God Cannot Err. Geiler states, “There are two lines of evidence that God cannot err: general
revelation and special revelation.” Under the category of General Revelation, Geisler offers both the
general revelation written on the hearts of humanity (Romans 2:12-15) and the moral argument for the
existence of God as further proof of God’s inability to make mistakes. While the author found Geisler’s
thoughts on these matters enlightening and informative they were deemed outside of the scope of the
current essay and are therefore not discussed in the current volume. However, the ambitious reader is
encouraged to consider them; they can be found in the following volume. Norman Giesler, Systematic
Theology: Volume One Introduction, Bible, (Minneapolis: Bethany House: 2002), 496.
Giesler, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 495.
“For ever, O LORD, they word is settled in heaven.” Psalms 119:89
Giesler, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 495.


 Exodus 4:14-15--And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he
said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also,
behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in
his heart. 15) And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and
I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye
shall do.

 Numbers 22:38--And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I
now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth,
that shall I speak.

 II Samuel 23:1-2-- Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse
said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob,
and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, 2) the Spirit of the LORD spake by me,
and his word was in my tongue.

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

 Jeremiah 5:14--Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak
this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people
wood, and it shall devour them.

 Jeremiah 36:1-4--And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of
Josiah king of Judah, [that] this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD,
saying, 2) Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have
spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations,
from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. 3) It
may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto
them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their
iniquity and their sin. 4) Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and
Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which
he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.

According to the Holy Spirit’s own testimony, the very words of God were placed into
the mouth of human authors who subsequently recorded exactly what God had given
them to say.

Not only does the Bible claim to be the word of God, but it also attributes to the
scriptures the qualities of God himself. The Bible equates the words of God as
synonymous with the words penned by human authors. Consider the following cross

 Genesis 12:1-3--Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will

shew thee: 2) And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3) And I will bless them that
bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed.

 Galatians 3:8--And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all
nations be blessed.

Notice that Genesis 12:3 tells us what God himself said to Abram, “in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed.” In contrast, Galatians 3:8 states that the scriptures said
unto Abraham “in thee shall all nations be blessed.” In addition to proving that God’s
written word is equally authoritative as his spoken word, Galatians 3:8 also ascribes the
very attributes of God to the scriptures. The scriptures, like God himself can see the
future. Moreover, the Bible is explicitly called the word of God in multiple places
throughout Scripture and claims to have divine authority.
All of this proves for those
who wish to function by faith that when one reads the written word he reads God’s very
words to humanity.

Finally, having proven the accuracy of Premise One that God cannot err and
Premise Two that the Bible is the word of God, it logically follows that a book written by
God would reflect his nature and thus be inerrant. Geisler and Howe conclude, “Yes God
has spoken, and He has not stuttered. The God of truth has given us the Word of Truth,
and it does not contain any untruth in it. The Bible is the unerring Word of God.”

Therefore, the doctrine of inerrancy includes historical and scientific matters and not just
moral and spiritual teachings. If the Bible does not speak accurately about the physical
world, how can it be trusted when it speaks about the spiritual world? Inspiration and
inerrancy apply not just to what the Bible explicitly teaches but also to that which the
Bible touches. “This is true whether the Bible is touching upon history, science, or
mathematics. Whatever the Bible declares, is true—whether it is a major point or a
minor point. The Bible is God Word, and God does not deviate from the truth in any

A Self-Defeating Argument: Inerrancy and Original Manuscripts

After eloquently and convincingly presenting the argument for inerrancy, Geilser
and Howe along with about 98% of professing evangelical Christianity defeat their own
argument by asserting that inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts. In Volume
One of his Systematic Theology, Professor Geisler tries to explain the relationship
between inspiration and inerrancy by offering the following expanded definition:

Verses where the Bible is called the word of God-- Matthew 15:6, John 10:35, Romans 9:6, I
Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 4:12
Verses that support the Bible’s divine authority—Matthew 5:17-18, Matthew 15:3-6.
Geisler and Howe, When Critics Ask, 12.
Ibid., 13.

The inspiration of Scripture is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit
who, through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen
human authors, invested the very words of the original books of Holy
Scripture, alone and in their entirely, as the very Word of God
without error in all that they teach (including history and science) and is
thereby the infallible rule and final authority for the faith and practice of
all believers.

At this point, astute readers will perceive a major problem. Evangelical theologians
readily admit that none of the original autographs still exist. Therefore, if inerrancy
applies only to the originals, it is a doctrine of no practical consequence. Since the
originals have long been lost and since inerrancy only applies to the autographs, we no
longer possess an inerrant copy of God’s inspired word, according to accepted orthodoxy.

Before proceeding any further, it is important to firmly establish the nearly
universal agreement amongst evangelical scholars on this issue, lest we be accused of
misrepresenting their position. Three examples from prominent theological reference
works should suffice.

Charles C. Ryrie, author of Basic Theology, recognizes that many view the
doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration as of only theoretical consequence if they only
apply to the original autographs. Notice how Ryrie struggles to defend the importance of
these doctrines, given their application only to items that no longer exist.

The second excuse for diluting the importance of inerrancy is that since
we do not possess any original manuscripts of the Bible, and since
inerrancy is related to those originals only, the doctrine of inerrancy is
only a theoretical one and therefore nonessential. We do not possess any
of the original manuscripts of the bible, and the doctrine of inerrancy,
like inspiration is predicated only on the original manuscripts, not on
any of the copies. The two premises in the statement above are correct,
but those particular premises do not prove at all that inerrancy is a
nonessential doctrine.

Obviously, inerrancy can be asserted only in relation to the original
manuscripts because only they came directly from God under
inspiration. The very first copy of a letter of Paul, for instance, was in
reality only a copy, and not the original that Paul himself wrote or
dictated. Both inspiration and inerrancy are predicated only on the

This is a prime example of human viewpoint. Notice how there is no mention of the
doctrine of preservation. Once again, inerrancy is irrelevant if it only extends to

Giesler, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 498.
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 80.

documents that no longer exist. If one accepts this prevalent teaching, upon what basis
does one argue that Dan Brown’s accusations of Bible tampering are incorrect?

In The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns offers the following definition of

In a final definition it is noted that inerrancy extends to the original
manuscripts: “Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the
Scripture in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be
shown to be wholly true in everything they teach, whether that teaching
has to do with doctrine, history, science, geography, geology, or other
disciplines or knowledge.”

Again, by the scholars’ own admission, the originals are long gone and the existing
copies are prone to scribal errors and mistakes. Is it not ironic how those who have spilt
so much ink arguing for inerrancy ultimately teach that they do not currently possess a
perfect Bible?

Lastly, the popular Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter A.
Elwell records the following definition for inerrancy:

Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will
demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly
interrupted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether
that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences.

A number of points in this definition deserve discussion. Inerrancy is not
presently demonstratable. Human knowledge is limited in two ways.
First, because of our finitude and sinfulness human beings misinterpret the
data that exists. For instance, wrong conclusions can be drawn form
inscriptions or texts. Second, we do not possess all the data that comes to
bear on the Bible. Some of that data may be lost forever, or they may be
awaiting discovery by archeologists. By claiming inerrancy will be shown
to be true after all the facts are known, one recognizes this. The defender
of inerrancy argues only that there will be no conflict in the end.

Further, inerrancy applies equally to all parts of the Bible as
originally written. This means that no present manuscript or copy of
scripture, no matter how accurate, can be called inerrant.

This entry by Paul D. Feinberg is truly puzzling. First, according to this definition it is
totally pointless to affirmatively argue for inerrancy since all of the information is not
known. This so called definition proves nothing. All Mr. Feinberg has done is leave the

Paul Enns. The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 167.
Walter A. Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2
Edition, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
2001), 156-157.

doors open for modern textual critics such as Bart D. Ehrman, author of Misquoting
Jesus, and his troop to attack the veracity of God’s written word. Second, Feinberg’s
attitude regarding the existing copies does not mirror the viewpoint the Holy Spirit
teaches in scripture. In the next section we will study the doctrine of preservation and
what the scriptures teach about how the copies factor into the preservation process.
Lastly, it is truly fascinating that Feinberg, along with all of the authors quoted in this
section, feel the need to call upon Biblical authority for the veracity of inerrancy yet they
are totally silent when it comes to the doctrine of preservation, regarding which they are
either ignorant or purposefully misleading.

Preservation An Overlooked Doctrine

Perhaps sensing the inconsistency of his position Geisler hedges as to the
reliability of the available copies. In Volume One of his Systematic Theology, Dr.
Geisler seeks to debunk ten of the most common objections to the doctrine of Inerrancy.
In the section, “The Objection That Inerrancy Is Based on Non-Existent Originals,”
Geisler offers the following counterpoint:

Some object to inerrancy because it affirms that only the original text is
inerrant (there being admitted errors in the copies), and the originals are
not extant. Hence, all the doctrine of inerrancy provides is a non-existent
authority; supposedly, this isn’t any different than having no Bible at all.
This allegation is unfounded. First of all, its not true that we do not
possess the original text. We do possess it in well-preserved copies; it is
the original manuscripts we do no have. We do possess it in well-
preserved copies; it is the original manuscripts we do not have. We do
have an accurate copy of the original text represented in these
manuscripts; the nearly 5,700 New Testament manuscripts we possess
contain all or nearly all of the original text, and we can reconstruct the
original text with over 99 percent accuracy.

A careful reading of the above paragraphs yields a couple of interesting observations.
First, the author of the current essay has not been the only one to point out that the
current orthodoxy regarding the doctrine of inerrancy ultimately does not prove anything
thereby leaving the Bible open to critical and skeptical attack. Second, while Geisler
calls these allegations unfounded by referring to an abundance of what he calls accurate
copies, he stops short of calling those copies infallible. Consequently, Professor Geisler
has not done anything to reassure his readers that inerrancy can still be a viable doctrine
despite the absence of the original manuscripts.

Despite these glaring problems, by mentioning the “well-preserved copies,” Dr.
Geilser does throw open the doors to discuss the long overlooked and extremely pertinent
doctrine of preservation. What does Geilser mean when He mentions “well-preserved
copies?” Is he referring to the physical condition of these manuscripts or their

Giesler, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 503.

trustworthiness with regard to containing the very words God inspired? Based on what
Geisler says elsewhere, it is clear he means the former, not the later.

By limiting inerrancy to the originals and failing to acknowledge the doctrine of
preservation the Evangelical scholars neglect to protect the doctrine of inspiration. Dr.
Samuel C. Gipp, discusses how inspiration without preservation renders inspiration
incomplete. Dr. Gipp demonstrates this reality by asking and answering a couple of
questions. “Why did God inspire His word perfectly? Obviously the answer comes back,
So that man could have every word of God, pure, complete, trustworthy, and without
If God went to the trouble to perfectly inspire his word only to allow errors and
mistakes to creep into the text it would be inconstant with His nature and character. Gipp
demonstrates the foolishness of limiting inerrancy only to the originals when he asks:

The question is: Could God who overcame time (about 1,700 years
transpired from the writing of the oldest Old Testament book and closing
of the New Testament in 90 A.D.) and man’s human nature to write the
Bible perfectly in the first place, do the same thing to preserve it?

The obvious answer to this question is yes since God can do one he is perfectly capable
of doing the other. In fact, just as the Bible internally claims to have been given by
inspiration of God it also says that God intends to preserve the very words God breathed.
However, one does not learn about preservation in the evangelical systematic theology
books because the topic has been totally overlooked.

Despite this oversight by the evangelical leadership there is an option for those
who desire to believe the Bible over incomplete scholarship. Consider Psalm 12:6-7,
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified
seven times. 7) “Thou shalt kept them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever.” In verse six we see that the words of God’s initial inspiration were
pure words. They were inerrant and without mistakes in the original writings. Notice
how verse seven qualifies the statement made in verse six. The antecedent to the word
“them” in verse 7 is “the words of the LORD,” in verse six. Therefore, the only logical
reading of the passage is that God intends to preserve the infallible and inerrant words
from “this generation for ever.” Consequently, God extends inerrancy beyond the

Believers are thus forced into an interesting predicament. One can either believe
Psalm 12:6-7 or not. If a believer chooses to deny what these verses say, they must
conclude that God cannot be taken at his word. This is not a reasonable option since
Titus 1:2 says that God cannot lie. On the other hand, it does not make any sense to
believe, as many do, that God inspired and preserved his word in the original manuscripts
since all the originals were destroyed long ago. All of this proves that God did not
preserve his word only as long as the originals were in existence. Dr. Gipp offers the
following assessment of the situation, “. . . if God wrote the Bible perfectly in the

Samuel C. Gipp. An Understandable History of the Bible. (Macedonia, OH: Bible Believers Baptist
Bookstore, 1987), 18.

originals, but we cannot have those same words in a volume of that book today, then it
would seem that He wasted His time inspiring it perfectly in the first place.”

The testimony of the Scriptures is quite clear: God has promised and intends to
preserve the words of his inspiration throughout all eternity.

 Psalm 33:11--The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart
to all generations.

 Psalm 119:152--Concerning thy testimonies, I have know of old that thou hast
founded them for ever.

 Psalm 119: 89--Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 Isaiah 30:8--Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it
may be for the time to come for ever and ever.

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

As we have already established, none of the original autographs remain, yet God
promises that his words will remain throughout all eternity. Therefore, God did not use
the original manuscripts as the vehicle through which preservation would take place.

So then, where does this eternal preservation take place if not in the original
autographs? The believing Bible student will let the Word of God answer this question
as well. Consider II Timothy 3:15. “And that from a child thou hast known the holy
scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in
Christ Jesus.” Paul, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, tells Timothy that
from the time of his childhood he knew the Holy Scriptures. Did Timothy’s family
possess the original manuscripts for every book of the Bible written at that time? No,
they had copies. Notice that Paul calls the copies Timothy’s family possessed Scripture.
In other words, the copies in their possession were just as authoritative as the original

It is God’s design to preserve His word through a multiplicity of accurate, reliable
copies that are just as authoritative as the original. During his earthly ministry, Jesus
Christ expressed the same attitude as Paul in regard to the copies that were available to

Matthew 22:29-31--Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err not
knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30) For in the resurrection
they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angles of God

Ibid., 21.

in heaven. 31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not
read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying

Christ rebukes the Sadducees because they did not know the Scriptures. Does this mean
they did not possess the original manuscripts? Certainly not, it means, as verse 31 states,
they did not know the Scriptures because they had not read the copies they had in their

In Exodus 31:18, God gave to Moses an original manuscript “written with the
finger of God.” On his way down Mount Sinai Moses saw the sin of the children of
Israel and destroys the original autographs that God had just given him (Exodus 32:15-
19). How does God respond to this destruction? Does He get upset and curse or punish
Moses for the destroying the tables? No, in Exodus 34:27-28 God gives Moses a copy of
the original Ten Commandments that Moses had previously destroyed in Chapter 32.
Jeremiah 36 records a similar scenario. In verses 22-24, Jehudi the scribe takes a scroll
of the written word of God, cuts it with a knife and casts it in the fire in the hearth. God
does not get upset. He simply has Jeremiah make of copy of what Jehudi destroyed.
Jeremiah 36:27-28 reads,

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had
burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of
Jeremiah saying, Take thee again another roll and write in it all the former
words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath
burned in the fire.

These passages clearly teach that God’s determined to preserve his word, not in the
original text, but rather through a multiplicity of accurate, reliable copies of the original.

Mobility is the primary reason for preservation taking place through a multiplicity
of copies. God never intended for his word only be read, studied, and possessed by those
fortunate enough to have an original. For the purposes of illustration consider the
following verses and the author’s accompanying commentary:

 Proverbs 25:1 “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah
king of Judah copied out.”

 Daniel 9:2—“In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the
number of years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet,
that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.” Daniel
is in Babylon studying copies of the book of Jeremiah.

 Daniel 9:11-13—“Yea, all Israel have transgressed they law, even by departing,
that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the
oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have
sinned against him. 12) And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against
us and against our judges that judged us, by brining upon us a great evil: for under

the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. 13) As it
is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our
prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and
understand thy truth.” Daniel also possessed copies of the Law of Moses.

 Daniel 10:20-21— “The said he, knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee: and
now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo,
the prince of Grecia shall come. 21) But I will shew thee that which is noted in
the scripture of truth: and there is not that holdeth with me in these things, but
Michael your prince.” Notice what Daniel’s angelic messenger calls the texts that
Daniel had been studying in verse 21, “scripture of truth.” Is there any error in
the truth? No. In order for the angel’s statement to be correct, the copies Daniel
had must have been inerrant, infallible, and just as much the word of God as the
original manuscripts.

 Luke 4:16-21--“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as
his custom was, he went into the synagogue of the Sabbath day, and stood up for
to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. . .
21)And he began to say unto them, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
In Nazareth, they possessed a copy of the prophet Isaiah that Christ himself
referred to as scripture.

 Acts 8:26-38—The Ethiopian Eunuch possessed a copy of the same book Christ
read from in Luke 4. How far away is Ethiopia from Nazarath? Did the
Ethiopian eunuch go up the Nazarath and steal their copy of the book of Isaiah?
No. He possessed his own copy of the book. The reader should further observe
that Philip calls this copy of Isaiah Scripture in verse 35.

The above texts lead to three conclusions: 1) God inspired every word of Scripture; 2)
God promised to preserve these inspired words forever, 3) Preservation does not take
place in the original autographs but in a multiplicity of accurate reliable copies that carry
as much authority as the originals.

If God has not preserved His words as He said that He would (Psalms 12:6-7),
then He has done two things He has never done before. First, he has wasted His own
time. Second, God did not do that which He promised he would which would make him
a liar.
Dr. Gipp summarizes the believing viewpoint regarding the connection between
inspiration, inerrancy, and preservation when he writes, “it is always to be remembered
that the Bible is a spiritual book which God exerted supernatural force to conceive, and it
is reasonable to assume that he could exert that same supernatural force to preserve.”

Ibid., 21.
Ibid., 22.

Mistakes and Errors in Modern Versions

How many mistakes would one have to demonstrate in the Bible to disprove
inerrancy? The obvious answer is one. Is it possible to have an inerrant Bible in English?
Not according to current Evangelical orthodoxy. While attending Bible College, this
author heard on numerous occasions that there is no such thing as a perfect Bible in
English. As a result, many believers have succumbed to Protestant popery which
suggests that one must know Greek in order to understand the Bible properly. Bible
teachers and preachers routinely correct the Bible by claiming that the words in the King
James Bible are mistranslations of the “original Greek,” which, by their own admission,
does not exist.

Despite the pervasiveness of this line of thought, there are those who choose to
take preservation to it logical conclusion and believe that God’s perfect word does exist
in the English language. This is the viewpoint of faith not modern scholarship. In an
effort to mask the real issue, Satan has created a smoke screen of misinformation aimed
at distracting believers from the real issues. From the earliest portions of Scripture Satan
has been interested in and actively distorting God’s message to mankind. Even a cursory
study of Genesis Three demonstrates Satan’s primary tactics of questioning God’s word,
adding to and subtracting from God’s word, and flat out denying God’s word. Once
again, Dr. Gipp offers an excellent summary of the situation, “Satan desires to be
worshipped. He has the ability to counterfeit God’s actions, and definitely will be
involved actively in attempting to destroy God’s Word and/our confidence in that Word,
while seeking to replace it with his own version.”

A simple stroll through the Bible section at the local Christian bookstore could
not help but leave the honest Christian confused. If God only authored and inspired one
Bible, how can there be so many translations all claiming to be God's Word? The New
International Version (NIV), New American Standard Version (NASV), King James
Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), and many others all claim to be
accurate and faithful translations of the "original" manuscripts. As a result, the average
Christian thinks modern translations such as NIV, NASV, NKJV or the New Living
Translation are simply an updating of the "archaic" language of the King James Version;
therefore, all versions are essentially the same.

Unfortunately, upon further investigation a serious and glaring problem becomes
apparent. The modern translations are not simply updates of the King James language,
but totally different Bibles altogether. For example, compare Mark 1:2-3 in the King
James Version and the New International Version. First, the KJV;
 Mark 1:2-3--As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3) The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Ibid., 27.

Notice the use of the word "prophets" in verse 2. This is a critical point because Luke is
quoting in these verses from more than one prophet. In verse 2, the quotation "Behold I
send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way before thee," is found in
Malachi 3:1. Verse 3, on the other hand, is a quotation from Isaiah 40:3. Thus the King
James Version is accurate in its use of "prophets" in verse two because Mark is
referencing more than one prophetic book.
In contrast, the NIV offers a reading that is demonstrably wrong.
 Mark 1:2-3--It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead
of you, who will prepare your way" 3) "a voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'"
According to the NIV reading, both quotations come from the book of Isaiah. Notice that
the NIV's use of "Isaiah the prophet,” is singular when according to their own footnotes,
Mark is quoting from both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In contrast, the KJV's use of
"prophets" is plural thus correctly identifying Mark as quoting from more than one
The reason the NIV and KJV differ in their rendering of Mark 1:2 has nothing to
do with the translation of individual Greek words. Simply stated, the Greek manuscripts
used by the King James translators contain the Greek word "prophetes" which is correctly
translated prophets. In contrast, the Greek manuscripts used by the NIV translators
contain the Greek word for Isaiah, which explains the verse’s incorrect reading.
The real issue at stake in the version debate is not how to translate individual
words from Greek into English but which set of manuscripts are translated. In the brief
example cited above, the reason the KJV and NIV say different things is because their
underlying Greek texts are different. Common sense says that one cannot translate a verse
that is not in the Greek manuscript one is trying to translate. For example, the reason the
NIV leaves verses out of the Bible, such as Matthew 23:14, is because the entire verse is
missing from the Greek texts being translated. The reason the King James includes
Matthew 23:14 is because the Greek text used by its translators contained the verse. One
is left to conclude that the real issue in the version debate is which set of Greek
Manuscripts are utilized when translating.
All of this proves Dr. Gipp’s point that Satan has succeeded in providing a
competing counterfeit to God’s Word. What else is one left to conclude when the NIV
along with other modern versions obscure Satan’s true identity by substituting “morning
star” for “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12 when Revelation 22:16 clearly identifies Jesus Christ
as the morning star. Is this merely a minor difference in translation that does not affect
any of the doctrines of the faith? Can a book be the word of God if it teaches that Jesus
Christ fell from heaven??
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is considered by most believers to be one of the
fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. The NIV and other modern versions

obscure this doctrine by implying that Joseph was Jesus’s father. Please compare the
NIV and KJV readings of Luke 2:33:
 Luke 2:33--The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him
 Luke 2:33-- And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were
spoken of him (KJV).
The King James reading upholds the virgin birth by clearly stating that Joseph was not
Jesus’s father. In contrast, the NIV subverts the virgin birth by calling Joseph the father
of Jesus. In the quotation from Charles C. Ryrie at the beginning of this paper, He stated
that the doctrine inerrancy was necessary because without it one’s Christology or doctrine
of Christ might be damaged thereby undermining their faith. By failing to acknowledge
that inerrancy through the doctrine of preservation applies to the copies as well as the
originals the modern scholars have promoted the use of Bibles that attack and subvert
Christ’s identity. Moreover, these new versions contain mistakes, such as the one
observed in Mark 1. In the end, the scholars cannot have it both ways. It is impossible
for them to maintain their intellectual integrity when they hold to the doctrine of
inerrancy and simultaneously extol versions that contain errors as the most accurate.
Logic Supports the King James Position
Despite the deep appreciation this author has for Dr. Norman Geisler as an
apologist he along with the majority of conservative scholarship have argued for the
inerrancy of something that by their own admission does not exist. Meanwhile, they have
criticized those who believe the King James Version to be God’s perfect inerrant word
for English-speaking people as uneducated and backwards. In the introduction to When
Critics Ask: Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties, Geisler and Howe articulate the
following definition of error:
By truth we signify that which corresponds to reality. An error, then, is
what does not correspond to reality. Truth is telling it like it is. Error is
not telling like it is. Hence nothing mistaken can be true, even if the
author intended the mistake to be true. An error is a mistake, not simply
something that is misleading. Otherwise, every sincere utterance ever
made is true, even those that were grossly mistaken. Likewise, something
is not true simply because it accomplished its intended purpose, since
many lies succeed.

At this point a couple of questions are in order. Is the NIV mistaken when it teaches that
Joseph was the father of Jesus? Are the modern versions making a mistake when they
teach that Jesus Christ fell from heaven in Isaiah 14? The obvious answer to both of
these questions is yes. Jesus did not have an earthly father nor did he fall from heaven.

Geisler and Howe, When Critics Ask, 13.

Any belief to the contrary would be considered heresy by the same Evangelical scholars
who teach that there are no real differences in doctrine between various Bible versions.
First principles are the foundation upon which all logical thought is based.
Without these fundamental precepts no thought would be possible. One of these first
principles is called The Principle of Noncontraction, it asserts, being is not nonbeing (B is
Not Non-B)--being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites, and opposites
cannot be the same.
A second foundational principle that is pertinent to our discussion
is the Principle of Excluded Middle. Excluded middle states, either being or nonbeing
(Either B or Non-B)--"Since being and nonbeing are opposites, and opposites cannot be
the same, nothing can hide in the cracks between being and nonbeing. The only choices
are being and nonbeing."

The relevance of these principles is paramount as we reach the climax of the
argument presented in this essay. The principles of Noncontradiction and Excluded
Middle clearly establish that two things that are different cannot be the same.
Furthermore, we have already seen that our English Bibles have contradictory readings.
Moreover, these divergent readings in modern versions contain mistakes that undermine
the fundamentals of the Christian faith irrespective of the average believer’s ignorance of
their existence. Therefore, it is the height of absurdity to call all of these Bibles the word
of God. They may all contain some of the words of God but cannot legitimately all be
the Word of God because they teach opposites. In orders words, basic logic demonstrates
when two things are different the only possible options are that one is right and the other
is wrong or they are both wrong. Clearly, one cannot conclude that they are both wrong
in this case for that would leave us without a Bible and no final authority. Consequently,
by default, the only conclusion that logic and revelation will both accept is that one Bible
and its readings are correct while those versions which disagree are in error.

How many Bibles did God inerrantly inspire as a reflection of his nature? The
obvious answer is only one. Does inerrancy extend merely to the original manuscripts
(which no longer exist) or did God promise to providentially persevere the very words of
his inspiration? In the final analysis, it is only the King James position that maintains the
integrity of inspiration and is consistent with both logic and Scripture. The King James
Bible and its translators were not inspired; rather, they made a literal word for word
translation of the preserved text into English. Scholars have long ridiculed the notion that
a translation can be inerrant. However, for the Bible believer, this is not far fetched.
Moses spoke to Pharaoh in Egyptian despite recording his words in Hebrew. The Holy
Spirit made a translation that even Evangelical scholars argue was inerrant since the
original autographs of the Torah were written in Hebrew. In the end, the scholars union
is boxed into admitting on the basis of its own doctrine that a translation can be inerrant.

Norman L. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1999), 250.
Ibid., 251.


Eloquent arguments aside, the prevailing wisdom within Christendom regarding
the inerrancy of the Scripture is meaningless because leading theologians only apply the
doctrine to the originals which no longer exist. The Bible teaches that God has promised
to preserve the inerrant words of his inspiration through a multiplicity to accurate copies
that are just as authoritative as the originals. A side by side examination of modern
versions with the King James text reveals startling differences that impact the major
doctrines of the faith. These differences cannot be attributed to differences in how words
are translated out of Greek and Hebrew into English. Rather the underlying manuscripts
used by the translators are different thereby resulting in different readings. Logic dictates
that when two things are different they cannot be the same thus making it impossible for
divergent translations to both be the Word of God. Rather than contravening reason, the
King James position is consistent in its application of the doctrine of inerrancy. God did
not go through all the trouble to perfectly inspire his word only to have it disappear with
the originals.

Skeptics and critics such as Dan Brown and others like him have been part of the
Satanic “hath God said society” for centuries. Despite their best efforts, the Bible
remains preserved and inerrant in the King James Bible for English-speaking people. It
is unfortunate that potential allies in the Evangelical scholar’s union leave the Bible
susceptible to skeptical attack by clinging to their unscriptural and incomplete notion of

© Timothy W. Dunkin, all rights reserved

A Defense of the Johannine Comma

Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
Timothy W. Dunkin
Revised, July 2010
With the gratefully accepted assistance of Steven Avery

Table of Contents

Introduction - The Charges Made Against the Johannine Comma 3

The Evidence from the Greek Manuscripts 5

What about Erasmus' Promise? 13

The Evidence from Other Versions 15

The Evidence of the Patristic Authors 25

Matters of Grammar and Consistency 36

Why Did the Orthodox Writers Not Use This Verse in the "Trinitarian
Controversies"? 39

Conclusions 40
Introduction - The Charges Made Against the Johannine Comma
Throughout the history of man's dealings with God's Word, the Holy Bible, few
portions of Scripture have suffered from more vigorous assaults then the passage I John
5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johannine Comma. Because this verse is one of the most
direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by
those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being unitarians such
as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses,
some Churches of God, etc.). Likewise, this verse is rejected by theological liberals who
tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective, and who therefore also
reject the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7, Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17,
I Pet. 1:25, etc.).
The attacks upon this verse have come from all angles. The personal experience
of this author has mostly been in dealing with Muslims, whose ideas about the Trinity
generally hold to the very simplistic and erroneous picture presented in the Qur'an (to see
a typical Muslim argument against the Trinity, and this argument dealt with, click here).
For the most part, Muslim apologetics on the subject of this verse are simply the
plagiarism of large parts of a "foundational" article dealing with this passage found at the
Answering Christianity website. Interestingly, most Islamic attacks on this verse find
their basis in the work of liberal and atheistic scholars who have an ideological
predisposition to oppose the verse. Commonly relied upon as "proof" that the Comma is a
corruption of God's Word is the statement below,
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and
rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy
Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable
Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the
Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

Other statements along this line abound in liberal and even Neo-Evangelical
"The text about the three heavenly witnesses (I John 5:7 KJV) is not an authentic
part of the NT."

"1 John 5:7 in the KJV reads: 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one' but this is an
interpolation of which there is no trace before the late fourth century."

"1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus (represented in the KJV) makes it appear that
John had arrived at the doctrine of the trinity in explicit form ('the Father, the

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Eds. M. Black, H.H. Rowley, A.S. Peake, p. 1038
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Eds. K.R. Crim, G.A. Buttrick, Vol. IV, p. 711
Ibid., p. 871
Word, and the Holy Ghost'), but this text is clearly an interpolation since no
genuine Greek manuscript contains it."

Each of these statements, naturally, find much use among Muslim apologists and
other anti-trinitarians who would probably have little use for anything else contained
within these works.
Even conservative Evangelical commentators have jumped onto the anti-Comma
bandwagon, parroting the same general claims concerning the paucity of Greek
manuscript evidence for the trinitarian rendering of these verses. In his commentary on I
John, Hiebert refers to the "famous interpolated passage for which there is no valid
textual evidence,”
"The external evidence is overwhelmingly against the authenticity of these words,
commonly known today as "the Johannine Comma." They are found in no Greek
uncial manuscripts; no Greek cursive manuscript before the fifteenth century
contains them. Only two known Greek cursives (cursive 629 of the fourteenth
century and 61 of the sixteenth century) have the addition in their text; cursive
635 of the eleventh century has it in the margin in a seventeenth century hand, and
88 of the twelfth century has it in the margin by a modern hand. In these cursives
the words are a manifest translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. No
ancient version of the first four centuries gives them; nor is it found in the oldest
Vulgate manuscripts. None of the Greek Church Fathers quoted the words
contained in this interpolation. As Feuillet points out, their failure to cite it is 'an
inexplicable omission if they knew it: in fact, how could they not have used it in
the Trinitarian controversies?'"

Hiebert then continues on into a discussion of the much-heralded (and much-
misrepresented) inclusion of the Comma by Erasmus into the third edition of his Greek
text. A similar charge is leveled in many of the more popular Evangelical study Bibles.
For example, Ryrie states,
"Verse 7 should end with the word record. The rest of verse 7 and all of verse 8
are not in any ancient Greek mss."

Unfortunately for the critics, these claims are either outright falsehoods, or else
rest upon incomplete information. Worse, they continue to be propagated uncritically by
naturalistic textual scholars like Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland, whose
written works routinely perpetuate false information based upon a partial coverage of the
evidence available. It is somewhat understandable that those who rely upon information
given to them by others (Hiebert, Ryrie, etc.) would repeat the assertions made by textual

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Ed. A.C. Myers, p. 1020
D.E. Hiebert, The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary, p. 27
C.C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: King James Version, Expanded Edition (1994), note on I John 5:7-8.
We should note that Ryrie is in fact in error on this point, as "the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these
three agree in one" appear in all manuscripts containing this passage.
scholars. It is less understandable that scholars like Metzger and the Alands, who ought
very well to have access to the full body of information on this subject, would continue to
propagate claims that are verifiably false concerning this passage of Scripture. The
disinformation that continues to be perpetuated by liberal textual critics results in
confusion among the ranks of God's people concerning the Scriptures, which can only
serve to divide and weaken the churches of Christ, the local assemblies who are charged
with keeping and guarding the Word of God (I Timothy 3:15).
The primary arguments employed against the authenticity of the Johannine
Comma can be roughly summarized into the four following topical areas:
The paucity and lateness of the Greek manuscript witness
The lateness of its appearance in the Latin
Its lacking from all other ancient versions
The lack of use by patristic writers, especially during the "Trinitarian
These charges will be addressed individually, in turn, and in detail below. As we
will see, each of these charges, when examined, turns out to be either outright false, or
else presented in a misleading manner. The intention of this essay is to demonstrate to the
reader the authenticity of the Johannine Comma through textual, historical, grammatical,
and logical means.
The Evidence from the Greek Manuscripts
In the minds of the modernistic textual critics, the Greek manuscript evidence is
THE center of debate, to the seeming exclusion of nearly everything else. This allows
them to focus the discussion surrounding this verse around the one portion of the
evidence which would, on its face, seem to support their contentions about the Comma.
However, the treatment which the Greek evidence is given suffers from being only
partially presented, and often misrepresented, by the Critical Text side of the debate.
The most common statements made by Critical Text supporters about the paucity
of evidence for the Comma in the Greek manuscripts sound similar to Metzger's below,
who says it,
" absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight."

Metzger then proceeds to list seven of these manuscripts (#61, #88m, #221m,
#429, #636m, #918, #2318), excluding the eighth manuscript, Ottobonianus (#629), a
14th-century manuscript which is listed in the United Bible Society's 4th edition of the
Greek New Testament.
Now, there are over 5300 extant Greek New Testament

B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 647
The Greek New Testament, 4th Edition, Eds. K. Aland, B. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, and C. Martini

manuscripts, so this would on its face seem to be an overwhelming argument against the
authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
However, the numbers game is reduced somewhat when we note that only 501 of
these manuscripts contain the book of I John, chapter 5. Further, we see that Metzger and
the UBS have slighted the actual number of Greek manuscripts which contain the verse.
In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts
#634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma
appears in the margin of #635.
Recently, Daniel Wallace reported that the Comma
appears in the margin of #177, though he observes that the addition was made very late,
at least after 1551. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts
usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears
(Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10

Facsimile of a portion of I John containing the Comma, as it appears in Codex Montfortianus, a
century miniscule (reproduced from T.H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 241, Robert Carter and Bros.:NY, 1854).
Much is made of the appearance of the Comma in the margins of several of these
manuscripts (specifically, #88, #221, #635, and #636), and the standard interpretation of
this occurrence is that later scribes emended the texts with the Comma in the margin.
From there, it is said, the emendation made its way into the actual text of manuscripts
which were subsequently copied. While this is indeed a plausible contention, it is not
conclusive by any means. Equally plausible is the suggestion that the verse appears in the
margin as a response by scribes who had seen the verse in other texts, noted its lacking in
the manuscript before them, and corrected the text according to what they had previously
seen. Other historical and textual evidences which will be discussed below lend credit to
this idea, as they demonstrate in a concrete manner that Comma-containing Greek
manuscripts existed much further back than the present Greek manuscript evidence
would seem to indicate, and thus the later manuscripts containing the Comma in their
margins cannot automatically be attributed to emendation from the Latin Vulgate.
Further, it ought to be evident that the weight of numbers on the side of Comma-
deleted manuscripts at least partially nullifies the "oldest-is-best" arguments which the
Critical Text crowd loves to advance in favor of the Alexandrian texts. While it is true
that only around 8-10 of the Greek texts contain the Comma, and most of these are late,

T. Holland, Crowned With Glory, p. 164
the vast bulk of those without the Comma are also late, by the standards of the United
Bible Society. Around 95% of these Comma-deleted texts are "late" by these standards
(post-9th century). Further, at least three other marginal references date to a relatively
early period, these being #221m (10th century), #635m (11th century), and #88m (12th
century). This could suggest that during that 10th-12th century period, there were still
other Comma-bearing manuscripts floating around which provided a source for the
addition of this verse to these Greek texts. At any rate, the oldest of these marginal
references predates all but eight of the non-Comma bearing texts, and is roughly
contemporaneous with another one (#1739). Hence, we see that the "oldest-is-best"
argument, which really does not have the merit which its proponents suggest anywise, is
less than decisive here, since we see that both types have the bulk of their witness in the
late manuscripts, and each has a much smaller portion of its witness from the early texts,
though admittedly, the Comma-deleted tradition (in the Greek tradition) has older extant
witness by several centuries. As we will see below, when the evidence of the Latin
witness is taken into account, this gap shrinks significantly, and when the witness of early
Christian writers and other historical evidences is considered, the gap disappears entirely.
Another objection to the Johannine Comma which is brought up in the realm of
the Greek manuscript evidence is that the various manuscripts containing the fully
trinitarian reading for I John 5:7-8 differ among themselves in their rendering of the
verse. However, this should in no wise denigrate the authenticity of the Comma for these
readings. After all, the Critical Text supporters swear to the superiority of the
Alexandrian texts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, because of their antiquity (from the
4th century). Yet, as Pickering reports, these two manuscripts (from the "oldest-and-best"
set, mind you) differ from each other in reading, with many very major divergences, over
3000 times in the four Gospels alone.
Thus, if one wants to ignore the witness of certain
manuscripts because they vary to some degree within themselves on the reading of a
verse, then one would be forced to throw the very basis of the Critical Text set out the
In addition, the very fact that there are variant readings for this verse among the
Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma lends an air of authenticity to the presence
of the Comma in these texts. The Comma in these texts underwent the same sort of
natural process of scribal errors that we see in many other verses in multiple transmission
of texts, which yielded slightly different wordings. It would seem less authentic if the
verse appeared exactly the same, both in marginal and intratextual witnesses, as this
would lend credence to the notion of emendation to bring these texts into conformity with
the recension of the medieval Roman Catholic Vulgate.
Concerning the Alexandrian manuscripts, the hypocrisy of the Critical Text's
standard-bearers can be seen when their treatment of I John 5:7 is contrasted with their
dealings with other passages which find scant textual support. Using the relative paucity
of manuscripts containing the Comma as an excuse (and ignoring the vast amount of
external evidences to be discussed below), they will confidently claim that this renders

W. N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 51; citing H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and it’s
Allies, Vol. 2, p. 1
the Comma "illegitimate", "inauthentic", or just a plain "fraud". But yet, we see that the
Critical Text supporters include minority readings into the new versions of the Bible,
whereas the King James' Textus Receptus reading is in the (often large) majority of the
pertinent manuscripts. Holland points out that in I John 1:7, the Critical Texts change the
Iesou Christou of the Received Text to Iesou, yet this change is supported in only 24 out
of 501 manuscripts of I John which contain this passage. Likewise, I John 2:20, the panta
of the Received Text is changed to pantes, on the strength of just 12 out of 501
manuscripts containing this verse.
The manuscripts involved do not give a clear "old
versus new" breakdown either, and the deciding factor usually breaks down to whether or
not the hopelessly corrupt Alexandrian codices contain them.
Many other passages are accepted into the Critical Texts on even less authority
than those above. In Matthew 11:19, the phrase "wisdom is justified of her children" is
altered to "wisdom is justified of her works" on the emendation of a mere three Greek
mss., versus an overwhelming host of both Greek and external evidences for the Textus
Receptus reading. Likewise, the word "for" is removed from James 4:14 on the basis of
four Greek mss. and scant external evidence, versus (again) an overwhelming testimony
of both Greek and external witness. Similarly, the final clause of Romans 8:24 is changed
from "for why does anyone hope for what he sees" to "for who hopes for what he sees",
all on the basis of two Greek manuscripts, versus the almost unified witness of the Greek
mss. body along with the witness of practically all other ancient versions except the
Syriac (which gives several differing readings, many of which don't agree with the
Critical Text). In each of these examples, the basis for the emendation is upon the nearly
(or sometimes completely) sole witness of some of the favored Alexandrian texts, as
opposed to the much larger and nearly as antique witness of the majority texts, which are
almost always supported by the great body of external witness from other ancient
The point to mentioning this is not to cry foul over the inclusion of readings with
minority Greek support into a textual edition. Rather, just the opposite is intended. These
examples demonstrate that even modernistic textual critics recognize that there are other
weighting factors besides mere number of manuscripts that should be used to determine
whether a reading belongs in the text. They recognize this, though their particular
weighting factors are based upon the spurious premise that "oldest always means best" - a
premise which is difficult to agree with when the oldest texts are demonstrably
inconsistent both within their manuscript body and with the bulk of extant Greek
manuscript tradition at large.
Yes, the weight of antiquity for a reading should be
accounted of, but at the same time, this must be balanced with evidence that presents
itself from other quarters.
Further, there is evidence from patristic testimony concerning the alteration of
manuscripts of the book of I John by some scribes, even specifically mentioning the

Holland, loc. cit.
See Burgon, where he states, "The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph is not a
matter of opinion, but a matter of fact", in J. Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 315; see also Pickering, op.
cit., pp. 126-9
removal of this very verse. Beginning with a general example of this sort of purposeful
corruption of copies of the book of I John, around 485 AD Socrates Scholasticus wrote,
"The fact is, the cause-less alarm he manifested on this subject just exposed his
extreme ignorance: for being a man of natural fluency as a speaker, he was
considered well educated, but in reality he was disgracefully illiterate. In fact he
contemned the drudgery of an accurate examination of the ancient expositors:
and, puffed up with his readiness of expression, he did not give his attention to the
ancients, but thought himself the greatest of all. Now he was evidently
unacquainted with the fact that in the First Catholic epistle of John it was written
in the ancient copies, `Every spirit that separates Jesus, is not of God.' The
mutilation of this passage is attributable to those who desired to separate the
Divine nature from the human economy: or to use the very language of the early
interpreters, some persons have corrupted this epistle, aiming at `separating the
manhood of Christ from his Deity.' But the humanity is united to the Divinity in
the Saviour, so as to constitute not two persons but one only."

In the passage above, Socrates is expounding upon the error of the bishop
Nestorus, who was accused of teaching that the divinity and humanity of Christ were
separated by the economy of His incarnation. The text which he refers to as having been
present in "the ancient copies" is I John 4:2-3, and he clearly notes that there were those
who initiated textual corruption in this very epistle so as to weaken or eliminate the
witness to the deity of Christ. Much the same sort of heretical theology would approve of
the removal of a trinitarian reading of I John 5:7-8, a passage which specifically links the
Father, the Word, and the Spirit as being in unity.
Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome on this matter. Jerome was
commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation
of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in
multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for
revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate
. At one point in his work, Jerome
noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek
manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking
of the testimony of these verses he writes,
"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters
into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of
genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is
placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of
unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three

Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 7, Ch. 32
Jerome’s original commissioning by Damasus took place around 380 AD, but Jerome did not finish his
revision of the general epistles until around 395-400 AD. Some try to claim that the revision of these
epistles was not the work of Jerome, but instead of some other unnamed reviser, but there is no real
evidence that this is the case, and that position is rejected in this article, as well as by the majority of the
relevant scholarship.
words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and
Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of
substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."

Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being
removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to
recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have
been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his
preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier
than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss.
When we really sit down and think about it, it becomes logically apparent that as
far as antiquity is concerned, within the body of Greek manuscript evidence, age is not
really that important of a factor. The oldest witness (Sinaiticus) is still almost 300 years
after the fact. Further, the oldest witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae
Cantabrigensis, Ephraemi Rescriptus) are all widely variant from each other and not as
trustworthy as they are claimed to be. These texts are in the small minority, and are also
grossly variant from the dominant majority of the Greek manuscripts, the Byzantine
tradition. The Alexandrian texts are accorded a special status by most textual critics
which they do not deserve. Their readings, though often variant and out of step with each
other, as well as with the older papyri, are looked upon subjectively as the "best"
manuscripts without any qualification being given other than that they are "older". This is
in spite of their localized nature (Egypt and Palestine) and evidence of Gnostic and
Docetic corruptions. However, the very antiquity of the Alexandrian texts combined with
their excellent condition suggest that they were not used by early Christians, likely
because of their errors, and thus did not suffer the effects of constant use and reuse,
followed by the destruction of ragged manuscripts which was routinely carried out by
early Christians as a way of honoring the texts. Further, despite the Alexandrians'
antiquity, the texts available which are often older (though in far worse shape), in the
form of the various papyri, often show as much if not more affinity for the Byzantine
textual type as they do the Alexandrian type exemplified by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
This again suggests that the Alexandrian textual type, represented by a small minority of
the total Greek witness, cannot claim precedence over the Byzantine type, as is generally
But what of the lack of this verse in the Byzantine text-type which forms the vast
majority of the Greek texts? We must understand that, in the very least, conditions were
favorable for the Greek witness to have been altered by Arian heretics in the 4th century
who sought to expunge the overt Trinitarian witness of the Comma. The paucity of the
witness to the Comma in the eastern Greek witness, in fact, can be at least partially
explained on this basis. For much of the 4th century, the eastern portion of the Empire
(specifically Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, where the most prominent Greek manuscripts
used in textual criticism were copied and kept) were heavily influenced by Arianism.
After his condemnation, Arius fled to Syria-Palestine and succeeded in converting a large

Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis,
Trans. T. Caldwell
number of both the common masses and influential church leaders to Arianism (such as
Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had previously sheltered Arius during his trials, and
Eusebius of Caesarea). This region was also under the control of the Emperor Constantius
II (r. 317-361, r. solely 337-361), who was also an Arian. It was during this time that
several orthodox bishops such as Eustathius of Antioch, as well as the noted defender of
trinitarianism, Athanasius, were banished, and the eastern churches handed over to Arian
leadership (for instance, Arius' old protector, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was given the
patriarchate of Alexandria, in Egypt). Hence, for nearly half a century - including the
time period in which Eusebius of Caesarea was performing his textual critical work on
the Greek New Testament which was eventually affirmed and “codified” in the textual
line leading to manuscripts such as Sinaiticus - the major Greek-speaking regions of the
Empire were under Arian control.
Eusebius of Caesarea was the man chosen by Constantine to prepare the "official"
copies of the Scriptures that were to be circulated throughout the Empire. Eusebius was
likely responsible for the removal of the Comma from the Greek manuscripts which he
promulgated for Constantine (Eusebius was in the very least sympathetic to Arianism)
which formed the basis for such texts as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is very well possible
that even the Byzantine tradition was corrupted by the Arian heretics of the East in the
4th-5th centuries, and that the Eastern Emperors such as Constantius who came under the
Arian heresy consciously sought to remove the Comma from the witness of the Greek
scriptures of the East. This could answer the question why the Comma is missing from
the bulk of the Greek manuscript tradition, but yet is evidenced in other traditions such as
those of the Old Latin and the Syriac. Likewise, the systematic process of expunging this
verse from new copies of this epistle is suggested by Jerome's complaint, mentioned
above. This is especially suggestive when we note that Jerome resided in Bethlehem
during the period in which he revised the general epistles for his Vulgate. Bethlehem, of
course, is in the region where the Arian domination occurred, and Jerome revised the
epistles not very long after orthodox control of the churches was re-established. It is not
surprising, then, that he reports the textual corruption represented by the removal of the
Scott observes this possibility when he states,
"...somewhat more likely that the Arians or Anti-Trinitarians [in the early church]
should silently omit in their copies a testimony which was so decisive against
them, or that it should be left out by the mistake of some ancient transcriber, than
that the Trinitarians should directly forge and insert it. The Trinitarian, in fact,
would be deprived only of one argument out of very many, with which he might
attempt the conviction of his opponent, if this text were wholly regarded as
spurious; for his doctrine is supported by other Scriptures: but if this testimony
were admitted as the unerring word of GOD; all the ingenuity and diligence of

Eusebius of Caesarea drafted a creed for the Arian party at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, in "which
every term of honor and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord" -
opponents, would scarcely suffice to explain it away, or to avoid the inference,
which must naturally be drawn from it."

We should note that, in general, it is much easier for scribes to simply make
omissions from a text being transcribed than it is to add new readings in. Pickering
makes this point in a general reference to the Byzantine, or “Traditional,” text, where he
summarizes the results of a study of scribal tendencies in several of the early Alexandrian
“The tables have been turned. Here is a clear statistical demonstration that
interpolations are not ‘many times more numerous’ than omissions. Omission is
more common as an unintentional error than addition, and P
shows that with some
scribes omissions were deliberate and extensive. Is it mere coincidence that Aleph
and B were probably made in the same area as P
and exhibit similar characteristics?
In any case, the ‘fullness’ of the Traditional Text, rather than a proof of inferiority,
emerges as a point in its favor.”

Hence, it is much more likely, in the case at hand, that scribes would have omitted
the Comma, rather than that they added it. This is especially the case when we note, as
Colwell did, that many omissions were deliberate, and that the historical circumstances in
the East during the time of Arian supremacy would have facilitated such a deliberate
corruption of the text of I John. Even in the case of accidental deletions, these can
become “deliberate” if the omission is preferred, and therefore perpetuated, by the
powers that be.
Essentially, the point to this brief history lesson is that we can understand that for
nearly half a century, the large bulk of Christianity in the Greek-speaking eastern portion
of the Empire - including two of the most prominent and prestigious patriarchates - were
firmly in the hands of Arianism. A man of Arian sympathies was charged with preparing
the "official" version of the Greek New Testament, by order of Emperor Constantine (the
father of Constantius II, and who himself also had Arian leanings), which was finished
during the Arian son's reign. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that, given these
circumstances, the strongly trinitarian witness of the Comma would have been removed
from the "official" and subsequent copies of the Greek New Testament. Likewise, given
the endemic Arian domination of the region for so long, it is quite appropriate to ask
whether the influence of Arianism might have encouraged copyists to omit the overtly
trinitarian comma from their subsequent copies of the New Testament - copies which
would form the body of "parent" manuscripts from which most subsequent daughter
manuscripts would come.
In light of this, it is interesting to note that the official Greek New Testament used
by the Greek-speaking Eastern Orthodox churches, the edition authorized by the

T. Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (1812), note on I John 5:7-8
Pickering, op. cit., p. 83; the scribal study he references is E.C. Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri:
A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, Ed. J.P. Hyatt, pp. 370-89, spec.
Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1904, yet contains the Comma as it appears in the Textus
Receptus. This edition was prepared via the collation of around 20 Byzantine-type New
Testament manuscripts at the monastery on Mt. Athos, and represented a textual set
firmly in line with the Byzantine tradition. This suggests that the Byzantine text-type
Greek witness, while missing the Comma in the texts originating or copied in the Arian-
influenced regions of the East, may not have been as similarly corrupted in the non-Arian
parts of the East, such as Greece and the area around Constantinople.
All in all, it is patently illegitimate to consider inconsistent Greek codices from
the 4th-5th centuries to be of greater weight than the clear and explicit testimony to the
verse from patristics such as Tertullian and Cyprian, who quite clearly were referring to
this verse in their writings from two centuries before (as will be seen below), as well as
other versions based off of the early Greek witness. While the internal Greek testimony
of antiquity may not be all that important for reasons given above, the antiquity of ALL
the evidence which we have is, including the text of these patristics and the other early
versions. Preservation of scripture does not demand that every reading be preserved in the
original language of inspiration - only that the reading be preserved, such as the Comma
was in the Old Latin/Vulgate Latin and Waldensian vernaculars which were based off the
Old Latin.
What about Erasmus' Promise?
It is not uncommon to find opponents of the Johannine Comma who will
uncritically bandy about the claim that Erasmus, a 16th century textual scholar whose
Greek New Testament editions were included among the sources of the Received Text
and hence the King James, added the Comma to his third edition of 1522 based upon the
criticism of certain colleagues. It is said that he was criticized for omitting the Comma
from his first two editions, and responded to accusations of heresy by stating that he
would include the Comma if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained
the verse. Then, according to legend, the powers that be dashed off a copy of the Greek
New Testament, complete with Comma, and brought it to Erasmus with the ink still wet
and dripping. He thus included the Comma on this "evidence".
However popular this bedtime story may be with opponents of the Received Text,
it has little support in fact. The story has been firmly dismissed by two of the top Erastian
scholars in the world. Dr. H.J. de Jong, Dean of Theology at Leiden University, has this
to say,
"It has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly improbable that
he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any
such promise."

Dr. Roland Bainton, of Yale University, has also demonstrated that Erasmus did
not include the Comma because of any such promise, but instead he concluded "...the

From M. Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 265
verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by
As it turns out, Erasmus was almost assuredly correct in this belief, as will be
shown below. Further, this story is even admitted as apocryphal by the standard-bearer of
contemporary textual criticism, Bruce Metzger.

One piece of disinformation which has served to bolster the belief that Erasmus
relied on little to no Greek manuscript support is the continued misrepresentation of the
Greek witness which Erasmus himself said that he used. Modern scholars will claim that
Erasmus included the Comma on the basis of the Codex Montfortianus, said to be the
hastily prepared Greek codex which was produced to give him the pretext for including
the verse. Erasmus states that he included the Comma into his third edition based upon
the witness of the Codex Britannicus, a separate Greek codex. Scholars will attempt to
equate Britannicus with Montfortianus, but this is not legitimate, as the rendering of I
John 5:7-8 in Erasmus' edition is different from that found in Montfortianus.
Montfortianus itself is not likely to be the supposed ringer which the Erasmus' Promise
myth suggests, as it is dated by scholars such as Adam Clarke to the middle of the 13th

Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), a man about whom
Critical Texters love to tell fabulous stories.
Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek manuscripts upon
which he based his later editions of the Greek New Testament, one of them dating back
to the 11th century.
His successor in this work, Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus),
ultimately had access to 19 Greek manuscripts with which to edit his volumes, and the
edition of 1550 became the major source of the King James New Testament translation.
Theodore Beza added yet more ancient manuscripts to those used by Stephens, and
prepared five editions based upon these added collations. Finally, the Elzevirs in 1624
produced a Greek codex which they called the Textus Receptus and which, despite its
more extensive editing and use of more ancient manuscripts than Stephens had access to,

Ibid., p. 252
B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 291
C. Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, p. 126
A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, pp. 928-9
E.F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 198
was almost completely the same as the text of Stephens, differing only in a few spellings,
word order, accent marks, and other minor changes.
The Evidence from Other Versions
Whereas the evidence for the existence of the Johannine Comma in the Greek
tradition is weak and the evidence often circumstantial, the same can not be said for the
verse in other ancient versions. The trinitarian rendering of I John 5:7-8 finds much
firmer attestation in other versions tracing clear back to the middle of the 2nd century.
To begin, we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin version. The
Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of Jerome) dates to around the
middle of the 2nd century.
As such, the Old Latin version is an important foundation for
examination of evidence concerning the Comma. This is recognized because, due to its
antiquity, it must necessarily have been translated from "young" Greek manuscripts, i.e.
those which had not undergone much transmission, possibly even first generation copies.
When speaking of the "Old Latin", it must be understood that the version falls into two
broad families, the African and European. Both give evidence of the Comma, but the
European is of greater weight due to its greater endurance, which yields more evidence
for examination.
The African Old Latin textual tradition exists for us today as little more than
quotations in the works of early Latin patristic writers, having been displaced by later
Latin editions, primarily the Vulgate. However, this was the Latin version which we find
used by such men as Tertullian and Cyprian, both of whom were North African authors
who either quote or strongly allude to the Johannine Comma in certain of their writings,
as will be examined below in greater detail.
The European branch of the Old Latin yields much more interesting information.
We note that, in antiquity, it was viewed by Augustine as being a much purer text than
the multiplicity of other Latin texts which abounded and which had necessitated the
codification of the Vulgate version. Augustine says of the European, or more specifically,
the Italic, texts,
"Now among translations themselves the Italian is to be preferred to the others,
for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression."

There are not many extant Old Latin manuscripts which contain I John 5. The few
that do, however, contain the Comma. Other textual witnesses to this chapter in the Old
Latin (both African and European) also support the presence of the Comma. Codex
Legionensis, dating to the mid-7th century, has the Comma. The Speculum, attributed to
Augustine, but more likely assignable to the second quarter of the 5th century, which is a
collection of Scripture citations containing primarily Old Latin readings, also contains the

See F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to New Testament Criticism, Vol. 2, pp. 42-3; H.S. Miller,
General Biblical Introduction, p. 236
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Bk. 2, Ch. 15
Comma. Likewise, the Freisingensia fragmenta (aka Fragmenta Monacensia), another
fragment of Old Latin readings dated to around 500 AD, contains the comma, located
after v. 8. Around the middle of the 4th century, the Spanish bishop Idacius Clarus cites
the verse, this being prior to the supposed insertion of the verse by Priscillian (which will
be dealt with in detail below). Maynard cites Codex Perpinianus, which has Old Latin
readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles, as more early evidence for the Comma in the
Old Latin tradition. This manuscript, itself dating to around 1250 AD, is thought to have
been copied from an earlier manuscript dating to the 6th century.
Perpinianus contains
several Old Latin readings not found in the Greek Majority or Critical texts, but which
are found in the Latin traditions.
Although not directly and fully quoted, the Treatise on Rebaptism, an anonymous
Latin work attributed to a 4th century monk named Ursinus, but which likely dates earlier
to the third century when the re-baptism controversy was in full bloom in the North
African churches, includes language which both alludes to the verse, and suggests the
Comma's existence in the earlier Greek. The passage in question appears at the end of the
"Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of
the Apostle John, who says that "three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and
the blood; and these three are one."

Coxe says regarding this odd juxtaposition of the language from verses 7 and 8,
"It is noteworthy that he quotes the Latin formula, and not that (eij to en eisin) of
the Greek. Now, the Latin, repeating (in verse 8) the formula (hi tres unum sunt)
which belongs to the dubious protasis, is so far evidence that such a verse existed
in the old Greek. It is important that the Latin is not conformed to the received
formula of the apodosis, 'the three agree in one.'"

Essentially, because this Latin treatise repeats in verse 8 the language of verse 7,
Coxe is saying that this provides evidence for "these three are one", the signal statement
of verse 7, as appearing in the Greek from whence the Latin used it (whether from a Latin
manuscript or by in situ translation from Greek to Latin). Basically, we see the
anonymous author of this treatise telescoping verses 7 and 8 together, but he must have
known of verse 7 to have obtained the unique language "these three are one".
It is also known that in his revision of the Latin to produce the Vulgate, while
making much use of the Alexandrian type of Greek manuscripts, Jerome concurrently
tried to remain true to the readings of the Old Latin texts.
One would expect from this
information, combined with Jerome's explicit statement of corruption concerning the

M. Maynard, in a presentation to the 13th annual meeting of the Dean Burgon Society in 1991, as cited in
"In Defense of the Johannine Comma", The Burning Bush, Vol. 3, no. 1, Jan. 1997
Treatise on Re-Baptism, para. 19
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Ed. A.C. Coxe, Anonymous Treatise on Re-Baptism, note #61
F. Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, p.110
Greek manuscripts of his day due to the removal of the Comma, that it was the Old Latin
reading which led to the inclusion of the full I John 5:7 into his Vulgate. Even though we
possess no actual copies of the Vulgate from within a century after its production, we can
easily surmise both from the aforementioned statement of Jerome (indicating his support
for the verse), as well as the secondary witness of several works which cite I John 5:7-8
and which likely used the Vulgate Latin from during that "missing" century
, that the
Comma appeared in his original Vulgate edition. Among the appearances that the
Comma makes in Latin writers during this period are citations by Vigilius Tapensis in his
anti-Arian work Contra Varimadum (450 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), the Council of
Carthage in its condemnation of the Arian heresy (485 AD), and Fulgentius (527 AD).

The Comma continued to be used by later Latin writers who would have been working
with the Vulgate before it was rescinded by Alcuin around 800 AD, such as Cassiodorus
(570 AD) and Pseudo-Athanasius (6th century). The Comma was also included the Ordo
Romanus, an ancient order of ritual established in the Roman churches around the first
half of the 8
century. By this point, the Vulgate was universally accepted as the official
version of the Catholic religion, and clearly witnesses to the presence of the Comma in
the Vulgate of Jerome as it existed prior to the revisions of Alcuin.
Modernistic textual critics will argue that the verse was not found in Jerome's
original Vulgate, but was inserted at a later date by early medieval scribes from other
Latin versions. The basis for this claim rests primarily upon the fact that the earliest
existing Vulgate manuscript (Codex Fuldensis, 546 AD) does not contain the verse. From
this, it is extrapolated that it did not exist in Jerome's original revision. This sort of
reasoning is utterly astounding. From one manuscript which does not contain the verse, a
conclusion is drawn about the possible content of the dozens, hundreds, maybe even
thousands of other Vulgate manuscripts which might have existed contemporaneously
with Fuldensis. And this conclusion is that the verse was not in the Vulgate, even though
Jerome himself speaks of the verse being omitted by "unfaithful translators" (indicating
that he himself thought the verse was genuine, as well as in the Greek). As for Fuldensis
itself, it is a manuscript of "official" style that follows very closely to the form of
Jerome's revision. Fuldensis also contains the previously mentioned prologue in which
Jerome complained of scribes removing the Comma. Hence, we see the odd case in
which the text itself omits the Comma, while being prefaced by a prologue in which the
omission of the Comma is considered a textual corruption by its author. This lends
weight to the view that Fuldensis, far from being an accurate, "oldest is best" manuscript,
in fact represents a corrupted textual line from which the Comma was removed. Again,

While there was initial resistance to the introduction of the Vulgate in the Latin West, by the latter part of
the 5
century, the Vulgate had become generally accepted (see, e.g., H. Lusseau and M. Collomb, Manuel
d’Etudes Bibliques, Vol. 1, p. 456). Even Augustine (d. 430) grew to become sympathetic to the revision
towards the end of his life, though he did not use it publicly (see F. Stummer, Einführung in die Lateinische
Bibel: Ein Handbuch für Vorlesungen und Selbstunterricht, p. 126). Hence, while we cannot be absolutely
certain that any citation from this period is taken from Jerome’s Vulgate, its original commissioning by
Damasus, and its increasing popularity toward the end of the 5
and into the 6
centuries increases the
likelihood that the Vulgate was the Latin version used by these early Catholic sources.
The UBS-3 textual apparatus listed John Cassian (435 AD) as a writer who cited the Comma. I have not
been able to confirm this citation, and UBS-4 has since removed Cassian from its listing.
we should note that several sources likely used the Vulgate – and definitely cited the
Comma – prior to Fuldensis.
We should also note that even after its suppression in the East near the end of the
4th century, Arianism remained an important factor in the Latin West, the region in
which the bulk of early Vulgate manuscripts would have been copied. It would, again,
not be surprising if this Arian influence resulted in the removal of the Comma from the
Vulgate textual line that produced the Codices Fuldensis and Amiatinus.
As an aside, the claim was made by early textual critics in the 17th century that
Jerome's Prologue was a forgery dating to the Middle Ages, added so as to give a
"credible" witness to the Comma based upon Jerome's reputation. The discovery in the
1880s that the Prologue existed as part of Codex Fuldensis (546 AD) removed much of
the credibility upon which this argument was based. Nevertheless, less knowledgeable
Critical Text supporters will still try to advance the "forgery argument." Jerome's
comments in the Prologue most likely represent the older testimony, and Fuldensis is
merely another Comma-deleted Arian corruption, one in which the transcriber failed to
"correct" Jerome's comments in the Prologue, thereby introducing the discord between
prologue and text. Further, we should note that Latin writers such as Cassiodorus and
Fulgentius (both of whom inarguably witness to the Comma in the early-to-mid 6th
century), testify to the authenticity of the Prologue in a roundabout fashion because they
quite clearly were using Vulgate Bibles that had the Comma in them, at almost exactly
the same time that Codex Fuldensis - with the Prologue - was copied.
Continuing on, we should further ask, what of all the Latin sources using the
Vulgate who cite the verse between Jerome and the copying of Fuldensis, such as Victor
Vitensis and Fulgentius? Where did they get the verse from? Indeed, where did the
Council of Carthage, an official church council which would likely have been using
Jerome's Latin translation, get the verse to cite as evidence against the Arians? Further, if
the Comma was a spurious addition to the text, why didn't the Arian opponents of the
Carthaginian council jump all over the council's use of a verse that was known to be
spuriously or recently added? If the verse had only recently appeared as a gloss in the
margins of a copy of the Scripture owned by a heretic (Priscillian), do we really think it is
very likely that the verse would suddenly become accepted as scripture to the point that it
is cited by several authors and a council of the churches, all within just a couple of
generations of its supposed insertion? The lack of logic of the textual critic's suppositions
is mind-boggling.
Indeed, out of the 8000+ extant Vulgate manuscripts, including many of not much
lesser antiquity than Fuldensis, only a handful do not contain the Comma. Even
naturalistic textual critics admit that 49 out of 50 Vulgate manuscripts have the verse. We
should note that verse does appear in the text of Codex Wizanburgensis, a Vulgate
manuscript dating to the mid-8th century.
This is important because this manuscript is

Dabney cites this manuscript as a very early Greek witness to the Comma - see Discussions of Robert
Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions: Evangelical
and Theological, Vol. 1 (1891), p. 381. It first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871.
not much younger than Fuldensis, and is roughly contemporaneous with Codex
Amiatinus, another early Vulgate manuscript that lacks the Comma, and is used by
textual critics to attack the presence of the Comma in the Vulgate tradition at an early
date. Clearly, the presence of the Comma finds nearly as old of a witness in the Vulgate
as does its lack.
Another body of evidence which testifies to the existence of the Comma in the
Old Latin is found in the textual tradition passed down through the Waldensians.
The origin of the Waldensians, also known as Vallenses or Vaudois (names
meaning "of the valleys"), is a topic which has been the subject of much investigation and
dispute. The Waldenses themselves claimed very ancient, even Apostolic, descent.
Mitchell relates the belief that the Waldenses originated among the Christians of Rome
who were driven out of the city and into the hills by the persecutions of Nero.
notes the claim made among some of them to descent from the original missionary work
of Irenaeus into the Subalpine regions of what are now northern Italy and southeastern
France, generally known as the Piedmont.
Another tradition suggests the descent of the
Waldenses from one Leo, a bishop living in the time of the Emperor Constantine and
Pope Sylvester I (314-335 AD). Leo, it is said, broke with the Pope over the growing
secularization of Christianity and the avarice of Sylvester himself, and drew away the
churches of the Piedmont region after him.
This claim is also supported by Neander.

A fourth view, also testifying to the extreme antiquity of the Waldenses, is supported by
Faber himself. Faber notes that in the time of Jerome, a deacon named Vigilantius led a
sect which was opposed to the veneration of saints and martyrs and to the many other
superstitious practices creeping into the faith at that time. Jerome specifically attacked
this "heresy" in his Heironymus Adversus Vigilantius, giving some geographic clues as to
the location of this sect, which was called the Leonists. Faber notes that Jerome located
this group in Northern Italy, "between the waves of the Adriatic and the Alps of King
in other words, the Piedmont. Faber then argues for the connection of the
Leonists with the Waldenses on both geographical grounds and also from the fact that
Jerome identifies Vigilantius' place of birth as a town near the Pyrenees named

This citation seems to arise from a speculated misunderstanding on Dabney's part relating to some textual
citations from the 19th century philologist Karl Lachmann. While this is the most likely possibility, such an
error on Dabney's part has not actually been proven, nor has it been adequately explained why a man of his
tremendous erudition should have made such a seemingly simple mistake. The possibility always exists that
Dabney was indeed referring to a Greek manuscript of this great antiquity, one which, for whatever reason,
is not generally known nowadays. Bengel, on his part, lists Wizanbergensis (99) as a Vulgate ms. from the
8th century that contains the Comma (see J.A. Bengel, E. Bengel, J.C.F. Steudel, and A.R. Faucette,
Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 136, in the notes). Bengel's assertion about the words of the
Comma that "All the old versions, as well as Greek MSS, reject them..." has since been shown to be quite
false, though we should note that Bengel's information is very outdated. Oddly enough, despite his general
agreement with the textual arguments, Bengel still maintained the genuineness of the Comma.
A.W. Mitchell, The Waldenses: Sketches of the Evangelical Christians of the Valleys of the Piedmont,
pp. 28-9
W. Gilly, Waldensian Researches, p. 50
G.S. Faber, An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 275
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 8, p. 352
Faber, op. cit., p. 293
Lugdunum Convenarum
, also called Lyons (not the more famous and northerly Lyons),
from whence came the name "Leonists". We should note that Faber's attempt to explain
Vigilantius as a Leonist on the basis of his place of origin is not necessary. If indeed the
followers of Leo were still around less than 75 years after his time (Vigilantius wrote his
treatise against superstitions in 406 AD), then Vigilantius was most likely a member of
this sect, or else was closely enough allied to it in thought, if not in fact, to be associated
with it by Jerome.
None of these suggestions are necessarily mutually exclusive. That the Christians
in Rome would have fled to the hills during the Neroan persecution is certainly plausible,
both logically and geographically. Likewise, a different part of the Piedmont, and also
Languedoc, could very well have been the object of missionary endeavors instigated by
Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons. Likewise, the Leonists as they were called, might very
well have been the group standing against corruptions in the faith in the 4th and 5th
century. There could indeed have been “cross-pollination” between remnants and local
bodies of these various groups in these early centuries. Whatever the origin of the
Waldenses, it was almost uniformly understood throughout most of European history that
they were an extremely old sect. The Roman Catholic inquisitors in the medieval period
testified to its antiquity, men who would normally be expected to assert the newness of
the Waldensian doctrines and faith as a means of more easily dismissing it to
suppression. However, the Austrian inquisitor of the Diocese of Passau, around 1260 AD,
noted the various views concerning their antiquity, and seems to indicate an acceptance
of this claim to great age for the Waldensian groups.
He also refers to them as
"Leonists", confirming that the link between these two groups extends beyond Faber's
somewhat roundabout attempt. Likewise, the inquisitor Reinerius (~1250 AD) indicates
the commonly-held belief that the Leonists were a sect older than the Manichaeans or
Arians (thus putting them back well into the 4th century at least), and that they were said
to have existed "from time immemorial."

This view of the Waldensians' antiquity is not without its detractors. For example,
Neff and Bender say,
"The tempting and romantic theory of apostolic succession from the apostles
down to the Anabaptists through successive Old Evangelical groups, which has
been very popular with those among Mennonites and Baptists, who feel the need
of such an apostolic succession, always include the Waldenses as the last link
before the Anabaptists. It basis in fact."

Other writers echo this sort of view, and accept instead that the Waldensians, both
in name and in doctrine, originated from Peter Waldo, a wealthy Lyon merchant who
renounced his wealth and preached the way of poverty and humility, beginning around

From Jerome, Jerome Against Vigilantius, Ch. 2
See W. Preger, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldesier, pp. 6-8
Faber, op. cit., pp. 281, 286-7
C. Neff and H.S. Bender, "Waldenses", Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 876
While attractive to those who do not wish to accept an extreme age for the
Waldenses, this view fails to explain why the inquisitors had to note the common opinion
that the Waldenses were of great antiquity, older even than the Arians, and had been
around for "time immemorial" (a statement hardly applicable to a group which only
existed for eighty years). It is to be noted that most of the more recent scholars writing on
the subject of the Waldensians are either Roman Catholics or liberal and compromising
in theology, both of which are particularly predisposed to reject the view of Waldensian
antiquity. However, we have already seen that contemporaries of the Waldensians during
the times of the Inquisitions noted the common opinion that the Waldensians were an
extremely ancient sect, which would not have been the widespread testimony if they had
once recently originated as a distinct group. Further, many of those testifying about the
Waldenses, even those who be counted as hostile witnesses, readily admitted the purity
and honesty of the lives which the "heretics" led. It is unlikely that a people so noted for
their piety and honesty would have been involved in a massive deception to invent for
themselves an ancient pedigree.
Moreover, linguistic evidence among the Waldenses has been noted which serves
to help confirm the great age of their groups. Raynouard perhaps has the most to say on
this matter, having committed the most study to the early language used by the
Waldensians and which is represented in the very antiquated The Noble Lesson, a
Waldensian theological text dated to around 1100. He states,
"Une langue Romane primitive, idiome intermédiare entre la décomposition de la
langue des Romaines et l'établissement d'une nouveau système grammatical:
circonstance, qui atteste la haute antiquité de cet idiome dans le pays que ce
peuple habitait."
("A primitive Romance language, an idiom intermediary between the breakdown
of the language of the Romans and the establishment of a new grammatical
system: circumstantially, this attests the high antiquity of this idiom in the country
which this people inhabit.")

Isolated in their valleys in the Piedmont and Languedoc, the language which the
Waldensians spoke, derived from the Latin which dominated since Roman days, had not
changed enough to be considered anything more than merely intermediate between the
old Latin and the new vernaculars. We see this intermediary language in use, for instance,
in the documents containing the Oaths of Strassburg, a treaty of 842, which cemented the
division of the Frankish empire of Charlemagne into three kingdoms, one for each of
Charlemagne's sons. Owen notes that the treaty was written in three languages - Latin,
Frankish (used in the eastern portion of the empire, approximately today's Germany), and
in the lingua romana spoken in the Western portion
, roughly today's France, Savoy, and
the Piedmont, which was intermediary between Latin and the Old French which

E.g., G. Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent, p. 10, quoting Bernard Gui's statement on the subject from his
De Secta Valdensium
M. Raynouard, Monumens de la Langue Romane, p. 137
F. Owen, The Germanic People, p. 114
gradually came into being around the 12th century. Owen also notes that the reason for
the lingua romana in the western portion of the empire was that the Frankish invaders
had mixed with the local population and gradually become submerged among the
predominately Latin-speaking populace. The Franks first began their invasion of Gaul
late in the 4th century, and had completed their conquest of the entire region by the
beginning of the 6th. Thus, the linguistic evidence seems to indicate that the language of
the inhabitants of the Waldensian areas, as shown by their ancient written records,
stemmed from a source older than the 1170 AD given by Catholic scholars as a date for
the start of the Waldensian sect. Instead, the Waldensians were thoroughly steeped in a
linguistic tradition dating centuries earlier than the time of Peter Waldo.
Indeed, this slowness to change is also seen in the fact that the Waldenses retained
the use of the Old Latin text, as opposed to the innovation of Jerome's Vulgate. Among
the Waldensians, the Old Latin, or "Italick", type of text had been used in their liturgies
and services for centuries.
Jacobus supports this thesis, stating that the Old Latin Bible
was for 900 years the Bible of the Waldenses and other Western Christians who existed
at various times outside the Roman Catholic religion.

Hearkening back to the belief that at least some of the Waldensians traced back to
the missionary work of Irenaeus, we note that there is some circumstantial evidence to
support this. The writings of Irenaeus (who wrote in Greek) are noted for the affinities
they sometimes show for the Italic Old Latin readings versus those appearing in the
Greek tradition.
This suggests that Irenaeus, who would almost certainly have used
Latin in his day to day ministrations as Gaul was a Latinized province, was familiar with
and used the Old Latin Bible, probably the Italic form. Nolan also confirms both the
antiquity of the "Italick" version likely used by Irenaeus and subsequently passed on to
the churches of the Piedmont and southern Gaul, and its sequestration from the later Latin
Vulgate appearing out of the apostate church of Rome,
"The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derives its names from
that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contra-distinguished from the
Roman. This is a supposition, which received a sufficient confirmation from the
fact that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese,
the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at
present mentioned, as the author thence formed a hope that some remains of the
primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the
Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have
asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and
have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures.

P. Allix, Ancient Churches of the Piedmont, p. 37
M. Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared, pp. 4, 200
E.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Ch. 20.4, note #399 in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Ed. A.C.
Coxe, where Irenaeus' quotation from Habakkuk differs both from the Hebrew and from the LXX, most
nearly approximating the Old Latin; also see Bk. 4, Ch. 9.2, note #109, where Irenaeus' quotation of I Cor.
4:4 is incorporated into Phil. 3:12 in a manner remarkably similar to the ancient Italic ms. St. Germain.
"In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his fondest
expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on
that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with an
unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that
the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses [1 John 5:7] was adopted in the
version which prevailed in the Latin Church previously to the introduction of the
modern Vulgate."

The Waldensian Bibles and manuscripts bear a consistent witness to the existence
of the Johannine Comma throughout their continued Old Latin textual tradition, this
being entirely outside of (and often in studied opposition to) the Vulgate Latin tradition
of Roman Catholicism. We should also note at this point that the Old Latin used by the
Waldenses would also have been spared from the ravaged of the Arians, which may
explain why the testimony to the Comma in the Waldensian sources is so common,
despite the lack of the verse in the "oldest and best" Vulgate codices, Fuldensis and
Various medieval versions of the New Testament which were based on the Old
Latin contain the Comma. On such text is the Tepl codex, a late 14th century Middle
High German compilation.
The verse appears in the version of the Apostle's Creed used
by the Waldenses and Albigenses in the 12th century. The Augsburger manuscript
(~1350 AD), the oldest complete New Testament in Middle High German, has the verse,
and is unusual in that it says "Son or the Word" in v. 7.

A page from the Tepl Codex

F. Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. xvii-xviii
J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek
New Testament, p. 280; also A. Merk lists the Tepl among the Old Latin related codices in his critical
edition Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine
Maynard, op. cit.
Though it is often touted that the Comma “does not appear in the Syriac,” the
Syriac evidence is as yet inconclusive as far as the manuscripts are concerned. It is very
misleading to claim that the witness from this version knows nothing of the Comma. The
Syriac manuscripts which have been studied and collated, and upon which this claim is
ultimately based, constitute a very small total of the witness available to this version. The
claim rests on a total of five collations,
each utilizing only a handful of manuscripts,
with the number used across all these standing at around a dozen manuscripts at most.
This is certainly not a very exhaustive sampling of the hundreds of available Syriac
manuscripts, most of which have not been examined in any detail nor any results from
examination being published. Thus, the evidence from the Syriac version of the Bible
must be considered inconclusive until the fuller body of evidence is examined.
Even given what has been looked at from the Syriac texts so far, we can see that
the claim that the Comma "does not appear in the Syriac" is in the very least rendered
questionable on the basis of the existing manuscripts. There is evidence that the verse
appeared in Syriac readings, and Jacob of Edessa, a Syriac Father, makes a reference to
the verse around 700 AD.
The Syriac edition of Giles Gutbier from Hamburg 1664,
produced from the collation of two Syriac manuscripts, contains the verse.
Further, there is evidence from the Armenian version that this verse may have
either been found in the Syriac used to translate it in the early 5th century by Sahak
Partev, the Catholicos of Armenia, or in the Greek which was used to revise and confirm
the Armenian translation by the council of Ephesus in 431. The Comma was quoted in a
synod of Sis, held in Armenia in 1307, which seems to be a positive indication of that
verse's existence in the Armenian version at that date.
Some assert that the Armenian version was revised by the Armenian king Haitho
II (1224-1270) according to the Vulgate, but this claim primarily rests upon the fact of
the Synod of Sis' quotation, and thus is a claim based upon circular reasoning and is
therefore to be dismissed. While there was interaction between the Crusaders and the
Armenians in Cilician Armenia, there is no actual evidence that the Armenian version
was revised to conform to the Latin Vulgate. Indeed, if any revision of the Armenian text
took place during this period, it was by one Nerses of Lambron, who is believed by some
to have revised the Armenian New Testament according to the Greek (not the Latin
Vulgate) used by the Eastern Orthodox during the 12
century. However, it is not at all
certain that Nerses actually carried out any such revision. Even if he did, and this
revision resulted in the inclusion of the Comma at that time (again, another hypothetical

Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7-8, pp. 15-6
Anton Baumstark, a prominent scholar in the studies of Syriac and Eastern Christianity, observed this
citation in his Ein Syrisches Citat des Comma Johanneum, appearing in the German journal Oriens
Christianus: Hefte für die Kunde des Christlichen Oriens, Part 2 (1902), pp. 440-1, noting its appearance in
Jacob's On the Holy Mysteries. Brown mentions this citation in his discussion of the evidences for and
against the Comma, attempting in a rather unconvincing manner to downplay its evidentiary value, see The
Anchor Bible: Epistles of John, Ed. R.E. Brown, p. 778
assertion that is not substantiated by evidence), this would still place the Comma in the
Greek witness long before modernistic textual critics say it “should” be.

At any rate, the first printed Armenian Bible, impressed at the behest of Bishop
Uscan in 1666, contained the verse, and the newest version of the UBS text admits that it
is found in some Armenian manuscripts. The first printed Georgian Bible, at Moscow in
1743, also contained the verse, and this edition was based upon "Georgian mss. which
reflect an older type,"
suggesting the verse appeared in the older Armenian sources as
It should be noted also that Critical Text supporters often cite the Gothic
translation of the New Testament as an early version that lacks the Comma. This claim is
true - but deceptively so. The only testimonies to the Gothic New Testament that remain
in existence (all dating to the 6th-7th centuries) are the Wulfila Bible, Codex Argenteus,
the Codices Ambrosianus A-E, Codex Carolinus, Codex Gissensis, and the Fragmenta
Pannonica. The Wulfila Bible contains only the Gospels and the Pauline epistles, as well
as a few "skeireins" (Gothic biblical commentaries) on these portions. Argenteus contains
portions of the four Gospels, while the Ambrosianian mss. contain portions of the
Gospels and the Epistles (but not I John 5), as well as several skeireins (again, none on I
John 5). Carolinus contains Romans 11-14, and Gissensis has fragments of Luke 23-24.
Additionally, Codex Vaticanus Latinus 5750 is listed, though it contains only skeireins
for the Gospels. None of these are known to contain I John 5, so therefore in a very
technical sense it stands to reason that this version lacks the Johannine Comma. This is
not, however, evidence that the Comma was originally lacking when this translation was
made. At the present time, there is no way to speak to the issue either way, based on the
evidences we currently possess.
The Evidence of the Patristic Authors
Another charge laid against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is that it
found no use among the early patristic writers of the Church until very late in the game.
This is usually coupled with the claim that the verse was "added" by a careless scribe or
an "orthodox" writer who wished to strengthen the trinitarian testimony of the Bible and
found I John 5 to be a convenient place at which to do so. Typical of the sort of claim put
forward by liberal, naturalistic critics and their compromising allies in the Critical Text
movement is found below,
"The mention of the threefold witness suggested to Christian students of a later
day the Three Persons of the Trinity. And so, some time in the fourth century or

It is interesting to note that at least one Armenianist observed that the text of the Armenian version in the
general epistles has textual affinities with the Greek Codex Vaticanus (see Lyonnet in M.-J. Lagrange,
Critique Textuelle: La Critique Rationelle, p. 578, as cited by B. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New
Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations, p. 168). This presents an interesting question –
what if this is evidence that could suggest that even the Alexandrian text-type bore witness to the Comma,
witness that was eliminated in the main, but preserved here?
A. Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament, p. 206
toward the end of the third, a Spanish Christian (probably), who wrote in Latin,
formed a corresponding sentence: "There are three who bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Perhaps he wrote
this on the margin of his copy of 1 John and some later copyist thought it was part
of the text, but in any case these words were quoted as part of the Latin Bible in
Spain at least as early as 380 A.D., on earth being added to v. 8 to balance the
insertion. This "gloss" (as such insertions are called) spread, and finally became
so universal in Latin-speaking Christianity that it was even translated into Greek
and was added to a few very late Greek MSS. From these it found its way into
printed editions, and so into the first English versions. But R.V. and A.S.V.
rightly omit all mention of it, as it has no claim to be considered John's words."

So the Johannine Comma slipped into the Bible as the result of some careless
scribe's glossing of a study note? This assertion, of course, is based on simple
supposition, without any factual basis whatsoever. Further, the claim for the appearance
of this verse in the Latin Bible at or around 380 AD is also quite incorrect, for reasons
that will be seen below.
However, at this point, I believe it is appropriate to address yet another myth
about the history of the Comma, one that continues to be bandied about by Critical Text
supporters (including some cited above), despite having been decisively refuted for over
a century. This myth concerns the supposed insertion of the Comma into the text by a
heretical Spanish bishop named Priscillian, who quoted the verse in his Liber
Apologeticus around 380 AD. This argument was systematically propounded by Karl
Künstle in his monograph entitled Das Comma Johanneum auf seine Herkunft
Untersucht, in which he attempted to show that the Comma first appeared in Priscillian's
writings in support of his Sabellian-like view of the Trinity.
As we would expect,
critical scholarship at the time jumped all over Künstle's article, proclaiming that it
settled the debate once and for all.

Yet, Künstle's theory was refuted not long after its publication. In 1909, Ernest-
Charles Babut, following several other critics of Künstle's assertions, pointed out several
very basic and fundamental problems with Künstle's arguments that relegated the
"Priscillian authorship" theory of the Comma to the ashbin.
The primary fault with
Künstle's arguments is that nobody at the time, not even Priscillian's mortal enemies (and
that is meant literally, he was eventually executed for his heresy), ever thought to accuse

The Abingdon Bible Commentary: First John, Ed. B.S. Easton, p. 1357
K. Künstle, Das Comma Johanneum auf seine Herkunft Untersucht (1905), pp. 45-57
E.g., T.J. Shahan's review of Künstle's monograph in The Catholic University Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 1
(Jan. 1906), pp. 93-4; W.L. Sullivan, "The Three Heavenly Witnesses," The New York Review, Vol. 2
(1907), pp. 175-88, esp. 184-5; etc.
These can be found in E.-Ch. Babut, Priscillien et le Priscillianisme, pp. 267ff; cited by A.E. Brooke,
The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures Old and New Testaments: A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (1912), p. 160; other contemporary scholars who refuted
Künstle's theory include Eugène Mangenot, Le Comma Johanneum (1907) and Adolf Jülicher, Göttingische
Gelehrte Anzeigen, Vol. 167 (1905), pp. 930-5, both reported by J. Moffatt, An Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament, p. 586
him of having interpolated anything into the text of I John. Further, as a heretic (and
especially one who was supposedly introducing the verse to support a version of
Sabellianism) no orthodox Catholic writer would have touched the supposed interpolation
with a ten-foot pole, yet many entirely orthodox writers from the fifth century onward
used the Comma regularly in their writings, with no hint of its supposedly heretical
source, even during the centuries in which Priscillian's heresy continued to be a headache
for Spanish Catholic authorities.
Simply put, despite Künstle's assertions, nobody back then seems to have had any
idea that Priscillian inserted nearly two entire verses pertaining to one of the most
contentious doctrines around into the Bible. It is unreasonable to suggest that Priscillian's
enemies would have almost immediately accepted false verses that he himself created,
and then used them in their own church councils and writings. It is much more reasonable
to simply accept that both Priscillian and the orthodox writers of that era had the Comma
in their Bibles.
So we see that Priscillian was not, in fact, the originator of the Johannine Comma.
Is it really true, however, that the verse did not find use before Priscillian, as Critical Text
supporters routinely assert? An examination of the evidence from the patristic writers of
the early churches falsifies the anti-Comma claims.
To begin, we must look to Athenagorus, a 2nd-century Greek writer (~177 AD).
In his Plea for the Christians, Athenagorus addresses two Roman Emperors, Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, seeking from them toleration for
Christians within the Empire. As part of his effort, he lays out for them several key points
of doctrine, one of which is the view of God as a Trinity consisting of God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. While not directly quoting the Comma,
Athenagorus' language certainly seems to reflect a knowledge and use of the verse as part
of his explanation on the Trinity. In explaining the exact relationship of the Son to the
Father, Athenagorus states,
"Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the
poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of
thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son.
But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after
the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being
one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and
power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God."

His use of the term Logos (Word) to describe the Son, is a uniquely Johannine
presentation of Jesus Christ. Likewise is the presentation of the Father and the Son as
being one (John 10:30, 17:11,22). And whereas John 10:30 is a very explicit passage
demonstrating the unity of the Father and the Son, it doesn't speak to the Trinity.
However, Athenagorus continues on to clear this matter up through his statement,

Athenagorus, Plea for the Christians, Ch. 10
"The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an
effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the
sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the
Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their
power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?"

Hence, Athenagorus connects the Father, the Son (whom he had previously
referred to as "the Logos", the Word), and the Holy Spirit, stating both their union and
their distinction in order. The only portion of Scripture where these two points are
juxtaposed in such a manner is I John 5:7. That Athenagorus likely had this verse in mind
is suggested by his prior usage of the term "Logos", which is not used in John 10:30, and
hence would not be the source of this term in connection with the unity of the Son and the
Father. Further, we should note that the development of more intricate definitions of the
Trinity that would rely upon the distinction of the Persons in their order of procession
should not be anachronized back onto Athenagorus, for these precise theological
definitions and discussions arose much later. When Athenagorus describes the "power in
union and their distinction in order," the most logical conclusion is that he has I John 5:7,
rather than Augustine or Hilary (obviously!), in mind.
Though Athenagorus' usage is not definite, we next find a much more definite use
of this verse by Tertullian around 200 AD. In his apologetic work Against Praxeas, He
makes the statement concerning the Trinity,
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete,
produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These
Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in
respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

While Tertullian here quotes John 10:30 so as to elucidate the point he makes
about the unity of essence, and not of number, among the Persons of the Godhead, his
language concerning all three Persons is strikingly particular to that found in I John 5:7.
He quotes "these three are", and then clarifies that the "one" is a one of substance and
essence, not person. Quite clearly, this is a reference to the Comma. What is important to
keep in mind, also, is that Against Praxeas is a work specifically designed to explain and
defend the doctrine of the Trinity against Sabellianism, which is why Tertullian takes
pains to note the unity is one of essence and not of person. Thus, it's use nearly a century
and a half before the Trinitarian controversies (during which the supposed silence of the
patristics on the verse is said to suggest that they did not know of the verse) to defend the
doctrine of the Trinity is remarkable in itself, as it shows that the verse DID find witness
and was employed on this very subject.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Ch. 25

Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160 – ca. 220 AD)
Some have argued, of course, that Tertullian was not speaking of I John 5:7,
because this would upset a great number of Critical presuppositions about the verse.
Souter, for instance, gives us his opinion that Tertullian's statement is referring to I John
5:8 and the unity is that of the three earthly witnesses.
This argument hardly seems
plausible, however, since we note that at least two of the three earthly witnesses (the
water and the blood) are not persons, and hence are not what Tertullian was referring to
when he said that the connection of the witnesses produces three coherent persons.
Further, the earthly witnesses are not said in the Scripture to be one, but to agree in one,
again casting grave doubt on the idea that they could be the three who are one in essence
of which Tertullian writes. The more logical position is to simply accept that this is in all
likelihood a reference to the Comma, and move on.
The reason that Critical Text supporters are so loath to admit that this language
used by Tertullian is in fact referring to I John 5:7 is that admitting this would destroy the
precarious foundation upon which they've built their theories concerning the
"introduction of the Comma into the text". Remember, the typical line is that the Comma
originated at or around the time of Priscillian in 380 AD (and some still claim he is the
source, despite this obvious falsehood having been debunked for a century). To find a
patristic writer from 200 AD alluding to the verse would turn this claim on its head (as
would the next citation, by Cyprian). More particularly to Tertullian, the reference to this
verse gives a serious blow to the claim that this verse did not originally exist in the Old
Latin. Tertullian likely had access to the Old Latin manuscripts which were then being
promulgated in North Africa. Further, the chance that these manuscripts had been
corrupted by his time is much less (being only in existence roughly 30 years) than it was
much later when we see Augustine referring to the "multiplicity of Latin witnesses". To

A. Souter, Tertullian: Against Praxeas, p. 98
find the verse even alluded to by Tertullian indicates that it appeared in the very early Old
Latin tradition, and not just the European or Italian, but also the African. Further, from
what was the Old Latin translated? From the Greek. Scholars debate whether Tertullian
used an Old Latin manuscript, or whether he just read the Greek and translated in situ
into Latin. Either way, however, we should see that the testimony for the Comma
extended back even to the Greek (whether through direct reading or as it came out in
translation) of the late 2nd century. This period of time is also before the so-called
Trinitarian controversies, and much of the supposed impetus for the patristics to add the
verse as an interpolation is removed, lending increased authenticity to its reading here.
Modernistic textual criticism simply cannot accede to any of this, and thus, has to
continue to propagate the fantasy that "Tertullian probably didn't quote the verse" even
though anyone with their eyes open in either English or in Latin can see that he "probably
The next witness for the Comma is Cyprian, another North African bishop, who
specifically cites the verse on or around 250 AD. He writes,
"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to
Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of
Christ. The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"

This is a very clear quotation of I John 5:7, using language that superbly
demonstrates the existence of that verse, around 130 years before Priscillian cites it. The
critics who attempt to challenge the reality of this being a quotation of the Comma are
merely allowing their predisposition against the verse to overtake their reasoning
faculties. Cyprian also alludes to the unique construction of the Comma in one of his
personal letters.
Some have argued per Facundus (a 6th century African bishop) that
Cyprian is referring to the eighth verse in this passage. Again, this makes no sense, as
Cyprian explicitly refers to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and says that they areone.
His use of "Son" instead of "Word" does not get around the more telling use of "these
three are one," and is likely more an artifact of Cyprian's mental process at the time
(subconsciously substituting “Son” for “Word”) than it is of his having a Comma-deleted
manuscript. There is no language in this passage either stating that they agreein one, nor
any that refers to the three earthly witnesses. Scrivener, himself no supporter of the
Comma, sums it up when he argues that it makes the most sense to simply accept that this
is a reference to the Comma, and leave it at that.

Other scholars have likewise acknowledged that Cyprian cited the Comma. In the
century, Bennett observed that Cyprian quotes the Comma, and dismisses the

Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, Ch. 6
Cyprian, Epistle 72, To Jubaianus, para. 12
See Scrivener, op. cit., p. 405; Coxe also notes Scrivener’s position – and the tendency on the part of
critics to contort the evidence to try to deny that Cyprian knew the verse - when he writes, “And Scrivener
decides that ‘it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read it in his copies, than to resort to,’
etc. the usual explainings away.” See Coxe, op. cit., p. 418.
argument that Cyprian was really presenting an allegorical interpretation of v. 8.
more modern times, Elowsky, following Maynard, accepts that Cyprian genuinely cited
the Comma,
and Gallicet likewise observes that Cyprian’s quotation of the Comma is
difficult to doubt.
Pieper states the case exquisitely, when he noted,
“Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: ‘Et iterum de Patre et
Fillo et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt”’ (“and again it is written of
the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One’”) Now, those
who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show
that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the
Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that
Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical
interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. "The Spirit, the water, and the blood;
and these three agree in one." That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is
quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but also in
the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’
These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.”

Indeed, it seems fair to observe that those who comment on the matter, and who
do not have a particular textual axe to grind, readily acknowledge that Cyprian really,
truly did cite the Johannine Comma. It is only when the a priori prejudices of a writer
interfere, that Cyprian’s quotation becomes “unlikely.” As an example of this, observe
Sadler’s statement concerning the question of Cyprian’s citation,
“If there had been evidence that the early MSS, and Fathers knew the text of the three
heavenly witnesses, there would not have been the slightest doubt but that Cyprian
here cites the original text; but the absence of all evidence for it till three centuries
later shows that in Cyprian’s copy there must have been an interpolation…”

Essentially, the argument Sadler is making is that, because we already “know”
that the Comma didn’t appear until centuries after Cyprian, the very clear citation by
Cyprian (which, on its merit alone, would be accepted “without the slightest doubt”) must
therefore be an “interpolation.” Why? Because that’s what the “accepted” interpretation
demands – evidence contrary to the Critical Text dogma of the inauthenticity of the
Comma must be explained away and ignored. This sort of argumentation employed by
modernistic textual critics is simple intellectual dishonesty. Instead of trying to “explain
away” evidence, following Scrivener in accepting Cyprian’s citation of the Comma
seems to be the best path to follow. Certainly, our interpretation of later evidences, both
pro and contra the Comma, should begin from the virtually certain historical fact (as seen
from Tertullian and Cyprian) that some manuscripts in use in the churches around 200-

J. Bennett, The Theology of the Early Christian Church (1855), p. 94
J.C. Elowsky, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, IVa, John 1-10, p. 359, note
# 37
E. Gallicet, Cipriano di Cartagine: La Chiesa, p. 206, note # 12
F.A.O. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Trans. T. Engelder, Vol. 1, pp. 340-1; emphasis mine
M.F. Sadler, The General Epistles of Ss. James, Peter, John, and Jude (1895), p. 252, note #1
250 AD, whether Old Latin or the Greek from which the Old Latin was derived, had the
heavenly witnesses in their texts.
At this point, we should make a comment about the corroborative nature of these
witnesses in the Latin. From Tertullian onward, we see several early Latin witnesses to
the Johannine Comma. These witnesses, all located in North Africa, do not exist in a
vacuum. While Tertullian's witness from Against Praxeus is less clear, the fact that
Cyprian clearly cites the verse, in the same geographical area, a mere five decades later,
and makes it significantly more likely that Tertullian did, indeed, have this verse in mind
when he used the particular language that he did. So likewise does the testimony of the
Treatise on Rebaptism, mentioned earlier, the text of which also dates to this same
general time frame and concerns a doctrinal controversy that took place in this specific
geographical area. Cyprian is explicitly corroborated, further, by the fact that Fulgentius,
the bishop of Ruspe in North Africa around the turn of the 6th century, both cited the
verse in his own writings, and pointedly argued in his treatise against the Arians that
Cyprian had specifically cited the Heavenly Witnesses. All of these evidences work
together synergistically to shown that the Johannine Comma was recognized in the Latin
Bibles of North Africa, both before and after the Vulgate revision was made.
Further witness from the 4th century is provided by Idacius Clarus in Spain, who
cited it around 350 AD.
The testimony of Idacius Clarus is doubly important, for not
only does his citation of the verse precede the use of the Comma by Priscillian
(demonstrating prima facie that Priscillian could not have been the “originator” of the
Comma), but we must remember that Idacius Clarus was one of Priscillian’s foremost
opponents in the controversies surrounding the latter’s Sabellian-like teachings. It is
extremely unlikely that he, of all people, would have used this verse if Priscillian were
known or suspected to have inserted the Comma into the biblical text.
The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great (Greek)
defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Gill observes that
Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians.
A clear
citation of the Comma is also found in the Synopsis, also know as the Dialogue between
an Athanasian and an Arian, attributable to Athanasius. Critics have attempted to dismiss
the Dialogue as spurious, largely on the basis of stylistic arguments (i.e. the style of the
Dialogue is not consistent with Athanasius' other writings). For example, one early critic
to make this argument was the 18th century classics scholar Richard Porson. However,
Charles Forster
refuted this line of argument by showing that the style and type of
citation employed in the Dialogue is entirely consistent with that which appear in other
works of Athanasius that are accepted as genuine by all. Additionally, David Martin (who
believed that one of Athanasius' contemporaries was the author) writing in 1772,
observed that the Dialogue itself speaks of the Emperor Constantine in the present tense,

J.-P. Migne, Patrilogiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, Vol. 62, Col. 359
See John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, comments on I John 5:7, where he states that Athanasius cites the
verse in his Contr. Arium.
Forster, op. cit., pp. 48-63
as ruling with his son Constantius, which would argue for a date of composition in the
first half of the 4th century.

Hence, there is no real reason to accept the arguments that the Dialogue is
spurious or late - a position which appears to exist for no other reason than to try to get
around the evidence testifying to the authenticity of the Comma. Further, as Forster
points out, even if the Dialogue were attributable to one Maximus, writing in the 7th
century, as some revisionists allege, this would still clearly demonstrate the existence of
the Comma in the Greek witness at an extremely early date, which destroys the claims of
critics that the Comma only appeared in Greek at a very late date.
It is only after all of this prior witness that we find Priscillian citing the Comma in
I John 5:7, this around 380 AD. So much for the claim that it crept in as a gloss in the text
at the end of the 4th century, having first been "discovered" or "invented" by Priscillian.
Yet another line of evidence points to the likely early appearance of the Comma
in the Greek witness. Forster noted that the Comma was cited three times by Vigilius
Tapensis (a Latin North African writer who was earlier observed to have used the verse
in another work) in a treatise on the Trinity, dating to 490-500, which he published under
Athanasius' name.
As Forster pointed out, Vigilius wrote this treatise while he was in
exile in Constantinople because of the Vandal occupation of North Africa. Vigilius'
treatise, especially since it was published under the name of one of the most famous
Eastern churchmen and from the central point of Eastern Christianity, was intended to be
an appeal to the Eastern (Greek) portion of the Christian world. As such, it is highly
unlikely that Viligius would appeal to a verse multiple times, and attribute it to such a
famous name, if this verse were lacking in the Greek New Testament at the time and
were known or suspected to be a false quotation. That he could have done so and not
been immediately caught would be incredible. Therefore, it stands to reason that, Latin
writer that he may have been, when writing in Greek for a Greek audience under the
name of a famous Greek theologian, the fact that his citation of the Johannine Comma
went completely unchallenged strongly suggests that this is because at least some Greek
textual witness of the day contained the disputed passage, despite the possible
depredations of the Arians.
It is possible that Augustine himself was aware of the verse (~390 AD), due to his
interpretive language employed in exegeting I John 5:8. Augustine says,
"I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where
he saith, ‘There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and
the three are one.’ Lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood
are diverse substances, and yet it is said, ‘the three are one:’ for this cause I have
admonished thee, that thou mistake not the matter. For these are mystical
expressions, in which the point always to be considered is, not what the actual
things are, but what they denote as signs: since they are signs of things, and what

See D. Martin, The Genuineness of the Text of the First Epistle of Saint John, Chap. v., V. 7, pp. 137-8
Forster, op. cit., pp. 43-4
they are in their essence is one thing, what they are in their signification another.
If then we understand the things signified, we do find these things to be of one
substance. Thus, if we should say, the rock and the water are one, meaning by the
Rock, Christ; by the water, the Holy Ghost: who doubts that rock and water are
two different substances? yet because Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one and
the same nature, therefore when one says, the rock and the water are one, this can
be rightly taken in this behalf, that these two things of which the nature is diverse,
are signs of other things of which the nature is one. Three things then we know to
have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the
spirit: of which it is written, ‘And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit.’
then, as His side was pierced by the spear, ‘blood and water.’ Which three things
if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct,
and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified I
by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself,
which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy
Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, ‘There are Three Witnesses, and
the Three are One:’ so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the
Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that
the Lord was speaking, when He said, "God is a Spirit:" by the term, blood, the
Son; because ‘the Word was made flesh:’ and by the term water, the Holy Ghost;
as, when Jesus spake of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the
evangelist saith, ‘But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him
were to receive.’ Moreover, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘Witnesses,’
who that believes the Gospel can doubt, when the Son saith, ‘I am one that bear
witness of myself, and the Father that sent me, He beareth witness of me.’ Where,
though the Holy Ghost is not mentioned, yet He is not to be thought separated
from them. Howbeit neither concerning the Spirit hath He kept silence elsewhere,
and that He too is a witness hath been sufficiently and openly shown. For in
promising Him He said, ‘He shall bear witness of me.’ These are the ‘Three
Witnesses, and the Three are One, because of one substance. But whereas, the
signs by which they were signified came forth from the Body of the Lord, herein
they figured the Church preaching the Trinity, that it hath one and the same
nature: since these Three in threefold manner signified are One, and the Church
that preacheth them is the Body of Christ. In this manner then the three things by
which they are signified came out from the Body: of the Lord: like as from the
Body of the Lord sounded forth the command to ‘baptize the nations in the Name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ ‘In the name:’ not, In the
names: for ‘these Three are One,’ and One God is these Three. And if in any
other way this depth of mystery which we read in John's epistle can be expounded
and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor
divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the
persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected. For whenever in Holy
Scriptures in order to exercise the minds of the faithful any thing is put darkly, it
is to be joyfully welcomed if it can be in many ways but not unwisely

Augustine, Against Maximinium, Bk. 2, Ch. 22.3
Given the full statement made by Augustine, it is difficult not to see that he knew
of the Johannine Comma and was alluding to it during the course of his exposition above.
Though it is claimed that Augustine's focus on "the water, the blood, and the spirit"
indicates that he did not know of verse 7, this is an unwarranted assumption. His
language and construction clearly demonstrates a knowledge of verse 7, as does his
repeated reference to these three witnesses being of one substance, something which
would not be derivative from the statement about the water, blood, and spirit made in
verse 8. Augustine focuses on the things listed in verse 8 because of his exegetical
methodology - he appears to be trying to reconcile the witnesses in verse 8 with those in
verse 7, and is taking an allegorical approach to doing so. Indeed, it is hard to see from
where Augustine could have drawn his allegorical parallelism of the Father with the spirit
in verse 8, unless he had verse 7, for verse 6 clearly refers to the Spirit as a person of the
Godhead, not a thing, and there is little reason to suppose that Augustine would have
confuted the persons of the Father and the Spirit, especially as his whole passage is
designed, in part, to argue against those who would confound and unite into one
personality the Godhead. Clearly, Augustine has in mind the parallel order of the Father
in verse 7 and the Spirit in verse 8.
One last patristic writer, this one a Greek, provides some circumstantial evidence
for the Comma being native to the early Greek manuscript tradition. Gregory of
Nazianzus, in addressing certain objections from Greek opponents concerning the unity
of the Godhead, says this,
"What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three
that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is
talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral
things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in
the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are
consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has
happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he
adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws
which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference
between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in
the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the
masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity...."

While it seems that Gregory himself does not know of the Comma, it is also
apparent that those with whom he was discussing the passage recognized a grammatical
error that is present in the text if the Comma is not included. Knittel notes both the
objection to verse 8 offered by Gregory's opponents on the basis of the grammatical
solecism introduced by the deletion of the Comma, as well as Gregory's attempt to get
around the problem by an effected indifference to the problem. He writes,
"And what says the venerable Greek bishop in reply? He says, "It is indifferent to
me whether we say treis or tria, in speaking of things of the neuter gender. Yet,

Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 32, The Fifth Theological Oration, On the Holy Spirit, para. 19
surely, the Linguists of his day would scarcely have conceded that point to him.
Neither Gregory, nor any other Greek, as far as I know, confirms this rule by their
style of writing. Neither can we attempt to call the treis marturountes, a
Hellenism: at least, St. John has distinctly shewn, that he cannot be liable to such
an imputation in the present instance; nor, indeed, throughout his First Epistle."

Knittel's argument is simply that despite Gregory's indifference, no
knowledgeable Greek writer in that day would actually have believed the argument
Gregory makes. Gregory's indifference appears to be more intended to turn aside an
argument from his opponents through denigration, rather than by an appeal to reason or
fact. Gregory himself, as well as other Greek writers (including John himself), did not
make the sort of grammatical error introduced into the Johannine text by the deletion of
the Comma. Far from being discovered "lately" by Robert Dabney (as certain Critical
Text supporters on various internet forums have tried to claim), recognition of the
grammatical difficulty for the Critical text supporter in this passage was recognized by a
Greek-speaking patristic writer over sixteen centuries ago, though he apparently did not
know what to make of it.
Matters of Grammar and Consistency
The grammatical difficulty which is found in this passage if the Comma is deleted
rests on a rule of Greek grammar (as well as in many other languages) which demands
gender agreement among parts of a sentence. If the Comma is left in place, the masculine
article, participle, and number in the apodosis of verse 7 then agree with the two
masculine (Father, Word) and one neuter (Spirit) nouns in the protasis. This agreement is
made by means of the principle of attraction, a rule of Greek syntax by which a
masculine noun in a series of nouns within the same clause determines, or "attracts" to
itself, the gender for the series as a whole. This gender of the clause, usually subordinate,
agrees with the predicate of the preceding clause within that sentence. Hence, the two
masculine nouns in the protasis force the whole list to take on a de facto masculine
gender, which is then in agreement with the masculine predicate in the apodosis. The
problem for those who support the deletion of the Comma is that, if the Comma does not
appear in the text, then the masculine predicate in the apodosis of verse 7 is mated with
the three neuter nouns (water, blood, spirit) found in verse 8 (which then becomes the
subordinate clause), a serious grammatical error. The problem disappears with the
Comma in place, because not only does verse 7 agree throughout in gender via the
attraction principle, but the mating of the three neuter nouns in verse 8 with the masculine
treis marturountes (three witnesses) in verse 8 is then also explained by the attraction
principle by, as Dabney also says,
"...the fact that the Pneuma, the leading noun of this second group, and next to the
adjectives, has just had a species of masculineness superinduced upon it by its
previous position in the masculine group."

F.A. Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text 1 John v.7, Ed. Trans. W.A. Evanson, p. 208
Dabney, op. cit., p. 378
Hence, this close proximity and the fact that the pneuma is a carryover noun from
the previous list of nouns and was made de facto masculine by the Power of Attraction
rule in verse 7, cause the nouns in verse 8 to be treated as masculine as well. This all falls
apart if the Comma is deleted, as there are no truly masculine nouns (or a masculinated
pneuma) from verse 7 directing the attraction phenomenon.

It may reasonably be suggested that the reason Gregory's opponents (and Gregory
himself) did not know of the Comma directly was because of the efforts by Arians in
their time to expunge the verse from the copies of Scripture which either fell into their
hands, or were of their own manufacture. As there are no other known grammatical
solecisms in the Greek Gospel and Epistles of John, it seems more reasonable to suppose
that the existence here of such an egregious grammatical error (one noted by Greek
speakers, remember) is due to the deletion of the relevant portion of the Scripture, rather
than an original unique error in John's inspired writing.

The Comma in Greek and Latin, without which there is a grammatical error in the Greek text of John's epistle.
We should note, again for emphasis, that Robert Dabney was not the modern
"inventor" of the grammatical problem seen in I John 5:7-8 when the Comma is deleted.
As early as 1740, Bengel noted the grammatical issue involved.
Also in the 18th
century, we see the testimony to the grammatical problem introduced by the removal of
the Comma, as it was recognized by Eugenius Bulgarus, Archbishop of Cherson, a high
official and scholar in the eastern Greek church. Knittel reproduces Eugenius' discussion
of the solecism as it was reported by a Professor Matthaei in Moscow, in 1780, who

It should be noted here that some critics of the Comma do not seem to fully understand the Power of
Attraction rule. For instance, see G.G. Thomason, “Scripture, Authentic and Fabricated,” which can be
found online here. Thomason argues (pp. 49-50) that the grammatical arguments against the exclusion of
the Comma are refuted by the presence of the exact same solecism if the Comma is included, whereby the
masculine treis...marturountes en te ge in v. 8 is mismatched with the three neuter earthly witnesses. He
either ignores or is unaware of the fact that the pneuma “attracts” a carried over masculineness (as Dabney
and others pointed out) that allows this second list of three witnesses to then agree in gender with the
masculine clause at the beginning of v. 8. Incidentally, Thomason’s article also perpetuates the discredited
“Erasmus’ Promise” mythology, perhaps giving a hint to the seriousness of his investigations into this
J.A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 808
included a letter from Eugenius in his own discussion of the passage.
A similar
grammatical argument was advanced by Frederick Nolan in 1815.

In 1808, Middleton (who himself seems to have been unsure of the authenticity of
the Comma) noted yet another grammatical problem with vv. 7-8 when verse 7 is
In his discussion of the verses, he notes that the unusual and emphatic use of
the article to before the en in v. 8, if verse 7 were genuine, would be easily
understandable as referring back to the en in v. 7, and would be interpreted as the three
witnesses in v. 8 agree with the one thing (the person and work of Christ) that was
likewise agreed to by the three witnesses in v. 7. Without verse 7, the construction is odd,
at best, and the emphatic reference assumed by such a use of the Greek is simply missing.
Because Middleton viewed the Comma as an interpolation, he was at a loss to explain the
use of this grammatical device in v. 8. If the Comma is genuine, however, this
grammatical difficulty, like the previous one discussed, disappears.
Clearly, the grammatical issue introduced by the deletion of the Comma was not
"invented" by Dabney, nor was it only noticed in recent times. In fact, those who
observed the solecism in the text (whether or not they believed in the actual authenticity
of the Comma) ultimately date all the way back to the early centuries of Christianity.
In addition to the grammatical problem, we should note that the deletion of the
Comma also introduces a consistency problem with the interpretation of the contextual
passage. The full passage, vv. 6-9, read as follows,
“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only,
but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit
is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in
earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we
receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of
God which he hath testified of his Son."
The text of the Comma is italicized. The problem lies in that if the Comma is
removed, then the passage makes an irrelevant reference. The passage speaks of the
"witness of men" and the "witness of God." We know that the record of the "Spirit, water,
and blood" is the "witness of men" spoken of. At the beginning of the Johannine Gospel,
John the Baptist testified of the Spirit's role as a witness to Christ,
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a
dove, and it abode upon him." (John 1:32)

See Knittel, op. cit., pp. 206-8; interestingly, Knittel also notes where Gregory Nazianzus dealt with the
grammatical issue.
F. Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, pp.
254-61, 564-5
T.F. Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New
Testament, pp. 441-3
Likewise, at the end of John's epistle, we see John's own testimony about the
water and the blood,
"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there
out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he
knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe." (John 19:34-35)
In these cases, we see these things - the Spirit, the water, and the blood - being the
object of man’s (in this case, John’s) testimony, as both passages specifically record. This
seems especially cogent if, as some scholars have suggested, the epistle of I John was
originally coupled with the Gospel of John, serving as a sort of "introduction" to the
Gospel for John's readers. It would naturally follow that as they read the Gospel, his
readers would see and understand the witness of man to the things concerning Christ and
His ministry as John relates them.
The Gospel of John contains similar references to the "witness of God" as we saw
for the "witness of men." In John 8:18, Jesus (whom John calls "the Word," if we will
remember) says, "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me
beareth witness of me." In John 15:26, it says, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I
will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me..." Hence, in John's Gospel, we see the three Persons of the
Trinity each bearing witness to Jesus. If the Comma is removed, then where is the
witness of God spoken of in the verse, a witness that most naturally refers to the "Father,
Word, and Holy Ghost" who bear record in heaven in the parallel formation? It is not
there, and verse 9 refers to....nothing. The parallelism between the Gospel and the Epistle
is broken, and the local referent in v. 9 is muddled.
Why Did the Orthodox Writers Not Use This Verse in the "Trinitarian
One argument used by Critical Text supporters to suggest that the verse was not
found in the Bible prior to the late 4th century rests upon the supposed lack of use of this
verse, which should be a clear proof-text for the Trinity, by Christian apologists and other
writers during many of the various doctrinal controversies surrounding the nature of the
Godhead. The verse, it is said, was not used during the controversies of the 3rd and 4th
centuries, but suddenly appears frequently during the Arian controversies of the late 4th
and 5th centuries.
This argument comes from a misunderstanding of the various controversies,
which are usually just lumped together under the broad term "Trinitarian controversies."
The first of the major controversies came in the 3rd century, dealing with the Sabellians.
The Sabellians were Monarchianists (also called Patripassianists), who denied the
individual personality of the three Persons of the Godhead. There were (and still are)
several permutations of their general heresy, but all end up denying that the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit were separate personalities, united in essence and nature, but
individual in personality and function. The Sabellians did not deny the three persons of
the Trinity per se, they just denied their individuality, usually saying that the Father IS
the Son IS the Spirit, and some also teaching that God revealed Himself as all three, but
in a sequential manner, never more than one at a time. Thus, the Sabellian doctrine
became one of de facto unitarianism.
As such, the Johannine Comma would not have been useful in dealing with these
heretics. Indeed, saying that "these three are one", is something to which the Sabellians
would have agreed, though for a different reason than orthodox Trinitarians. Sabellians
would just as willingly have cited the Comma to prove their position that the three were
one in person, not in essence. As such, there is no reason why any early patristic writer
would have been inclined to find the Comma particularly useful against this particular
heresy. We note that Tertullian, even at that early period in which he wrote, found it
necessary to strenuously emphasize that the unity of the three in one was a unity of
essence, not person. This is quite explicable in view of the fact that Tertullian was
directing his arguments against Praxeas, who held to Monarchian theology. In general,
though, the patristics probably would have been disinclined to rely upon this verse to
defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity, as the verse could just as easily be turned back
against them and twisted to support the Sabellian heresy (as was indeed later the case
with Priscillian, who twisted the testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses to say, “these three
are one in Christ Jesus.”)
However, the usefulness of the Comma changed when the churches began dealing
with the Arians in the latter part of the 4th century, and we begin to see patristic writers,
starting with the great Trinitarian defender Athanasius, using the verse, though there was
still the tendency to treat the verse gingerly. In the next two centuries afterwards, we see
the patristic writers using the verse in quarrels with the Arians (Fulgentius, Cassiodorus,
Victor Vitensis, Vigilius Tapensis, etc.) Of course, as was seen above, even Christian
writers of the 3rd century did indeed cite and use the verse, even against heresies dealing
with the Trinity.
For centuries, the Johannine Comma has been one of the most hotly disputed
portions of the holy Scriptures. Though it has been generally rejected by modern textual
critics, I believe that this rejection is unwarranted in light of the full body of evidence.
Though barely attested in the Greek witness, there is evidence from several corners which
suggest that it was originally contained in this language version, and the conditions in the
Greek-speaking regions of the Empire were certainly ripe for an attack to be made upon
this clear witness to the Trinity. The evidence for the Comma from other sources than the
Greek, such as other versions and the testimony of the patristic writers, demonstrates that
the Comma was in existence for far longer than the modernistic textual critics will admit,
and that it was more generally accepted by the ancients than today's critics would like to
acknowledge. Indeed, there is no solid reason, in my opinion, to accept the Comma as
anything less than inspired and preserved Scripture. Though there have been evidences
which have led many to reject the Johannine Comma, there is much to commend the
Comma to us as authentic, and indeed, its obvious preservation through means other than
the Greek witness in no wise disparages or dilutes the principle and doctrine of the
preservation of God's Word.


“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever”
(Psalm 12:6-7, KJV).

“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Psalm 118:8, KJV).
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


THE RELATIONSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

OF THE RELATIONSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . 19

THE RELATIONSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49


For students of the Holy Scriptures, systematic theology is a familiar topic, one
“which treats directly of God and His relationship to the world and man.”
Such a topic
is of extreme importance to the minister of the Gospel, for as Cornelius Van Til
promulgates, “Systematic theology seeks to offer an ordered presentation of what the
Bible teaches about God.”
Furthermore, as Charles Ryrie explains, it “correlates the
data of biblical revelation as a whole in order to exhibit systematically the total picture of
God’s self-revelation . . . it focuses on the total structure of biblical doctrine . . . it
presents the total structure.”
Unfortunately, the total structure of biblical doctrine is
rarely exposited to the student of systematic theology whether it be in the classroom or
between the covers of a theology textbook. Many times, doctrines that are difficult to
understand are mentioned only briefly, or completely neglected. Such a phenomenon is
not only unfaithful to the purpose of systematic theology, but in many instances, reflects
the personal theological prejudices of the author or teacher. A prime example of this
occurs with regard to the Scriptures themselves, otherwise known as bibliology. Since,
as Gary Habermas ardently proclaims, “the major source for S.T. [Systematic Theology]
is the inerrant Scripture,” omission in the area of bibliology can prove extremely
Without the Scriptures, there would be no “Systematic Theology.” The
common systematic bibliological presentation will discuss such subtopics as inspiration,
inerrancy, illumination, canonicity, etc., but the topic of biblical preservation is missing.

Oliver J. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1962), 13.

Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, 1978), 1.

Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 14-15. Emphasis mine.

Gary Habermas, Classnotes: Theology Survey I (Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University, 1994), 3.
It is simply not talked about.
Major theological works such as Charles Ryrie’s Basic
Theology and Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology fail to even mention the subject.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the biblical doctrine of preservation and
establish its inseparable relationship with the doctrine of inspiration. These two
doctrines, although often treated separately, cannot be comprehended accurately except in
lieu of one another. Considering their interrelatedness will provide a better
understanding of the authority and divine nature of Holy Scripture. In short, this will be
done by defining the relationship between inspiration and preservation, overviewing the
historical consensus regarding that relationship, discussing the important implications of
such a relationship, and pointing out the fallacy of modern thought concerning the
relationship. Perhaps the reason for such a study is best echoed in the words of John
Burgon, former Dean of Chichester:
There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to
mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His
work; that he abandoned those precious writings. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their
preservation, that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil prevented from
shamefully adulterating copies of the Deposit, it is presumed that no one is so weak to suppose.

In the end, it should become clear that God’s inspired Word has been perfectly preserved
for Christians today. May the Almighty guide this quest which seeks to glorify His Holy

Perhaps a reason for this lies in the fact that a true biblical doctrine of preservation inevitably comes
into conflict with the science of textual criticism and the plethora of modern English translations of the

John W. Burgon, “The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels” in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1,
Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green (Lafayette,
IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), 7.
The relationship that exists between biblical inspiration and preservation is quite
simple, for it is evidenced not only by biblical data, but sheer logic as well. Before
describing the relationship, however, it is appropriate to briefly define the two doctrines
in and of themselves.
The Doctrine of Inspiration
The key passage for the doctrine of biblical inspiration is found in II Timothy
3:16. “All Scripture is given be inspiration of God . . .” Another important passage is II
Peter 1:21. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” These verses teach that the
Scriptures are the very words of God who inspired them through holy men of old.
Millard Erickson remarks, “By inspiration of the Scripture we mean that supernatural
influence of the Holy Spirit upon the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an
accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the
Word of God.”
Inspiration is both verbal and plenary. In other words, it refers to the
words themselves, and to Scripture as a whole.

The inspiration of the Bible is also confirmed by the teachings of Jesus (e.g. Luke
16:17; John 10:35). These teachings, in turn, are further verified by the Resurrection.
Habermas states it succinctly, “Both the O.T. and the N.T. are inspired by God, as
confirmed especially by the teachings of Jesus, which are in turn validated particularly by

Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 199.

Although there are several popular views of inspiration such as natural, dynamic, concept, and partial
inspiration, the author concludes that verbal / plenary inspiration is the only view that fits the biblical
description. Other views come into conflict with inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation.
His resurrection.
In conclusion, “starting with belief in the incarnation and a very
general belief in the historical truth of the Gospels, we have found ourselves apparently
compelled to accept our Lord’s view of Scripture. According to his teaching God so
guided the authors that the words they wrote were his words.”

The Doctrine of Preservation
Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper and uses men as instruments to
write down His words. Preservation, on the other hand, is when God takes those words
already written and uses men to preserve them down through the ages. “The Bible
repeatedly speaks of God’s promise to preserve his word—not, however [sic] the paper
on which the Autographs were written, nor early copies of these originals. God
commanded Jeremiah to throw his ‘originals’ in the river (Jeremiah 51:63).”
A key
passage which discusses such a phenomenon is Psalm 12:6-7.
The Psalmist writes,
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified
seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever.”
Like inspiration, preservation is verbal and plenary (cf. Matthew
4:4, 5:18, 24:35), being rooted in the eternal and immutable character of God. Elmer
Towns writes, “If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation,
then His power and nature can be questioned.”
Just as the apostles and prophets were
God’s vehicle for inspiration, the Church has been God’s vehicle for preservation for the

Habermas, 20.

John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 187.

Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995), 508.

see also Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 59:21; Matthew 24:35; I Peter 1:23

Although some modern versions translate verse 8 as “You will keep us Lord and preserve us from
this generation forever.” An honest look at the Hebrew reveals that the pronoun agrees with the nearest
antecedent which happens to be “words.” The King James rendering of this verse is correct and true to the
Hebrew text.

Elmer Towns, Theology For Today 2nd ed. (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994), 49.
past two thousand years. God controls the vehicle because He is sovereign. “It must be
that down through the centuries God has exercised a special, providential control over the
copying of the Scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy
representatives of the original text have been available to God’s people in every age.”

The Relationship Between Inspiration and Preservation
As can be clearly derived from a casual treatment of the doctrines of inspiration and
preservation, there exists an inseparable bond that ties the two together. In other words,
one cannot be considered without the other. The Committee Statement on Bible
Preservation of the Dean Burgon Society clearly defines the relationship:
Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important. The undermining or destroying
of either doctrine renders the other meaningless. If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and
inerrantly inspired, and if inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it
does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been preserved. It also follows that,
if the Bible has not been preserved, it does not matter how it was inspired.

Such a statement is not only backed by biblical evidence, but conforms to simple logic.
Inspiration and preservation are supported by biblical evidence.
The heart of the aforementioned relationship lies in the nature of the term
“scripture.” Jack Moorman writes, “While it may be assumed that the Bible’s usage of
the word “Scripture” has reference to the original autographs; yet virtually each time the
word is used it is the copies or even translations of the Scriptures that are in view, e.g. it
is the Scriptures the people had access to.”
In II Timothy 3:16, Paul speaks of the
Scriptures as being inspired in the same context that he proclaims Timothy had known

Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press,
1956), 9.

Committee Statement on Bible Preservation, (Dean Burgon Society) quoted in David Cloud, “Some
Thoughts on Inspiration and Preservation,” O Timothy Magazine (Vol.9, Issue 8, 1992), Ed. by David
Cloud [journal on-line]; available from; Internet; accessed 10
October 1997.

Jack Moorman, “Principles of Bible Preservation,” O Timothy Magazine (Vol.9, Issue 8, 1992), Ed.
by David Cloud [journal on-line]; available from ti0800002.htm;
Internet; accessed 25 February 1997.
them as a child (v. 15). Paul and Timothy were both separated from the original Old
Testament Scriptures by hundreds upon hundreds of years. Yet, what they had access to
was considered Scripture. Moreover, Paul calls the God-inspired Scriptures useful, being
“profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (II Timothy
316b-17). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown argue:
The Greek [γραφη = Scripture] is never used of writings in general, but only of the sacred
Scriptures. The position of the two Greek adjectives [θεοπνευστος, ωφελιµος ] closely united
by ‘and,’ forbids our taking the one as an epithet, the other as predicated . . . Clearly the adjectives
are so closely connected that as surely as one is predicate, the other must be so too.

In other words, the Scriptures are both inspired and profitable. If this is only a reference
to the “original autographs,” then Christians do not have useful Scripture, for no person
has seen any of the originals for almost two thousand years. A better interpretation of
this passage argues that the originals were inspired and profitable. Consequently, they
were providentially preserved by God in perfect copies made by men who were
providentially guided by the Almighty. Therefore, the copies which Paul and Timothy
had were inspired in the sense that they had been preserved. Preservation is an inevitable
outgrowth of inspiration.
A copy or translation can be inspired in the sense that it has
been perfectly preserved.
Another aspect of the close relationship between inspiration and preservation can be
seen in the words of our Lord in Matthew 4:4. The text reads, “Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word [emphasis mine] that proceedeth out of the mouth of

Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary On The Whole Bible (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 1380. The phrase to which Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown are referring to
reads: “πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφωλιµος . . .”

For other passages which use the term “scripture” in a context not restricted to the original copies
see Matthew 21:42, 22:29, 26:54, 26:56; Mark 14:49, 15:28; Luke 4:21,24:24; John 2:22, 5:39, 7:38, 7:42,
10:35, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24, 19:36, 19:37, 20:9; Acts 1:16, 8:32, 8:35, 17:2, 17:11, 18:24, 18:28; Romans
1:2, 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, 15:4, 16:26; I Corinthians 15:3, 15:4; Galatians 3:8, 3:22, 4:30; I Timothy 5:18;
James 2:8, 2:23, 4:5; I Peter 2:6; II Peter 3:16.
God.” If man is to live by every word of God, then the Almighty is duty-bound to
provide him with every word. He made such a provision through inspiration and
preservation. If inspiration and perfection only apply to the original manuscripts, and
error has crept into all subsequent copies, then we have an imperfect Bible and are unable
to live by every word of it. Bruce Lackey writes,
If only the autographs are inspired, no one has the inspired scripture. Thus, no one could obey
Matthew 4:4 . . . Did God intend for only those who had the autographs to obey this? Or did he
intend for only those who could read Hebrew and Greek to obey this? The answer must be
obvious to any thinking Christian. When God made the statement, and when Christ repeated it,
did he not know that the scripture would be copied and translated many times?

Similar arguments can be built upon the exhortations found in II Timothy 4:2 and
Revelation 22:18-19.
I Peter 1:23-25 is another interesting passage. The apostle teaches that we are born
again by the incorruptible Word of God “which liveth and abideth forever.” Peter also
states that this incorruptible word is “the word which by the gospel was preached unto
you.” Without the uncorrupted Word of God beyond the original autographs, there is no
salvation for mankind for the past two thousand years. The people to which Peter was
writing had not heard the originals, but copies, and more likely, translations. Yet, he
stated that they were born again by an uncorrupted word. God perfectly preserves his
inspired Scripture without corruption.
Finally, let it be noted that perfect preservation beyond the inspired originals is far
from inconceivable. According to Psalm 119:89, the inspired words preceded the
original manuscripts of Scripture (cf. John 12:48-50, 17:8).
Inspiration and preservation supported by logic.

Bruce Lackey, “Inspiration and Translation,” O Timothy Magazine (Vol. 9, Issue 11, 1992), Ed by
David Cloud [journal on-line]; available from; Internet; accessed
10 October 1997.
Not only do the Scriptures argue for preservation as a necessary outgrowth of
inspiration, but logic favors this claim as well. It is simply illogical to think that
Almighty God, who perfectly inspired his words, did not have enough power to guide the
Church to perfectly preserve them. Why would God inspire the originals and then lose
them at the hands of fallible men? If God gave a perfect Bible to men such as Peter,
James, John, and Paul, who saw the Lord face to face, would he not give it to us? If
anyone ever needed a perfect Bible, it is modern man, separated by almost two thousand
years from a Saviour he has never seen. Dean Burgon once asked the question of those
who denied the preservation of the Scriptures, “Is it indeed credible that Almighty
Wisdom—which is observed to have made such abundant provision for the safety of the
humblest forms of animal life, for the preservation of common seeds, often seeds of
noxious plants—should yet have omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed of His
own Everlasting Word?”
Philip Mauro writes, “He who gave to men the Holy
Scriptures to serve throughout the age as the sure foundation of that ‘faith of the Son of
God’ which alone avails for personal salvation, and to be also the sufficient rule of life
and conduct for ‘the household of faith,’ has not failed to devise effectual means for the
preservation of His written Word.”
In accordance with God’s character it is only
logical to believe that he supplied the divine safeguard of verbal preservation for his
inspired text.
In conclusion, one must consider the words of Ed Hills:
If the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures are true,

John Burgon quoted in “Publisher’s Preface” in Unholy Hands on the Bible, Ed. by Jay P. Green
(Layfayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), iv.

Philip Mauro, “Which Version? Authorized or Revised?” in True or False, Ed. by David Otis Fuller
(Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1973), 83.

Inspiration and preservation are inseparably related. Just as sanctification inevitably
proceeds from the justification of the believer, so divine preservation proceeds from God-
breathed inspiration. The two doctrines cannot be treated separately, for one without the
other is “vain and profane babbling” (cf. I Timothy 6:20).

Hills, 9. In the complete quotation, Hills only makes reference to the New Testament manuscripts.
This is simply because the crux of his argument in The King James Version Defended deals with the New
Testament, the battlegroud for naturalistic textual criticism. Most obviously, Hills would apply the same
argument for the Old Testament.
Having defined and described the relationship between inspiration and preservation,
it is necessary to provide a brief historical overview of how the Christian Church has
handled this issue over the centuries. Until modern times, the Church as a whole has
stood pretty much in agreement.
Ed Hills writes:
The Christian Church has long confessed that the books of the New Testament, as well as those of
the Old, are divine Scriptures, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . Although the
doctrine of the providential preservation of the Old and New Testament Scriptures has sometimes
been misused, nevertheless, it has always been held, either implicitly or explicitly, by all branches
of the Christian Church as a necessary consequence of divine inspiration of these Scriptures.

The Biblical Period
There is no question that the Biblical writers adhered to the doctrine of preserved
In fact, the practice of copying manuscripts employed by the ancient
Hebrews supports such a claim. D.A. Waite writes, “There were eight or more important,
strict rules that were followed by the Hebrew scribes who copied and recopied the
Masoretic Hebrew O.T. These rules were to insure that each letter, word, and sentence of
the Hebrew text was preserved exactly.”
God authorized the Jewish race to be the
exclusive guardians of His precious words (cf. Romans 3:1-2). They strongly believed in
divine preservation, for they themselves were the instruments of it. In fact, Jesus accused
the Jews of many sins; failing to preserve the Scriptures through corrupted copies was
definitely not one of them.

Let it be noted that preservation is rarely if ever mentioned as a doctrine in ancient Christian
theological writings because it was considered to be inseparably tied to inspiration. The two doctrines were
considered one in the same.

Hills, 8.

From this point on, the term preserved inspiration will be used to refer to a the biblical view of
inspiration and preservation, one that takes into account the inseparable relationship.

D.A. Waite, “The Four-Fold Superiority of the King James Version” [article on-line]; available at
http:/; Internet; accessed 20 February 1997.
The attitude of Jesus and the apostles was exactly the same, as has already been
indicated. Further evidence of this is promulgated in passages such as I Timothy 5:18
where Paul calls Luke 10:7 Scripture. Most obviously, he was not quoting from the
original document because it had been given to Theophilus several years before. Paul
was looking at a copy of the original, believing it to be inspired in the sense that it was
preserved. A similar situation presents itself in II Peter 3:16 when Peter puts Paul’s
epistles on the same level as “other scriptures.” Most obviously, Peter never saw the
original copies because they were sent to various churches throughout Asia Minor and
the Roman Empire. He was reading and studying copies of the original Pauline epistles.
The Patristic Period
Following the era of the New Testament, the Church Fathers had much to say about
the nature of the Scriptures. Practically all orthodox Christians at that time adhered to the
doctrine of divine inspiration although their view of its nature often differed.
of the great multiplication and spread of the Scriptures, error had begun to seep into some
of the copies both unintentionally and intentionally. Thus, there was a need to address
and define the doctrine of divine preservation. In spite of errors in some of the copies,
there did exist inspired copies in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved. A
Western Church Father by the name of Caius wrote in the second century:
For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they
have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may
ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would
find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the
corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare
those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted
with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied
in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do
not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or
they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis
is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their

James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 114-115.
own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first
instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

Caius obviously held to the preservation of Scripture because he exclaimed that those
who corrupted the Scriptures did not believe in divine inspiration. According to the early
church fathers, the two doctrines were one in the same. Irenaeus, also from the second
century, wrote, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from
those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time
proclaim in public, and at a later period by the will of God, handed down to us in the
Scriptures, perfect, inasmuch as they were uttered by the Word of God and His Spirit.”

In Irenaeus’ opinion, he had the perfect Scriptures providentially passed down to him. In
the third century, Origen while expressing the faith of all to Africanus spoke of the
Providence behind the sacred Scriptures.
The attitude toward the Scriptures of the
patristic period is clear.
The Reformation and Post-Reformation Periods
During the period of the Protestant Reformation, much was said about the nature of
the Holy Scriptures because the Roman Catholic Church had hidden them for so long
from the eyes of the common people, veiled in the Latin Vulgate. Therefore, many
translations were made into the vernacular and preservation had to be defined.
Furthermore, the authority of Scripture was pitted against the Roman Catholic Church. If
the Reformers were to have any claim at all, they had to believe they were standing on a
perfect book, providentially preserved for them from the days of its inspiration.

Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 5: 602.

Irenaeus, MPG, Vol. 7, Col.805, Col. 844 quoted and translated in Ed Hills , The King James
Version Defended (Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1956), 8. Emphasis mine.

Origien, De La Rue, Vol. 1, 16 quoted and translated in Ed Hills, The King James Version Defended
(Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1956), 9.
Some of the great theological giants of the day had interesting opinions regarding
preserved inspiration. For example, Desiderius Erasmus’ purpose in compiling the first
printed edition of the Greek New Testament was to clear-up difficulties present in the text
of the Latin Vulgate. In Epistle 149, he writes: “Latin scholarship, however elaborate, is
maimed and reduced by half without-Greek . . . since the translators of Scripture, in their
scrupulous manner of construing the text, offer such literal versions of Greek idioms that
no one ignorant of that language could grasp even the primary, or, as our own theologians
call it, literal meaning.”
In other words, Erasmus compared the Vulgate with the Greek
text, the “Received Text” which he has well as other reformers believed to have been
passed down from the days of the apostles. How could Erasmus have legitimately laid
claim against the translation of the Vulgate unless the Greek text which he appealed to
was believed to be perfectly preserved, for the Roman Catholic Church also believed in
preservation and claimed it to be found in the Vulgate. “It was assumed that the making
of the Vulgate Latin version had been guided by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
many medieval scholars had begun to teach that the Latin Scriptures were more reliable
than the Greek manuscripts.
Whether or not Erasmus’ Greek text was perfectly
preserved or the Latin Vulgate (for there were many discrepancies between the two) is
not important at this juncture. What is important is that both the Protestant Reformers
and the Roman Catholics believed in the verbal-plenary preservation of the God-inspired

Desiderius Erasmus, Epistle 149 quoted and translated in “The Correspondence of Erasmus,” Vol. 2
in The Collected Works of Erasmus, Ed. by R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1975), 25.

B. Hall, “Erasmus: Biblical Scholar and Reformer,” in Erasmus Ed. by T.A. Dorey (Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1970), 85.

William Combs, “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus” in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (Spring
1996), 39.
Martin Luther also held to the preserved inspiration of the Bible. His appeal to sola
scriptura necessitates such a belief, for if the Scriptures had not been providentially
preserved, how could they have had supreme authority? Luther once wrote, “What else
do I contend for but to bring everyone to an understanding of the difference between the
divine Scripture and human teaching or custom, so that a Christian may not take the one
for the other and exchange gold for straw, silver for stubble, wood for precious stones?”

To Luther, the Scriptures he possessed were gold compared to the traditions of men.
They were gold because they came from the breath of God Almighty and had been
providentially preserved for him.
John Calvin argued that the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit with regard to the
Scriptures was absolutely paramount.
In opposition to the view that the church was the
final authority on Scripture, Calvin believed that “the authority of Scripture is intrinsic.
Authority derives from the Holy Spirit who inspired it, caused it to be written, and gave it
to the church . . . He went on to argue that the Scripture now needs no proof to
substantiate its present authority.”
Calvin was quite sure that the Church possessed the
same Scriptures that God inspired. They had been perfectly preserved and were the sole
Several well-known creeds that were born out of the Reformation had something
important to say about preserved inspiration. For example, the Helveticus Consensus of
1675 reads, “God, the supreme Judge, not only took care to have His word . . . but also
has watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to the present

Martin Luther, “Answer to the super Christian, super spiritual, and super learned book of Goat
Einser” in Works, 3:372 quoted in Alan Johnson and Robert Webber, What Christians Believe (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 44.

Garrett, 115.

Alan Johnson and Robert Webber, What Christians Believe (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993)
44. Emphasis mine.
time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man.”
Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith drawn up between 1643-1648 contains a
similar exhortation. “The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek
. . . being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept
pure in all ages, are therefore authentical . . . they [the Scriptures] are to be translated
into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God
dwelling plentifully in all . . .”

The Modern Period
Despite a favorable consensus to the inseparable relationship between inspiration and
preservation held throughout the history of the Christian Church, modern times have
yielded quite a shift. Prior to the late 1800’s preservation was assumed to be true in light
of God’s character and promise. It was rarely, if ever, questioned and considered to be a
natural outgrowth of inspiration. However, the shift came as men began to question the
Scriptures themselves, particularly the Authorized King James Bible which God has used
to reach the English-speaking people for almost four hundred years. The full-blown
attack against the preserved Scriptures began around 1881 with B.F. Westcott and F.J.A.
Hort and their subsequent release of a critical Greek New Testament which differed from
the Textus Receptus of the King James Bible in thousands of places.
According to

Helveticus Consensus of 1675 quoted in Unholy Hands on the Bible, Ed. by Jay P. Green
(Layfayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), iv. Emphasis mine.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Section VIII quoted in Archibald Hodge, A
Commentary on The Confession of Faith (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869), 64.
Emphasis mine.

The phrase Textus Receptus refers to the traditional text of the New Testament used by the
translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible. It represents the Syrian-Byzantine type text (the majority of
Greek manuscripts) for the most part with a view non-Byzantine readings (e.g., I John 5:7-8; Acts 8:37;
Matthew 18:11). Technically speaking, this term was first applied to an edition of the Greek New
Testament put out in 1632 by the Elzevir Brothers. However, the previous editions of the Greek New
Testament all presented substantially the same text, and the variations were not of great significance and
never affected the sense of the passage. In the course of time, the title “Textus Receptus” came to be
Wilbur Pickering, “Although men such as Tischendorf [sic] Tregelles, and Alford had
done much to undermine the position of the Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort are
generally credited with having furnished the death blow and with beginning a new era—
an era in which we still find ourselves.”
Out of this occurrence arose the modern
science of naturalistic textual criticism which seeks to establish the original text of
Scriptures by treating the Bible as any other book. Greater weight is given to the
subjective opinions of men rather than the providential care and safekeeping of God.
Westcott and Hort’s theories initiated an era which has witnessed the publication of
countless critical editions of the Greek Text as well as English translations. The doctrine
of preservation is virtually non-existent in modern theology and when it is mentioned, it
is termed “general” and held captive to the practice of textual criticism. Although
inspiration is still claimed by evangelical conservatives, preservation is all but forgotten.
A Note on Baptist Heritage
The relationship that exists between inspiration and preservation has been an
important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of
1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God,
and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, lawes, constitutions, or
traditions unwritten whatsoever, but onely the word of God contained in the Canonicall Scriptures
. . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needfull for us to
know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in
the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the

associated with the Traditional Text as contained in the editions of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the

Wilbur Pickering, “Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Criticism,” in True or
False?, Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1973), 218.

First London Confession, VII-VIII, quoted in W.J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith
(Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 176.
absolute “Rule of Faith.” Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have
been true.
In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession.
Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of
heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any
mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the
true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and
opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God’s words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to
defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for
most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all too often as
Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of
naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of particular Baptist
scholars such as A.T. Robertson and D.A. Carson, who rejected perfect preservation of
the “Received Text” of Scripture, argues that they “betrayed their Baptist heritage when
they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian
B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf.”

The historical consensus toward the idea of “preserved inspiration” is clear. Up until the
past century, preservation has been considered far and wide an inevitable outgrowth of
divine inspiration, especially in Baptist circles. Now, one must consider several
important implications of such a relationship.

New Hampshire Confession, I, quoted in W.J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith
(Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 302.

Michael Maynard, A History Of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications,
1995), 330. Hort, Warfield, and Tischendorf were all prominent naturalistic textual critics. Baptist
scholars such as John Gill and Andrew Fuller, both of whom argued for the inspired preservation of the
Receivied Text, have largely been ignored by modern Baptists in favor of the claims of men from other
A biblical view of the relationship between inspiration and preservation, one which
recognizes that God Almighty perfectly preserved his words for mankind in all ages of
history, must take into account several important implications. These deal with the issue
of final authority and the necessity of a standard as well as the triumph of the Authorized
King James Version and the plethora of modern English translations.
As Relates to the Issue of Final Authority.
The fact of verbal preservation implies that all authority concerning the Christian
faith is to be settled in the Scriptures. It is the FINAL AUTHORITY! Louis Gaussen
One of the strongest proofs of the divine authority of the Scriptures is that majesty of theirs which
fills us with respect and awe. It is the imposing unity of that Book, the composition of which
extends over fifteen hundred years, and which has had so many authors, who all nevertheless
pursue one and the same plan, constantly advancing as if they had all understood each other,
towards one sole grand end, the history of the world’s redemption by the Son of God.

This being true, the necessity for a standard Bible becomes apparent. “Nothing settles
disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and
are willing to abide by his decision.”
This truth immediately raises a question
concerning the identity of such a standard.
As Relates to the Authorized King James Bible
There can be absolutely no denying that the Authorized King James Version, which
has stood the test of time, is the English standard that all Christians should appeal to,
especially if they believe in preserved inspiration. Theologically speaking, the AV must

Louis Gaussen, “The Divine Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” in True or False? Ed. by David Otis
Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1983), 43.

Joseph Charles Philpot, “The Authorized Version--1611,” in True or False? Ed. by David Otis Fuller
(Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1983), 22.
represent God’s preserved words, for it is based upon a pure text that was passed down
from the days of the apostles and was the only English translation that remained in
existence for 250 years.
Each and every generation of believers has had access to
God’s Word in its perfectly preserved form, the AV being a case and point. Even F.F.
Bruce, a rank liberal, admits that the King James Bible is “The Bible par excellence
wherever the English tongue is spoken for over three hundred years . . . of all versions the
most excellent . . . by sheer merit the Authorized Version established itself as The
English Bible.”

Many years before the plethora of modern versions arrived on the scene, Joseph
Philpot predicted that great turmoil such an occurrence would cause.
Who would undertake it [a new translation]? Into whose hands would the translation fall? What
an opportunity for the enemies of Truth to give us a mutilated false bible! . . . It would unsettle the
minds of thousands, as to which was the Word of God—the old translation or the new . . . there
would be two bibles spread throughout all the land, the old and the new, and what confusion
would this create in almost every place . . . If the new translation were once to begin, where would
it end? . . . All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the
Spirit’s meaning and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness, and truth of our present version,
we should have a bible that nobody would except as the WORD OF GOD, to which none could
safely appeal, and on which none implicitly rely.

Sure enough, all of his predictions came true. One translation has led to another and
many of the old familiar Bible terms and verses have been mutilated to the point where
Bible professors and scholars all over the country claim to possess the Word of God, but
do not believe it, as is evidenced by their constant appeal to the “Original Text” which is
non-existent. In order to clear up all the confusion, there needs to be a return to the

This paper is a theological treatise. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to manuscript evidence in
building a defense of the King James Bible. However, such an angle of defense can and does strengthen
the argument for the preservation of the King James ten-fold. For more information on such an approach to
the argument, one should consult the works by Burgon, Riplinger, Fuller, Hills, and Waite as conveyed in
the bibliography.

F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1953), 217-219.

Philpot, 21-23.
The present English Bible (Authorized Version) has been blessed to thousands of the saints of
GOD; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received
unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children. It is, we
believe, the grand bulwark of Protestantism; the safeguard of the Gospel, and the treasure of the
Church; and we should be traitors in every sense of the word if we consented to give it up to be
rifled by the sacrilegious hands of the Puseyites, concealed papists, German Neologians, infidel
divines, Arminians, Socinians, and the whole tribe of enemies of GOD and godliness.

Such a powerful statement of truth brings about one final implication of a correct view of
inspiration and preservation—a proper response to the plethora of modern English
translations of the Bible.
As Relates to Modern English Translations
In light of a proper view of biblical inspiration and preservation, how should a Bible-
believing Christian approach modern English translations? First, he must consider the
evidence. Practically all modern versions differ from the King James in thousands of
The New International Version, for example, contains almost 70,000 less
words. Furthermore, around sixteen entire verses are missing.
As shocking as it may
sound, there are even doctrinal differences that exist between the AV and modern
versions. For example, in some places modern versions deny the Virgin Birth (Luke
2:33, 43), the deity of Jesus Christ (Zechariah 12:10) and the blood atonement
(Colossians 1:14).

As most Christians are led to believe, the differences between the versions are not
simply matters of translation. There are two completely different lines of Hebrew and

Ibid., 23.

Of the modern versions, the NKJV sticks the closest to the Textus Receptus of the King James
Version. Although claiming to follow the text exactly, it differs in over 1,200 places (e.g., Acts 7:45;
Hebrews 4:8; Romans 3:29; Acts 26:17; II Corinthians 7:2; Acts 9:22; II Corinthians 11:29 and many
more). Moreover, the NKJV adds words, changes words, changes nouns to pronouns, changes the number
of pronouns, changes the person of pronouns, changes plurals, changes pronouns to nouns, and omits the
subjunctive mood. Whatever the reason for doing this is irrelevant because these changes deviate from the
Textus Receptus. The editors of the NKJV claim otherwise, but check for yourself.

These verses include Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36,
23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Romans 16:24; I John 5:7.

For a more detailed list of differences see Appendix C.
Greek texts. The King James Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew Masoretic
text edited by Ben Chayyim. It is also called the Daniel Bomberg edition, the Second
Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25), or the Letteris text of 1866. This is the text passed down
across the centuries and recognized by Hebrews to represent the perfect preserved words
of God. F.F. Bruce writes, “And as regards the Old Testament section of the Authorized
Version, its high quality as a worthy representative of the sacred Hebrew has been widely
acknowledged by Jewish scholars.”
Modern versions, on the other hand, refer to the
Masoretic Text as edited by Ben Asher. It is found in Stuttgart edition of BIBLIA
HEBRAICA (BHS). These are two completely different Masoretic Texts. Modern
Versions also utilize the Septuagint (a Greek translation by Jews who were out of God’s
will in Egypt), the Samaritan Pentateuch (produced by a group of half-breeds who
refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as the center for worship of Jehovah in Israel), and the
Dead Sea Scrolls (the Scriptures of the Essenes who were a cult). It is not an issue of
The New Testament presents a similar situation. The AV is based upon the Textus
Receptus, the received text based upon the majority of extant Greek manuscripts and
passed down from the days of the apostles, recognized by the Church throughout history
as the words of God. The new versions, however, are based upon modern Greek editions
such as that of the United Bible Societies. The fourth edition of the UBS text is around
2,500 words shorter than the Textus Receptus. It is not an issue of translation!
A proper view of inspiration and preservation would not allow for success of modern
versions. Unfortunately, as has already been shown, this doctrine is no longer held in
order to accommodate constantly changing and updated versions of Scripture. According

Bruce, 218.
to modern scholars, there is no standard. God forbid! The next time some biblical
“scholar” says that the AV mistranslates the original language of a passage, realize that
the translators may have been translating a completely different Hebrew or Greek word.
It is simply unquestionable that the Authorized King James Version is and has been
the standard Bible for English-speaking people. Such is no surprise in light of God’s
promise of preserved inspiration. God promised to give us His word, so we have it. As
previously explicated, this position comes into conflict with textual criticism and the
motives that lie behind modern English versions. As a result, many modern theologians
and Bible scholars have compromised their beliefs on preservation and consequently,
have either redefined or completely ignored it. Therefore, it is necessary to expose the
faults of the modern view of biblical preservation.
Having established the doctrine of inspired preservation, let us consider the fallacy of
modern thought concerning the issue. Modern thought concerning biblical preservation
is very general. Inspiration and inerrancy are applied only to the original manuscripts,
and God’s Word is said to have been “generally preserved” in the mass of extant
The modern theologian relies heavy upon the naturalistic science of
textual criticism to establish the original text of the Scriptures. The presence of
discrepancies in the manuscripts is magnified and such is presumed to exist in all lines of
biblical transmission without the possibility of God having preserved every word in a
pure line. In summarizing the modern position on biblical preservation, Ed Hills writes,
“The most they [modern scholars] can say for the . . . text is that its ‘general integrity’ has
been preserved. This, however, is a very loose phrase which allows for many errors,
additions, and omissions . . .”
Hills’ words ring true, for while standing firmly upon the
inspiration and infallibility of the original manuscripts, most conservative evangelicals
find themselves attempting to clear up or even correct the Scriptures. Such a practice has
resulted in a plethora of Hebrew and Greek texts as well as English translations. Has
God’s Word been perfectly preserved? According to the modern critic, it has not. This
position, needless to say, is faulty in several major areas.

These same critics go on to say that differences and discrepancies in manuscripts do not matter
because they only represent about 1% of the text and none of the variants have to do with Christian
doctrine. Such an assertion is simply not true. The actual margin of difference is around 10% and there are
numerous variants that affect doctrine. For examples, one should consult Appendix C.

Hills, 16.
A Faulty Presupposition
The modern position which advocates “general preservation” is based upon the
faulty supposition that errors have crept into all lines of biblical transmission throughout
the centuries.
It is true that there exists many extant copies and that practically none
agree with each other, but does such a fact overshadow the power of God and His
promise to preserve His words? At this juncture, it is only appropriate to consider a few
quotes from modern critics themselves. Bruce Metzger writes,
As the physician must make a correct diagnosis of a disease before attempting to effect its cure, so
the textual critic must be aware of the several kinds of injuries and dangers to which a text
transmitted by handwriting is liable to be exposed before he can rectify the errors. In fact, it is
important to see not only what might happen, but also what has happened in the copying of

Alexander Souter defines the study of textual criticism in this manner:
Textual criticism seeks, by the exercise of knowledge and trained judgment, to restore the very
words of some original document which has perished, and survives only in copies complete or
incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, ancient or modern . . . The original documents, however, have
long perished, and we have to make the best of the copies which have survived, by howsoever
many removes they may be distant from their ultimate originals.

James White says pretty much the same thing by comparing the errors in manuscripts
with sports.
Men make mistakes, even when they are trying really hard. The greatest baseball player still
strikes out. The greatest basketball player will miss the clutch free-throw and lose a game once in
a while. The best archer will sometimes fire an arrow wide of the target. To err is human . . .
there is not one single handwritten manuscript of the Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not
contain, somewhere, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human.

Millard Erickson, a well-known modern evangelical theologian, explains,
. . . what is being affirmed by the concept that only the originals are inerrant is that inspiration did
not extend to copyists and translators. While divine providence was doubtless operative, there
was not the same type of action of the Holy Spirit as was involved in the original writing of the

The term “general preservation” is used to refer to the idea that preservation is represented very
broadly in the mass of extant manuscripts. In other words, it is hidden for the textual critic to discover.

Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 186.

Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1917), 3.

James White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995), 36.

Erickson, 240.
The list of quotes could go on and on, however the general presupposition is clear. None
of these men ever considered the preservation and power of God in transmitting the
biblical text down through the centuries. The Bible was treated like any other book. It is
true that humans make mistakes, but we are talking about the Word of God. If the
Almighty had the power to inspire it, He definitely had the power to perfectly preserve it.
As has already been mentioned, if anyone needs a perfect Bible, it is those who have been
separated from the New Testament era for almost two thousand years. The
presupposition of “general preservation” is false.
A Faulty Foundation
The modern position concerning inspiration and preservation is also built upon a
faulty foundation. Basically, the student of the Scriptures is faced with two options:
The Bible-believing Christian begins with Scripture and ends with full assurance that God was
able to do what He proclaimed He would do . . . modern scholarship begins with the knowledge of
men and the science of textual criticism. Their final conclusion is not certainty, but ambiguity.
They are certain that they are right, but they are uncertain as to the final product.

Just as theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists favor the claims of science as
opposed to the literal meaning of Scripture, so the modern theologian prefers the
subjective science of textual criticism over the Authorized King James Bible and its
promise of verbal preservation. Textual criticism is the foundation for establishing the
“Original Text.” Such groundwork is faulty because it rests solely upon the subjective
views and theories of the critics and is completely one-sided and biased against the
Received Text of the King James Bible. Maurice Robinson argues, “Such a method of
textual determination becomes subjective in the extreme, making textual criticism the
pawn of the critic rather than the tool of the exegetical, historical scholar . . . modern

Thomas Holland, “A Biblical Starting Point” [article on-line], available at; Internet; accessed 10 October 1997.
eclecticism offers no integrated solution or way of escape from the subjective morass in
which it is mired.”
Ed Hills adds, “the final authority is not the testimony of the extant
manuscripts, even in places in which they all agree, but the subjective insight and
judgment of the critics.”
Psalm 118:8 says, “It is better to put trust in the LORD that to
put confidence in man.” A true view of biblical preservation rests upon the eternal
promises of Jehovah, not the subjective and biased insights of sinful men.
A Faulty Association
Not only does the modern concept of “general preservation” rest upon a faulty
foundation with defective presuppositions, but it associates with ungodly company—men
and manuscripts.
The apostate men.
This line of argument may be considered ad homonym, but in this case, it is
appropriate in light of I Corinthians 2:14-15. The apostle Paul writes “But the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual
judgeth all things . . .”.
Some argue that this statement only refers to Scriptural
interpretation and understanding, but such an interpretation is just a way of excusing the
acceptance of questionable presuppositions, speculations, textual research, and
translations. The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. The Holy
Scriptures are from the Spirit of God, so the natural man cannot know or understand them
properly. His perspective is clouded. This involves anything having to do with the

Maurice Robinson, “The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Text-Type: A Response to Selected
Criticisms of the Byzantine-Priority Theory,” in Faith and Mission (Vol. XI, Number 1, 1993), 48.

Hills, 14.

Emphasis mine.
Scriptures such as theology and textual criticism. Therefore, it is dangerous for any
Christian to put his faith and trust in translations and theological interpretations of the
Bible that were produced by unregenerate skeptics and apostates. As Henry Morris, one
of the leading creation scientists, argues:
So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists,
none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His
word? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute
inerrancy and authority of the Bible?

Modern thought clings to the theories of Westcott and Hort who were closet-Catholics
that dabbled in the occult.
Riplinger promulgates, “The errors in the ‘New’ Greek Text
and new versions, stemming from the liberal and hypocritical lives of Westcott and Hort,
are leaving a generation of souls hungry.”
The textual critics and editors behind
modern Greek texts such as the Nestle/Aland tradition and the work of the United Bible
Societies also convey questionable outlooks on theology. For example, Eberhard Nestle
was a staunch evolutionist.
Carlo Martini, the chief editor of the UBS text is being
seriously considered as the next Roman Catholic Pope!
Other members of the UBS
committee such as Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger are also interesting cases. A casual
reading of Aland’s The Text of the New Testament shows that he is far and distant from
being considered a believer in biblical inspiration and inerrancy. In fact, he never uses
either of these words while discussing in-depth the text of the New Testament in several
hundred pages. Something is most definitely amiss. How can someone spend so much

Henry Morris, “Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version?” Vital Articles on
Science/Creation (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996), 2.

Riplinger, 616-629. Riplinger offers a plethora of quotes from the mouths of Westcott and Hort
themselves that prove their heresy.

Riplinger, 628.

Morris, 2.

Kevin Fedarko, “Who Will Be First Among Us,” in Time Magazine Vol. 144 No. 26 (December 26,
1994), 72.
time on the text and not even consider its inspiration or preservation? Aland does exactly
what other liberal scholars do when approaching the New Testament—he treats it as any
other book.
Bruce Metzger is the Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and
Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary and serves on the board of the American
Bible Society. He is also the head of the continuing NRSV translation committee of the
liberal National Council of Christian Churches in the United States. The RSV was
soundly condemned for its liberal modernism when it first appeared in 1952. Today,
Metzger, the chief editor of its revised form, is invited to speak at Evangelical forums.
“The RSV hasn’t changed, but Evangelicalism certainly has!”
Some of Metzger’s
works such as the Reader’s Digest Bible (Pleasantville, NY: Reader’s Digest Association,
1982), the New Oxford Annotated RSV (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), and
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies,
1993) clearly indicate that while on the one hand Metzger piously claims the Bible to be
inspired, on the other he argues that it is filled from beginning to end with myths,
legends, folk tales, and lies. In simplest terms, Metzger is a liberal. He has been called
an evangelical by some, but based upon his writings, it is safe to say that he is not in the
true sense of the word.
A question must be asked. Would God “generally” preserve the “message” of His
word through the subjective and liberal theories of men such as these? Certainly not, for
based on biblical teaching, these are the type that Satan uses to corrupt God’s Word as he
himself did in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 3).

Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987)

David Cloud, For the Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received
Text from 1800 to the Present (Oak Harbor, WA: Fundamental Baptist News Service, 1995), 112.
The corrupted manuscripts.
Modern textual critics rely heavily upon the Alexandrian family of manuscripts,
namely Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, when attempting to establish the “generally preserved”
text of the New Testament in particular.
In fact, these two manuscripts are behind
nearly all modern English translations of Scripture.
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) was originally a complete Bible containing the
The New Testament portion, in particular, is well preserved and includes
the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, two pseudepigraphical works.

Bruce Metzger admits:
In the light of such carelessness in transcription, it is not surprising that a good many correctors
(as many as nine) have been at work on the manuscript . . . Tischendorf’s edition of the manuscript
enumerates some 14,800 places where some alteration has been made to the text . . . [with] more
recent detailed scrutiny of the manuscript . . . by the use of ultra-violet lamp, Milne and Skeat
discovered that the original reading in the manuscript was erased . . .

And this is supposed to represent the purest form of the New Testament text? Faulty
reasoning is at work here. Speaking of Constantinus von Tischendorf, he was the one
who found Aleph in St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai in 1853. A good portion
of the codex (43 leaves) was in a wastebasket containing materials that were about to be

The Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts also known as codices Aleph and B respectively, are two old
uncials that date to around the fourth century.

Most obviously, the author of this thesis has not personally examined Codex Sinaiticus, but this
assertion is based upon the fact that Alfred Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint (Septuaginta. Ed. by Alfred
Rahlfs. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1935, rep. 1979) gives readings from Aleph in the
critical apparatus for many of the Apocryphal books (Although citations are not found in all fourteen
books, it is not inconceivable that the manuscript once contained them all). It is also interesting to note that
the Apocryphal Books were not set aside or separated from the canon, but interspersed amidst the true
books. For example, the story of “Bel and the Dragon” is found in the Book of Daniel. This fact is well-
known and is clearly explained by Peter Ruckman in his lecture on “Greek Manuscript Evidence” (Greek
Manuscript Evidence. Pensacola, Florida: Bible Believer’s Press, n.d. Tape #2). Let it be noted at this
juncture that the AV 1611 is often hastily criticized for including the Apocrypha as well. However, such a
statement is made out of ignorance, for the AV translators included the fourteen Apocryphal books between
the two testaments, making it abundantly clear that they were not a part of the Scriptures. These books
were only included for historical and study purposes.

Christian Tindall, Contributions to the Statistical Study of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: Oliver
and Boyd, 1961), 4.

Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 77.
burned. Six years later (1859), the rest of this so-called “bible” was found wrapped in a
red cloth and hidden on a bookshelf.
Dean Burgon characterizes this codex as “recently
recovered from a monastery wastebasket.”
One is forced to question what 43 pages
were doing in a trashcan in the first place?
Burgon also notes that, Aleph, when
collated and compared to the Traditional Text, differs in 8,972 places. Moreover, 3,455
words are omitted, 839 words are added, 1,114 words are substituted, 2,299 words are
transposed, and 1,265 words are modified.

Codex Vaticanus (B) was likewise originally a complete Bible containing the
Apocrypha as part of the canon.
All of the New Testament has been preserved in
Vaticanus save the books of Philippians, Titus, I-II Timothy, part of Hebrews, and
Revelation. Moreover, it adds the Epistle of Barnabas. The history of this manuscript is
enshrouded in mystery. Its was written in the fourth century but was not even used or
referred to until 1481 when it suddenly appeared in the Vatican. Immediately thereafter,
Codex B was used to help repress the Reformation. In 1582, it was released as the Jesuit-
Rheims Bible. This is “logical considering the manuscript’s omission of anti-Catholic
sections and books (i.e. Hebrews 9:14, Revelation, etc.).”
The Catholic slant of
Vaticanus is further “evidenced by the fact that at Vatican Council II, each bishop was
given his own copy with an introduction by Jesuit priest, Carlo Martini [the UBS’

Tindall, 3.
John Burgon, “The Revision Revised,” in Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. 1, Including the
Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign
Grace Trust Fund, 1990), D-6.

Perhaps a Bible-believing Christian trashed the codex because it was so filled with blatant omissions
and alterations.

Burgon, “The Revision Revised,” in Unholy Hands on the Bible, D-6.

As was the case with Sinaiticus, this assertion is based upon the fact that Alfred Rahlfs’ edition of
the Septuagint (Septuaginta. Ed. by Alfred Rahlfs. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1935,
rep. 1979) gives readings from B in the critical apparatus for many of the Apocryphal Books. This fact is
also explained by Peter Ruckman in his lecture on “Greek Manuscript Evidence” (Greek Manuscript
Evidence. Pensacola: Florida: Bible Believer’s Press, n.d. Tape #2).

Riplinger, 552.
Modern textual critics have never been able to study Codex B firsthand,
because it is locked away securely in the Vatican. Only copies and/or pictures of the
manuscript are available for study. Like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus was also subject to the
hands of correctors. Recent technology has been able to show that at least two correctors
worked on the manuscript, one being as late as the twelfth century. Vaticanus differs
from the Traditional Text almost 50 per cent of the time. According to Dean John
Burgon, 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences are missing from the Gospels
As far as the entire codex is concerned, it differs from the Traditional Text in
7,578 places (2,877 words are omitted; 536 words are added; 935 words are substituted;
2,098 words are transposed; and 1,132 words are modified).

Not only do these manuscripts disagree with the Traditional Text, but they do not
agree with each other. The thousands of changes in Aleph and the thousands of changes
in B are not the same changes. According to Herman Hoskier, these two manuscripts
differ from each other over 3000 times in the Gospels alone.
Dean John Burgon goes
on to say that “It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two differ from
one another, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”
Together, the
two manuscripts differ from the Traditional text in over 13,000 places, omit 4000 words,
add 2000 words, transpose 3500 words, and modify 2000 words.


Burgon, “The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels” in Unholy Hands On The Bible, 41.

Burgon, “The Revision Revised,” in Unholy Hands On The Bible, D-6.

Herman Hoskier, “Codex Vaticanus and its Allies” Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand
Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1974), 136.

John W. Burgon, “The Revision Revised,” D-6.

Riplinger, 554.
All in all, the manuscripts Aleph and B are extremely problematic. An honest
evaluation of the evidence surrounding them would render a conclusion much like that of
Dean John Burgon’s. He asserts that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are:
. . . the most scandalously corrupt copies extant; they exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts
which are anywhere to be met with—yet they have strangely become, by whatever process, for
their history is wholly unknown, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings,
ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth which may be found in any known copies of
the Word of God.

He goes on to characterize them as “the foulest in existence” and “the most corrupt
Those who accept this “text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the
Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between
500 to 1881, merely revised in our day and stamped as genuine.”
These two
manuscripts may very well be the oldest extant and the best preserved, but “who will
venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the
circumstance that they were long recognized as the depositories of Readings which
rendered them utterly untrustworthy.”
In the same way that Bibles become tattered and
worn from extensive use, the early manuscripts representing the Traditional Text rotted
away and were lost because of their extensive use in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, on the other hand, were corrupt manuscripts that Bible-
believing Christians did not even think about using. Therefore, they were never handled
and consequently, were preserved.
Because these manuscripts are supposedly the oldest, they are considered the best
and vice versa. This presupposition is quite circular in nature. James Borland argues:
Which readings (or variants, when two texts differ) are best is an assumption used to prove which
manuscripts are best. Likewise, which manuscripts are best is an assumption used to prove which

Burgon, “The Revision Revised,” in Unholy Hands on the Bible, D-8.

Burgon, “The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels,” in Unholy Hands on the Bible, A-39.

Hoskier, 143.

Burgon, “The Revision Revised,” in Unholy Hands on the Bible, D-12.
readings are best. It is similar to the evolutionist’s argument that (1) evolution is proven by the
great age of the fossils and conversely (2) the great age of the fossils is proven by evolution. Both
are unwarranted assumptions.

Besides, recent discoveries have proven the Textus Receptus readings to be older in
many instances. For example, epi-flourescent confocal laser scanning has shown that the
Magdeline Papyrus (the oldest fragment of St. Matthew’s Gospel dated to around A.D.
60) agrees with the Textus Receptus in 26:22.
Carsten Thiede and Matthew D. Ancona
It is self-evident that this original reading preferable on the grounds of internal criteria and now
corroborated by the oldest papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel, must replace the text in the two most
widely used versions of the Greek New Testament, that of the United Bible Societies (at present in
its fourth revised edition) and the so-called Nestle-Aland, the Novum Testamentum Graece (now
in its twenty-seventh revised edition).

These so-called “oldest and best manuscripts” (Aleph and B) are supposed to be
new-found evidence that was unavailable to textual critics of bygone days. The truth is,
these critics knew about these manuscripts but also were aware of their perverted and
corrupt nature. For example, Erasmus, when compiling his fifth edition of the Greek
New Testament, was supplied by Sepulveda, a Spanish humanist and historian, with 365
readings from Codex Vaticanus that differed from the Received Text of his fourth
edition. Seeing as Erasmus’ fourth and fifth editions hardly differ from each other with
reference to the text, “the likelihood is that Erasmus rejected nearly every reading on
Sepulveda’s list, if not every one.”
It is also interesting to note that Vaticanus was not
enough proof for Erasmus to cut out the Johannine Comma (the famous Trinitarian
declaration in I John 5:7) which first appeared in his third edition and remained there in

James Borland, A General Introduction to the New Testament (Lynchburg, VA: University Book
House, 1995), 158.

The Textus Receptus renders “εκαστος αυτων” (each one of them - AV) while the UBS
“αυτω εις εκαστος” (one after the other - NIV). The TR rendering corresponds exactly to the reading
found in the Magdeline Papyrus.

Carsten Theide and Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence
About the Origin of the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 63.

Maynard, 89.
the fifth edition. This so-called “oldest and best” manuscript was not even given the time
of day by one of the greatest textual critics of all time. Modern editions and translations
are hardly based on “new evidence.” D. A. Waite promulgates that this minority-type
text of modern editions:
has only 45 manuscripts that go along with it as over against 5,210 that go along with the TR that
underlies the KJV. This 45 includes ‘B’ (Vatican) and ‘Aleph’ (Sinai) and forty-three of their
little heretical puppets that follow them. The theory behind the acceptance of these less than 1% is
that ‘The oldest are the best.’ The oldest are not necessarily the best especially if they have been
tampered with by heretics!

These manuscripts are not the best, and they were tampered with very early after their
composition. Waite goes on to argue that “This is especially true since the heretics had
their knives out ‘correcting’ the Greek NT almost as soon as it was written. The
Egyptian scribes and editors of ‘B’ (Vatican) and ‘Aleph’ (Sinai) were some of the most
vicious ‘correctors’ of God’s Word’s; yet these two Greek texts form the very bedrock of
the new versions and perversions of our day.”

Theologically speaking, would God utilize instruments such as these to only partially
preserve His Word? Moreover, should a bible-believing evangelical conservative
associate himself with such company? Has His Word been hidden in 1% of the Greek
manuscripts for 1800 years in the sands of Egypt only to resurface in the 20
century at
the hands of apostates? How absurd!
A Faulty Faith
If the evidence presented against the modern concept of “general preservation” is not
enough, this premise is also based upon a faulty and inconsistent faith. In order to see
this, one must consider the issue of the Scripture’s canonicity. Most evangelical
conservatives will argue for divine intervention and guidance behind the Church’s

Waite, 8.

selection of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. However, these same people
will not take such a step of faith when it comes down to the words of the New Testament
text. They assume error in the human copying process, but not in the human judgment
behind the selection of the canon. Jay Green explains,
Why did the Christian church receive the twenty-seven New Testament books and these only as
her canonical New Testament Scripture? This question can be satisfactorily answered only on the
basis of Christian faith . . . If we believe that God gave the Church guidance in choosing the N.T.
books, then surely it is logical to believe that God also guided the Church to choose the true words
of the Scriptures, and to guard them.

It is only logical to apply the same faith that trusts in the establishment of the canon to the
inspired preservation of the words themselves. However, modern scholars and
theologians do not do this.
One cannot rightfully approach the preservation of the Scriptures without an attitude
of faith, for it is the entire crux of the matter. Hebrews 11:6 reads, “Without faith it is
impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is
a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” The fact that all problems cannot be
answered should not affect one’s faith in the clear doctrine of inspired preservation. Such
a faith can and should override any unanswered questions about textual criticism.
A Faulty Conclusion
All in all, the modern concept of the relationship between biblical inspiration and
preservation, a relationship that is virtually non-existent, yields a faulty conclusion—the
Bible is only inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts and has only been generally
preserved in the mass of manuscripts. It is the duty of the textual critic himself to
pinpoint the original reading. Unfortunately, as Metzger admits, “Occasionally none of
the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he [the textual critic] will be

Unholy Hands on the Bible, xxiii.
compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to
indulge in conjectural emendation . . . one must seek not only to learn what can be
known, but also to become aware of what . . . cannot be known.”
What a sad ending.
The modern scholar is left with a plethora of Hebrew and Greek texts as well as English
translations. This is the only remnant of the Word of God that he possesses. From such a
mass of confusion, he must search for the original readings.
For the Bible-believer, on the other hand, the situation is quite different. He can rest
assured in the verbal preservation of God’s inspired words according to the promises of
the Almighty Himself, knowing that he can stand on that “Great Book” as his final
authority rather than the speculative insights of men. God’s words have been perfectly
preserved for him in the Authorized King James Version. Through faith, he can be
assured of it.

Metzger, 246.
The evidence presented in this paper has clearly shown that there exists a close
relationship between biblical inspiration and preservation. One doctrine is simply
meaningless without the other. Therefore, the modern concept which applies inspiration
and inerrancy only to the original manuscripts is faulty. It is simply a “convenient faith”
which allows for corruption and rationalization. Furthermore, it subverts the absolute
authority of the Word of God.
There is a frightening similarity between today’s situation and the discourse between
Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden. Eve informed Satan that God had forbidden them
to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan responded by
changing the words of God. “Eve, God said this, but He really meant this” (Author’s
paraphrase). There is not much difference between Satan’s words in Eden and the
familiar requiem that rings from the classrooms of colleges and seminaries all over the
country. “The Bible say this, but it really should be translated like this . . .” The Bible
believing Christian is naive to think that Satan will not try to destroy God’s words; he
hates them. However, Isaiah 40:8 crashed his party. “The grass withereth, the flower
fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
God’s Word is perfectly preserved today just as it has been down through the ages.
When all the world was Greek speaking, it needed a Greek Bible, which it had. When all
the world was Latin speaking, it needed a Latin Bible, which it had. When the heart of
the Reformation involved German speaking people, it needed a German Bible which it
had. Now, when all the world is English speaking, it needs an English standard, which is
has in the form of the Authorized King James Bible. Before concluding, one should
consider the words of the Boston Herald from August 1, 1923 in which some striking
facts concerning the Bible are put together. Let it be remembered that it is the
Authorized Version which is regarded in the article as “The Bible.”
Every day 80,000 copies. every year 30,000,000 copies. And the presses day and night straining
their bolts to supply the demand. A new book? No, a very old one. Indeed, the first book ever put
on the press. It has never been off since. An oriental book with a vast occidental circulation. An
ancient book, but fitting modern needs, if the demand for it is any criterion. A book so cheap that
a copy may be had for a few cents, yet for a single copy $50,000 was paid a few years ago, and
many other copies have sold for large sums. A book of universal circulation. Translated into 700
languages and dialects. Put into raised type for the blind. Placed in all guest rooms of the hotels,
aboard all the ships of the navy, in all barracks of the army. A newspaper recently stated that the
captain of one of the vessels of the shipping board having died that it was found when the funeral
service was held that no copy of the book was on board. Next day a hundred copies were on the
way to the port where the ship would dock. The world’s best seller. Outstripping all the novels
with their occasional records of 100,000, even 200,000, occasionally more, in a single year.
Everybody knows that books is—THE BIBLE OF COURSE.

Yes, the Bible is the Absolute Monarch of All Books. By faith, we believe it was
inspired and by faith we should believe that God has perfectly preserved it for us in the
Authorized King James Version. Faith which is based upon a clear promise is far
stronger than objections which are raised because of a lack of information. The Bible’s
inspiration demands perfect preservation. Instead of trying to correct it, Christians should
spend more time reading it to be wise, believing it to be safe, and practicing it to be holy.
It truly is THE BOOK. Ο Βιβλιος!
For those who refuse to acknowledge the inseparable relationship between
inspiration and preservation, you are being unfaithful to the purpose of systematic
theology when you neglect this important doctrine. “Guesses or God, fear or faith,
haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian.”

“The Real Best Seller, ” Boston Herald, 1 August 1923.

Riplinger, 511.


Objection #1
Psalm 12:6-7 is not talking about the KJV.

Refutation #1
This is true, but the passage does teach that God has and will preserve His words for all
generations. The KJV is an example of this. It must represent God’s preserved words,
for it is the only English translation that people had for almost 250 years after prior
versions had passed into obscurity. Moreover, it is the only authorized standard that has
ever existed, and God obviously blessed its use in history.

Objection #2
The KJV is too difficult to understand. We do not speak 17
century English anymore.

Refutation #2
century English represents the peak of the English language. What better language
with which to capture the inspired word of God Since 1611, the English language has
degraded. Why should the Word of God be subject to such decline? Besides, try
memorizing a verse in the KJV as opposed to a modern version. Which is easier? If you
cannot understand a word, look it up in the dictionary. After all, Christians are supposed
to “study to show thyself approved unto God” (II Timothy 2:15).

Objection #3
Its better to know the original languages and revert back to them when seeking to study
the Scriptures.

Refutation #3
When is the last time someone got saved through the Hebrew and Greek languages?
Better yet, when was the original Greek last seen? How about 2000 years ago. The
original copies do not exist. The KJV is based on totally different texts than the modern
versions. What Greek and Hebrew are you going to go back to? A better approach is to
trust in the providential preservation of God. He gave you a standard Bible in English.
That is what He wanted you to have, so read it. Ancient Hebrew and Greek are dead
languages. Practically everything surrounding them with regard to biblical exegesis is
shrouded in speculation and subjective insight anyway.

Objection #4
Preservation cannot be proved, so it does not exist in a verbal sense.

Refutation #4
Since when do the claims of Scripture require scientific proof? There is no proof of
inspiration, yet conservative evangelicals cling to that doctrine. The whole crux of the
matter boils down to faith. Is God able to do what he said He would do? He was
powerful enough to inspire them and powerful enough to preserve them. Without faith, it
is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Faith that is based upon a clear promise is
far stronger than objections which are raised from a lack of information.

Objection #5
Incomplete preservation of the Scriptures keeps Christians from worshipping them and
committing idolatry.

Refutation #5
This argument is so ridiculous that it does not deserve a refutation. Nevertheless,
Matthew 4:4 says that man cannot live by bread alone but by every word of God.
Therefore, the Almighty is duty-bound to provide him with those words. Furthermore,
God has magnified His Word even above His name (Psalm 138:2).

Objection #6
Even though there are differences between the KJV and the modern versions, the margin
is small and none of the variants affect doctrine in anyway.

Refutation #6
10% is not such a small margin of difference. The NIV, for example, contains almost
70,000 less words than the KJV. Many of the variants do affect doctrine
(e.g. I John 5:7, I Timothy 3:16). One should consult Appendix C for more examples.

Objection #7
Modern versions are based on the latest evidence which includes older and better

Refutation #7
Readings in the KJV have proved to be much older in numerous places. One of the
oldest fragments of a manuscript ever found (the Magdeline papyrus which dates to about
A.D. 60) agrees with the Textus Receptus of the King James over modern Greek editions.
Modern versions rely on Aleph and B, two corrupted manuscripts that have been around
for hundreds of years. There is nothing new about that evidence. In fact, Erasmus was
approached with readings from B in the sixteenth century and he dismissed them as
corrupt without much discussion.

Objection #8
How can the italicized words in the KJV be preserved, for they were not even in the
original manuscripts.

Refutation #8
The KJV is not the only English translation that utilizes italicized words. Such a practice
is necessary when translating or else the English would make no sense. Besides, recent
manuscript discoveries have confirmed the presence of many italicized words in the
Greek (e.g. ten italicized words in I John 2:23 and the italicized “the church” in I Peter
5:13). Also, it’s interesting to note how many times the New Testament writers quote
verbatim the italicized words in the King James Old Testament. For example,
Deuteronomy 8:3 reads, “ . . . that he might make thee know that man doth not live by
bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man
live.” Now, note the New Testament quotation of this passage in Matthew 4:4—“It is
written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God.” “Word” is not italicized in the NT, so the King James translators had it
right, no, God had it right. Other similar examples include Psalm 16:8 / Acts 2:25;
Deuteronomy 25:4 / I Timothy 5:18; Psalm 82:6 / John 10:34; Isaiah 28:16 / I Peter 2:6.

Objection #9
If the Greek and Hebrew texts of the KJV are superior, then there needs to be a new
translation of them that is easier to understand.

Refutation #9
Who would be responsible for such a project? I wouldn’t dare want the responsibility.
Besides, no one could even come close to matching the cadence, rhythm, and poetic
beauty of the KJV that makes it unique and easy to memorize. A new KJV would only
cause confusion. The editors of the NKJV already tried this and failed drastically.

Objection #10
The issue of Bible versions and preservation is irrelevant. We should be spending our
time winning others to Christ.

Refutation #10
The Bible is the source of all truth concerning Jesus Christ. Without it, you would not
even begin to know how to win someone to Him. It is the final authority in all matters of
faith and practice. You better care about it, for God has magnified it even above His
name (Psalm 138:2). It must be pretty important.
The Corrupted Line The Preserved Line
The Apocrypha (ca. 300-350 B.C.) The Masoretic Text of the OT
Philo (20 B.C. - A.D. 50) Peter, James, John, Paul, etc. (30-90)
Sahidic (Thebaic) Syrian mss in Asia Minor (100-200)
Bohairic (Coptic, Memphitic) Old Latin, Old Syriac (100-200)
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) P
, P
, P
Origien (184-254) The Gothic Bible of Ulfilas (310)
Marcion the Heretic (120-160) The Syriac Peshitta
Eusebius (260-340) Syrian texts of the Greek church
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) Freerianus (W) - 4
Vellum Scrolls containing the Apocrypha Alexandrinus (A) - 5
Vaticanus (B) - 4
century P
, P
- 4
Sinaiticus (Aleph) - 4
century P
, P
, P
- 5
Revised Alexandrinus (A) - 5
century Byzantine text of the Greek church
Jerome (340-420) Bibliothecae (L) - 8
LATIN VULGATE Basiliensis (E) - 8
Cantabrigensis (D) - 5
century Cyprus (K) - 9
Koridethi (θ) - 9
century Mosquensis (V) - 9
Latin text of the Roman Church Seidelianus (G) - 10
Revised Peshitta The Latin Bibles of the Waldensians
Ephraemi Rescriptus © - 5
century (1100-1300)
Sixtina Vulgate The Latin Bibles of the Albigenses
Clementina Vulgate (1300-1500)
LATIN BIBLES The Latin Bibles of the Lollards
The Popes (Leo: 440 - Paul: 1970) (1382-1550)
J.J. Griesbach (1774) Martin Luther’s German Bible
Carl Lachmann (1842) (1522-1534)
Tregelles (1857) Erasmus’ readings (1516-1535)
Tischendorf (1869) Stephanus’ Receptus (1550)
Westcott & Hort (1881) Beza’s Receptus (1565)
Revised Version (1884) Elzevir’s Receptus (1624)
Eberhard Nestle (1898) AUTHORIZED VERSION (1611)
Weiss (1901) Russian, French, Norwegian,Spanish,
American Standard Version (1901) Italian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Swiss,
Nestle-Aland Text (1950) Swedish, Austrian, and Czech
Revised Standard Version (1952) Bibles from Luther’s Version
New English Bible (1961) (1540-1900)
UBS Greek New Testament (1966) Chinese, Burmese, Malayan, Indian,
TEB, NASV, NIV, NKJV, et. al Japanese, Persian, African, Arabic,
Hebrew, and other Bibles that came
from AV 1611.
1:25 - “Firstborn” is out (speaking of the Lord Jesus).
5:44 - “Bless them that curse you” is out.
6:13 - “Kingdom, Power, and Glory” is out.
6:27 - “Stature” is changed to span of life.
8:29 - “Jesus” is out (as Son of God).
9:13 - “to repentance” is out (calling sinners . . .).
12:35 - “Of the heart” is out (Good treasure . . .).
12:47 - Verse is bracketed as doubtful (About Christ’s mother).
13:51 - “Jesus said unto them” and “Lord” is out.
15:8 - “Draweth unto me with their mouth” is out.
16:3 - “O ye hypocrites” is out.
16:20 - “Jesus” is out.
17:21 - Verse is out (about prayer and fasting).
18:11 - Verse is out (Tells that Jesus came to save).
19:17 - “God” is out (None good but God).
20:7 - “Whatsoever is right receive” is out.
20:16 - “Many be called but few chosen” is out.
20:22 - “Baptized with Christ’s baptism” is out.
21:44 -Verse is bracketed as doubtful (About Christ the stone).
23:14 - Verse is out (Woe to scribes and hypocrites).
25:13 - “Wherein the Son of Man cometh” is out.
27:35 - “Fulfilled spoken by the prophet” is out.
27:54 - “The Son of God” is changed to “A Son of God” in modern versions.
28:2 - “From the door” is out.
28:9 - “They went to tell his disciples” is out.

1:1 - “Son of God” is bracketed as doubtful.
1:14 - “of the kingdom” is out (speaking of the Gospel).
1:31 - “Immediately” is out (The fever left . . .).
2:17 - “To repentance” is out (call sinners . . .).
6:11 - “More tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha” is out.
6:16 - “From the dead” is out (John is risen . . .).
6:33 - “Him” is changed to “them.”
7:8 - “Washing of pots and cups” is out.
7:16 - Verse is out (about having an ear to hear).
9:24 - “Lord” is out (A believer called Him Lord).
9:42 - “In me” is bracketed as doubtful (Little ones that believe).
9:44 - Verse is out (about fire not quenched).
9:46 - Verse is out (where worm dieth not).
9:49 - “Every sacrifice shall be salted” is out.
10:21 - “Take up the cross” is out (Jesus said . . .).
10:24 - “For them that trust in riches” is out.
11:10 - “In the name of the Lord” is out.
11:26 - Verse is out (If ye do not forgive . . .).
13:14 - “Spoken by Daniel the prophet” is out.
13:33 - “And pray” is out.
15:28 - Verse is out (Scripture was fulfilled . . .).
15:39 - “The Son of God” is mistranslated as “A Son of God” in many modern
16:9-20 - Put in double brackets and declared not to be part of the original text.

1:28 - “Blessed art thou among women” is out.
2:33 - “Joseph” is changed to “his father” (denies Virgin Birth)
2:43 - “Joseph and his mother” is changed to “parents” (denies Virgin Birth)
4:4 - “but by every word of God” is out.
4:8 - “Get thee behind me Satan” is out.
6:48 - “founded upon a rock” is out.
7:31 - “And the Lord said” is out.
9:54 - “even as Elijah did” is out.
9:55 - “ye know not what manner of spirit” is out.
9:56 - “Son of Man is come to save lives” is out.
11:2-4 - Lord’s Prayer is butchered.
11:29 - “the prophet” is out (about Jonah).
17:36 - verse is out (one taken, another left)
21:4 - “cast into the offerings of God” is out.
24:49 - “of Jerusalem” is out.

3:15 - “should not perish” is out.
4:42 - “the Christ” is out.
5:3 - “waiting for the moving of the water” is out.
5:4 - verse is out (Pool of Bethesda)
6:47 - “on me” is out (He that believes . . .)
6:69 - “that Christ the Son” is out.
7:53-8:11 - placed in double brackets and deemed doubtful.
8:36 - “Father” is out (changed to “he”).
9:35 - “Son of God” is out.
11:41 - “where the dead was laid” is out.
16:16 - “because I go to the Father” is out.
17:12 - “in the world” is out.
20:29 - “Thomas” is out.

2:30 - “according to flesh raise up Christ” is out.
7:30 - “of the Lord” is out (Angel--).
7:37 - “him shall ye hear” is out (Christ--).
8:37 - verse is out
9:5-6 - much is omitted concerning God’s call
10:6 - “what thou oughtest to do” is out.
15:18 - “known unto God his works” is out.
16:31 - “Christ” is out.
17:26 - “blood” is out.
20:25 - “of God” is out (the kingdom--).
20:32 - “brethren” is out.
23:9 - “let us not fight against God” is out.
24:6-8 - much is omitted
24:15 - “of the dead” is out (resurrection--).
28:16 - half of verse is out.
28:29 - verse is omitted

1:16 - “of Christ” is out.
1:29 - “fornication” is out.
8:1 - last 10 words are out.
9:28 - “in righteousness” is out.
10:15 - “of peace” is out.
10:17 - “of God” is out, “of Christ” is substituted.
11:6 - last 18 words are omitted.
13:9 - “shall not bear false witness” is out.
14:6 - 15 words are out (regarding the day).
14:21 - “offended made weak” is out.
15:29 - “of the Gospel” is out.
16:24 - verse is omitted.

6:20 - last 7 words are out (your spirit, etc.).
7:5 - “fasting” is out.
7:39 - “by the law” is out (the wife is bound--).
10:28 - “the earth is the Lord’s” is out.
11:24 - “take eat” is out (this is my body--).
11:29 - “Lord’s” is out (referring to the body).
15:47 - “The Lord” is out (Lord from heaven).
16:22 - “Jesus Christ” is out.
16:23 - “Christ” is out.

5:10 - “The Lord” is out.
5:18 - “Jesus” is out.
11:31 - “Christ” is out.

3:1 - “that ye should not obey truth” is out.
3:17 - “in Christ” is out.
4:7 - “through Christ” is out.
6:15 - “in Christ Jesus” is out.
6:17 - “Lord” is out.

3:9 - “by Christ Jesus” is out (God created--).
3:14 - “of our Lord Jesus Christ” is out.
5:30 - “of his flesh and of his bones” is out.
6:10 - “my brethren” is out.

3:16 - “let us mind the same thing” is out.
1:2 - “the Lord Jesus Christ” is out.
1:14 - “through his blood” is out.
1:28 - “Jesus” is out.
2:11 - “of the sins of” is out.
3:6 - “sons of disobedience” is out.

1:1 - “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” is out.
2:19 - “Christ” is out.
3:11- “Christ” is out.
3:13 - “Christ” is out.

1:8 - “Christ” is out.
1:17 - “wise” is out (The only wise God).
2:7 - “in Christ” is out.
3:16 - “God is out” (was manifest in the flesh).
4:12 - “in spirit” is out.
6:5 - “of thy hands” is out.

3:1 - “Christ” is out.
7:21 - “after the order of Melchizedek” is out.
10:30 - “saith the Lord” is out.
10:34 - “in heaven” is out.
11:11 - “was delivered of a child” is out (Sarah--).

5:16 - “faults” is changed to “sins.”
1:22 - “through the Spirit” is out.
4:1 - “for us” is out (Christ suffered--).
4:14 - last 15 words are out.
5:10 - “Jesus” is out.
5:11 - “glory and dominion” is out.

2:17 - “forever” is out.
3:9 - “us” is changed to “you.”

1:7 - “Christ” is out.
2:7 - “from the beginning” is out.
4:3 - “Christ is come in the flesh” is out.
4:9 - “begotten” is out.
5:7-8 - many words are omitted and changed.
5:13 - last 13 words are out.

1:25 - “wise” is out (referring to God).
1:8 - “the beginning and the end” is out.
1:11 - 10 words are out (Alpha and Omega etc.).
2:13 - “thy works” is out.
5:14 - “him that liveth forever and forever” is out.
8:13 - “angel” is changed to “eagle.”
11:17 - “and art to come” is out.
12:17 - “Christ” is out.
14:5 - “before the throne of God” is out.
16:17 - “of heaven” is out.
20:9 - “God out of” is out (Fire came from--).
20:12 - “God” is changed to “throne.”
21:24 - “of them which are saved” is out (Nations--).
22:19 - “book of life” is changed to “tree of life.”

Aland, Barbara and Aland, Kurt. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1987.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

The Bible

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA:
University Book House, 1995.

Bruce, F.F. The Books and the Parchments. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1953.

Burgon, John W. “The Revision Revised.” In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P.
Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

. “The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels.” In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed.
by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Buswell, Oliver J. A Systematic Theology pf the Christian Religion. Vol. 1. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978.

Cloud, David. For the Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the
Received Text from 1800 to the Present. Oak Harbor, WA: Fundamental Baptist
News Service, 1995.

Combs, William. “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus.” In Detroit Baptist Seminary
Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53.

Comfort, Philip. Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament.
Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishing House, 1990.

Committee Statement on Bible Preservation, (Dean Burgon Society) quoted in Cloud,
David. “Some Thoughts on Inspiration and Preservation.” O Timothy Magazine
(Vol.9, Issue 8, 1992). Ed. by David Cloud [journal on-line]; available from; Internet; accessed 10 October 1997.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Epistle 149 quoted and translated in “The Correspondence of
Erasmus,” Vol. 2 in The Collected Works of Erasmus. Ed. by R.A.B. Mynors and
D.F.S. Thomson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985.
Fedarko, Kevin. “Who Will Be First Among Us?” In Time Magazine. Vol. 144 No.
26 (26 December 1994): 72-73.
Garrett, James Leo. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.

Gaussen, Louis. “The Divine Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.” True or False? Ed. by
David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1983.

Habermas, Gary. Classnotes: Theology Survey I. Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University,

Hall, B. “Erasmus: Biblical Scholar and Reformer,” in Erasmus. Ed. by T.A. Dorey.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1970.

Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines, IA: Christian
Research Press, 1956.

Hodge, Archibald. A Commentary on The Confession of Faith. Philadelphia, PA:
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869.

Holland, Thomas. “A Biblical Starting Point” [article on-line], available at; Internet; accessed 10
October 1997.

Hoskier, Herman. “Codex Vaticanus and it Allies.” In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis
Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1974.

Jamieson Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David. Commentary On The Whole Bible.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979.

Johnson, Alan and Webber, Robert. What Christians Believe. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1993.

Lackey, Bruce. “Inspiration and Translation.” O Timothy Magazine (Vol. 9, Issue 11,
1992). Ed by David Cloud [journal on-line]; available from; Internet; accessed 10 October 1997.

Mauro, Philip. “Which Version? Authorized or Revised?” In True or False? Ed. by
David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1973.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995.
McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist
Publication Society, 1911.

Metzger, Bruce. The Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford Press, 1968.

. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Moorman, Jack. “Principles of Bible Preservation.” O Timothy Magazine (Vol.9, Issue
8, 1992). Ed. by David Cloud [journal on-line]; available from ti0800002.htm; Internet; accessed 25
February 1997.

Morris, Henry. “Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version.” In Vital
Articles on Science/Creation. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996.

Philpot, Joseph Charles. “The Authorized Version--1611.” True or False? Ed. by David
Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1983.

Pickering, Wilbur. “Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Criticism.”
In True or False? Ed. By David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical
Textual Studies, 1973.

“The Real Best Seller.” Boston Herald. 1 August 1923.

Riplinger, Gail. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robinson, Maurice. “The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Text-Type: A
Response to Selected Criticisms of the Byzantine-Priority Theory.” Faith and
Mission (Vol. XI, Number 1, 1993).

Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987.

Septuaginta. Ed. by Alfred Rahlfs. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart,
1935, 1979 (rep).

Souter, Alexander. The Text and Canon of the New Testament. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1917.

Thiede, Carsten and D’Anocona, Matthew. Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New
Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels. New York: Doubleday,

Tindall, Christian. Contributions to the Statistical Study of the Codex Sinaiticus.
London: Oliver and Boyd, 1961.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2
Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press,

Van Til, Cornelius. An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Phillipsburg, PA:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1978.

Waite, D.A. “The Four-Fold Superiority of the King James Version” [article on-line];
available at http:/; Internet; accessed 20
February 1997.

Wenham, John. Christ and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.

White, James. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House
Publishers, 1995.

The Path to the
King James Bible
of 1611

Celebrating its
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 2
The Path To The King James Bible
The year, 2011 marks the 400
anniversary of the publication of the King James Au-
thorized Version of the Bible. The clergy in England approached their new king, James I
from Scotland, and announced in 1604 their desire for an accurate
translation of the Bible that would be for the English speaking
peoples everywhere, without religious agenda, and would express
the words of Scripture in the simplest of ways. This request was
granted and personally financed by King James.
This translation of the Holy Scriptures was the result of
the combined effort of forty seven of the greatest Biblical scholars of
the day. These men knew dozens of languages and loved the Bible! They preached it, and
memorized it, and knew it was the answer to all the world’s problems. They took into
consideration all the English translations that had been done before them: The Tyndale
New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva
Bible, and the Rheims New Testament. They worked from the recently published
“Bishop's Bible” of 1568. They had access to a great number of ancient manuscripts and
early writings of the church fathers, including Official Greek and Hebrew texts.
King James went through great efforts to guard the 1611 translation from errors.
Please note the following:
1. Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six
separate groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at
Westminster, two at Oxford University, and two at Cambridge University.
2. Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate.
3. Each scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be re-
viewed by each member of his group.
4. The whole group then went over the book together.
5. Once a group had completed reviewing a book of the Bible, they sent it to be re-
viewed by the other five groups.
6. All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted, and then it
was returned to the original group for consideration.
7. A special committee was then formed by selecting one leader from each group. This
committee worked out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished
copy for the printers in 1611.
8. This means that every word of the King James Bible had to pass at least FOUR-
TEEN examinations before going to press.
9. Throughout this entire process, many learned scholars of the land were called upon
for their recommendations, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.
In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit
folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press.
It was translated at a time when the English language was “at its height.” English is
now a global language and nearly 33% of the world's population (approximately two bil-
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 3
lion people) can speak English. The teaching of English is now required in most nations
of the world. The English language has developed over a period of seven centuries. By the
year 1611 English had coalesced into what we know today as the English language.
Biblical scholars and language historians alike agree on the preeminence of
the King James Version.
“Often referred to as ‘the only classic ever created by a committee,’ its uniform excellence and beauty
caused it from the start to be acknowledged as a masterpiece, an outstanding literary work whose great
popularity persists to the present day.” (Adventures in English Literature, 1989)
Charles Dickens called the New Testament "the very best book that ever was or ever will be
known in the world."
Jonathan Swift, writing in 1712, believed the King James Bible, "being perpetually read in
churches, have proved a kind of standard for language, especially to the common people."
Sir Thomas Henry Hall Caine, a novelist and playwright, has said of himself: "I think I
know my Bible as few literary men know it. There is no book in the world like it, and the finest novels
ever written fall far short in interest of any one of the stories it tells. Whatever strong situations I have in
my books are not of my creation, but are taken from the Bible.”
English Author and broadcaster Melvyn Bragg says, "since 1611 it [the King James Bible]
has flooded over the world". He says it "let loose a deluge of knowledge unlike anything that had hap-
pened before in human history". Speaking of the 47 men who worked for 7 years to translate
the King James Bible, he concludes, "because of them we speak out of that book still, every day of
our lives".
The US statesman Daniel Webster said: "If there is anything in my thoughts or style to com-
mend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures."
Equally celebrated as a British orator, TB Macaulay said that the translation demon-
strated "the whole extent of [the] beauty and power" of the English language.
Not every new Bible available today is of the same calibre of the King James Bible.
Though many translations are now permitted in churches, some cling to the King
James Bible. The Scriptures may be available in dozens of languages at the click of a
mouse, but legions of today's readers, believer and nonbeliever alike, find more comfort in
"For dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return" than in the modern Good News Bible's "you
were made of soil, and you will become soil again."
The King James translators took the view that the best translation was a literal one, so
instead of adapting Hebrew and Greek to English forms of speaking, they simply trans-
lated it literally. These “Biblical” ways of expressing yourself became accepted as normal
English. Examples include: "to set one's teeth on edge", "by the skin of one's teeth", "the land of the
living" and "from strength to strength". Newer Bibles only use words already in our language,
and rarely move their readers to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth."

The Path to the King James Bible
Page 4
The Bible is the oldest book in the world. It has been read by more people and
translated into more languages than any other book, and holds the distinction of being the
first book ever printed on a press. It has altered the events and course of history more
than any other piece of literature. The Bible has changed nations as it entered into chaotic
warlike tribes and produced civilized nations. This one book has defended beleaguered
women and freed slaves, teaching that all are to be treated as equals.
The Bible has been quoted more than the writings of Shakespeare or Milton. Its po-
etic language is unsurpassed giving us phrases like “apples of gold in pictures of silver.”
Its Inspiration....
God used average ordinary men to pen the words recorded in the Bible. God could
have dropped a perfect Bible down from the skies, complete with black leather and gold
edged pages, even with maps in the back. Yet, He didn’t do that. Instead He chose 40
men, some of whom were farmers, shepherds, prophets, kings and fishermen to write
what He had to say. Though all were from different backgrounds and locations, they all
had one thing in common: God’s Holy Spirit was supernaturally communicating His Word
to them to record for all ages. The Bible says in 2 Peter 1:21, “the Prophecy came not in old
time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
In simple words, God inspired the Bible; that is He directed the thoughts of men
such as Moses, David, and Paul and guided their writing. The word INSPIRATION liter-
ally means “breathed out by God.” God breathed or impressed upon the minds of the
writers His words. God did not allow the humanity of the writers to get in the way of
making an inerrant, infallible, perfect Bible. The Lord enabled these writers to write down
the words perfectly. It is like the guiding of a Biro to write out words. God guided the
men to write His words, perfectly! Not one word of the scriptures penned by those writers
unto this day has been corrupted or compromised in our King James Bible.
Realize as you read through the Bible that the Lord used men with different person-
alities. Luke, for example, was a physician and so takes time to explain things medically. In
the Psalms we observe David’s knowledge, experience and affection for sheep as a shep-
herd. God used the different men in their writing styles, personalities, and backgrounds as
part of His great plan. We ultimately come to the conclusion that God used men to record
His words, and these words covey to this world His message of Salvation through His Son
Jesus Christ.

Its Preservation...
The Bible was written a long time ago. The oldest Book
in the Bible is the Book of Job, and is around 3,900 years old.
Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy about 3,500 years ago! Thousands of years
have passed as the scriptures were copied by hand and by printing press. God promised
He would preserve His words. That is in spite of attacks by religious intolerance and even
poor copying. Jesus personally promised in Luke 21:33 that, “Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall not pass away.” King David said in Psalm 12:6,7 says, “The words of the
LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O
LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” So, His words are still available to
people today, if they will only want them!
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 5
Proven by Fulfilled Prophecies
The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of
Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the
prophetic writer had passed away.
For example, the prophet Daniel predicted in 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that the Mes-
siah would come as Israel's Prince 483 years after the Jews were given authority to rebuild
Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, both by the
permission to rebuild Jerusalem, and then by the arrival on Palm Sunday of Jesus into Je-
There are loads of prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the
course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300
prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal
with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.
There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually errone-
ous, prophecies of people like Nostradamus, and others like them are not in the same
category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian
Analects, the Book of Mormon and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests
this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render
completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.
Proven by Unique Historical Accuracy
The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is far superior to the written records of
Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archaeological confirmations of the Biblical re-
cord have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the
greatest modern authority on Israeli archaeology, has said: "No archaeological discovery has ever
controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear
outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of
Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
Proven by Scientific Accuracy
Another striking evidence of supernatural inspiration is found in the fact that many of
the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before
scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:
o Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
o The infinite extent of the visible universe (Isaiah 55:9)
o Law of conservation of mass and energy (2 Peter 3:7)
o The Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
o Infinite number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
o Law of increasing entropy – Second law of Thermodynamics (Psalm 102:25-27)
o Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
o Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
o Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
o and many others.
These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in
terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely
in accord with the most modern scientific facts.
Take the time to search out the facts behind the Bible for yourself!
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 6
History of the Translation of the Bible
1,900-400 BC The 32 Hebrew Prophets wrote the Books of the Old Testament.
35 – 95 AD The Greek-speaking apostles and prophets write the New Testament imme-
diately following the resurrection of Jesus, and sending it all over the world.
150 AD The Old Latin Bible – the Itala. This was the first complete Bible with both
the Old Testament and New Testament bound together in one Book.
150 The Peshitta (Syrian Copy).
177 The Gallic Bible was spreading all over southern France.
360 Gothic Translation by Ulfilas was being spread across ancient Germany.
400 The Old Syriac was spreading through Egypt, Armenia, India and China!
735 Anglo-Saxon Bible was being copied and preached all over England.
God lufode middan-eard, swa paet he sealde his áncennedan Sunu, paet nán ne
forweord pe on hine gelyfd, ac haebbe paet ece líf. (Anglo-Saxon, 990 AD)
800 The Book of Kells containing the four Gospels was written and illuminated.
1384 The Wycliffe Bible was being hand copied and passed around England.
For God louede so the world, that he ȝaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that
bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf. (Wycliffe 1384)
1450 Johannes Gutenberg created a printing plate with moveable type, and for
the first time printed an entire Bible quickly and cheaply!
1522-1534 Martin Luther's Bible was completed and distributed all over Germany.
Denn also hat Gott die Welt geliebt, das ser seinen eingeborenen Sohn gab, damit
alle, die an ihn glauben, nicht verloren warden, sondern das ewige Leben haden
1525 William Tyndale’s New Testament was completed, and tens of thousands
were printed and sent all over England!
For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only son, that none that believe
in him, should perish: but should have everlasting life.
1535 The Miles Coverdale Bible completed Tyndale’s attempt at publishing an
entire Bible in English.
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his onely sonne, that who so euer
beleueth in hi, shulde not perishe, but haue euerlastinge life. (Coverdale, 1535)
1537 The Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) improved on the Coverdale Bible.
1539 The Great Bible was published
1560 Geneva Bible was published in Switzerland during Bloddy Mary’s reign.
For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that
whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
1568 The Bishop's Bible was published to improve on the Geneva Bible.
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer
beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe. (Bishops 1568)
1610 The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Version was published.
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever
believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. (Douay-Rheims)
1611 The King James Bible was completed and published.
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer
beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. (KJV 1611)
1769 Final update of King James Bible. It is the KJV people own and read today!
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV today)
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 7
1900 BC – 400 BC

o The Old Testament of the Bible was mainly
written in Hebrew.
o 32 men wrote the 39 Books of the Old Testa-
o The oldest Hebrew Scriptures come from the
Dead Sea Scrolls of 100 BC.
o There are over 70,000 Hebrew manuscripts still
o Hebrew is read from right to left..
o Scrolls were made out of animal skins.

Contrary to popular opinion that the Hebrew Scrip-
tures have become corrupt by a case of “Chinese Whis-
pers”, these books are the most meticulously preserved
writings of all history. It was the full-time job of a certain
group of Jews called scribes to accurately recreate copies
and they followed very precise rules and procedures to accomplish this. A testimony to the
success of their work is found in the word for word accuracy of the Isaiah Scroll found in
the caves of Qumran, 13 miles from Jerusalem. Previous to this discovery in 1947, the
oldest copies dated to the 10
century. Independent analysis of the scroll date it to about
100 BC!

o The Hebrew language has 22 consonants and NO vowels! Genesis 1:1 would read
like this (if it was written in English without vowels):


o The English language traces it roots back through Latin and Greek, all the way back
to Hebrew. The whole world actually spoke Hebrew prior to the division of lan-
guages at the Tower of Babel.
o The Hebrew Old Testament contains 24 books. This is because 1 and 2 Samuel are
one book, Chronicles and Kings are one, Ezra-Nehemiah one, and the 12 Minor
Prophets are considered one book also.
o The Jews were responsible for deciding what books were part of the Old Testament.
This is what the Bible looked like that Jesus read in the
synagogue in Luke 4:16-21.
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 8
37 AD – 95 AD

o This is the language of the New Testa-
o Jesus spoke both Hebrew and Greek.
o 8 men wrote the 27 Books of the New
Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Paul, Peter, James, and Jude.
o Over 5,366 Greek manuscripts still exist
after 2,000 years!

The Greek language of Jesus’ day, was
very advanced, and was the language of the
Western World surrounding Israel.
The Old Testament of the Bible was mainly written in the language of the Jews
– Hebrew. But the world of Gentiles spoke Greek, as did even Jesus as well as all
Jews. So God moved in the hearts and minds of men to pen His words in the lan-
guage of the world – Greek.
The Greek New Testament was written by eight men (Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude), starting with Matthew writing in 37AD right af-
ter the resurrection, and finishing with the Apostle John penning the Revelation in
95 AD.
At first the New Testament Scriptures were written on sheets of papyrus (an
early form of paper) made from plants that grew near rivers, and then later on ve-
lum, which came from animal skin. Papyrus usually disintegrated within a few hun-
dred years, but vellum would last thousands of years when protected.
All copies of the New Testament were written and copied by hand. Those cop-
ies were used to make more copies, and then more copies, until the message of the
Bible was carried deep into Africa, far into China and India, and even up into
Northern Europe by the end of the First Century!
Today, there are 5,366 pieces of papyrus and vellum that still remain, contain-
ing the New Testament Scriptures. Some 1,000 years old, but many almost 2,000
years old! In 1934 Historians discovered in Egypt the John Rayland Fragment of the
Gospel of John. Although this was not the original Greek text, it certainly is the old-
est copy of a Greek manuscript, and dates back to 100AD. The Chester Beatty
manuscripts contain most of the New Testament and are dated mid-200’s AD. The
Bodmer Papyri II collection includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of
John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from earlier than 200 AD.

John 3:16 in New Testament Greek
οᆖτω γᆭρ ᅧγάπησεν ᆇ Θεᆵς τᆵν κόσµον, ᆢστε τᆵν υᅷᆵν αᆒτοሞ τᆵν µονογενᇿ ᅞδωκεν, ᅻνα
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 9
160 AD – 405 AD

o The Bible was first translated into the Latin lan-
guage - the language of the world in 160 AD.
o It was the first time both Old and New Testa-
ments were put together into one Book – and
called the Bible!
o Every page of Scripture was hand copied.
o Christians took these old Latin Scriptures all over
the world.
o Jerome in the 4
century retranslated the Hebrew
and Greek into a more modern Latin, but inserted
many Catholic dogmas into the translation.

The Old Latin was better than the new Latin. Many
of Jerome’s Latin Scriptures were clearly not trans-
lated from the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, like:

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said:
Give us this day our daily bread. (Matthew 6:11).
On the other hand, the Latin Vulgate tells us:
Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. (Latin Vulgate)

The great prophecy of Genesis chapter 3:15 where the Lord God
promised that the seed of the woman would crush the serpents
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be-
tween thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Latin Vulgate Version changes the word HE to SHE:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy
seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie
in wait for her heel. (Latin Vulgate Version).

Psalm 23:5 in the King James Bible says,
Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
The Latin Vulgate says,
Thou hast anointed my head with oil; and my chalice which inebreateth me, how
goodly is it!

John the Baptist in Matthew 3:2 says,
KJV Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Vulgate Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Unlike Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, the Old Latin texts were true to the original Greek and
Hebrew, and helped in the translation of the King James Bible of 1611.
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 10
800 AD

o Written in Latin.
o 340 pages.
o Contains the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John.
o Extravagantly decorated.
o Part of the Celtic effort to make copies of the
o In the end, it became only a decorated orna-

To most people, the Book of Kells is just an
elaborately beautiful work of medieval art – nothing
more. Yet between its carefully painted lettering and
creatures rests the very words of Scripture in Latin!
During the Dark Ages (500-1400 AD), most of
the continent of Europe was controlled by fears, superstitions, and ignorance. Learning
was only centred in the largest cities, and most countries only regularly experienced war
and disease. But the Bible was still being copied and distributed even in this trying of
All the way up in Scotland, a monastery on the island of Iona was founded in 563 by
the monk Columba, also known as Colm Cille, who had been exiled from his native Ire-
land. The monastery was hugely successful, and played a crucial role in the conversion to
Christianity of the Picts of present-day Scotland in the late 6th century and of the Anglo-
Saxon kingdom of Northumbria in 635. A large number of similar institutions were
founded, and Iona became the centre of one of the most important monastic systems in
Great Britain and Ireland. Its scriptorium (rooms where documents were carefully hand
copied) produced many highly important documents, especially copies of the Scriptures.
Those pages of Scripture over time became more popular when they were decorated, than
when they were accurate, and so the Scriptures became more and more works of art!
Around 800 AD, the Book of Kells was created in Iona. The text of the Gospels is
largely drawn from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, but it also includes several passages drawn
from the earlier versions of the Bible known as the Old Latin. It is a masterwork of callig-
raphy and represents the pinnacle of Celtic Artwork.
Because of all the artwork, it is considered to be the most beautiful book of all time.
It certainly is the most studied book of all time. Half a million people go to see it every
year in Trinity College in Dublin. It uses highly advanced inks from as far away as Meso-
potamia, and the artwork shows familiarity with design from Africa, eastern Europe, Eng-
land, and Ireland.
Due to attacks against Scotland by Vikings during the 10
century, the book was
moved to Ireland to the place it takes its name from - the Abbey of Kells, in County
Meath. Today, in Dublin, it is treated as Ireland’s national treasure, not knowing that it is
the words that it contains that are the priceless “words of eternal life” (John 6:68)!
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 11
1382-1395 AD

o Most people at the time never heard
the Bible in English, only in Latin.
o Wycliffe said, “Christ and his apos-
tles taught the people in that tongue
that was best known to them. Why
should men not do so now?”
o No printing presses existed yet, so
every Bible was hand-copied.
o He spoke and wrote in Middle Eng-
lish. One of the most famous Scrip-
tures in the Bible is John 3:16, which
looked like the following:

“For God louede so the world, that he ȝaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that
bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.” (English in 1384)
“For God loved so the world, that he gave his own begotten son, that each man that
believeth in him perish not, but have everlasting life.”

The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts
were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford
professor, scholar, and theologian.
Wycliffe, was well-known throughout Europe for his
opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which
he believed to be contrary to the Bible.
He was an Oxford Scholar and teacher, but loved to
pastor and teach people the Bible.
His fundamental belief was that the Church should be
poor, as in the days of the apostles. He firmly believed that
all peoples should be able to read the Bible in their own
With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant name Purvey, and
many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language hand-written
copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only
source of Scripture available to Wycliffe.
Pope Martin V was so infuriated by his teachings and especially his translation of the
Bible into English, that even 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be
dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

The Path to the King James Bible
Page 12
1450 AD
o Johannes Gutenberg invented metal,
moveable type printing press
o Invented oil-based inks
o Could now print very cheaply and
o First book printed was the Bible
o Began the printing revolution!

Johann Gutenberg invented the printing
press in the 1450's, and the first book to ever
be printed was a Latin language Bible,
printed in Mainz, Germany.
Gutenberg’s Bibles were surprisingly beautiful, as each leaf Gutenberg printed was
later colourfully hand-illuminated.
Born as “Johann Gensfleisch” (John Gooseflesh), he preferred to be known as “Johann
Gutenberg” (John Beautiful Mountain). Ironically, though he had created what many be-
lieve to be the most important invention in history, Gutenberg was a victim of unscrupu-
lous business associates who took control of his business and left him in poverty. Never-
theless, the invention of the movable-type printing press meant that Bibles and books
could finally be effectively produced in large quantities in a short period of time. This was
the beginning of the end of the Dark Ages, and the start of Bible publishing all throughout

The Path to the King James Bible
Page 13
1526 AD

o Tyndale knew Greek, Latin, Hebrew,
German, Spanish and French
o 75% of the King James Bible came from
o He was burnt at the stake just for trans-
lating the Scriptures into English.

"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if
God spares my life, ere many years, I will
cause the boy that driveth the plow to know
more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"

His last words were, “Lord, open the King
of England’s eyes!”

William Tyndale holds the distinction of
being the first man to ever print the New Tes-
tament in the English language. Tyndale was a
true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight lan-
guages that it was said one would think any
one of them to be his native tongue. He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the
English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases
Tyndale coined are still in our language today.
Tyndale showed up on Martin Luther's doorstep in Germany in 1525, and by year's
end had translated the entire New Testament into English. Tyndale had been forced to flee
England, because of the wide-spread rumour that his English New Testament project was
underway, causing inquisitors and bounty hunters to be constantly on Tyndale's trail to ar-
rest him and prevent his project.
God foiled their plans, and in 1525-1526 the
Tyndale New Testament became the first printed
edition of the scripture in the English language. Subse-
quent printings of the Tyndale New Testament in the
1530's were often elaborately illustrated.
As soon as the Bishop could confiscate the new
Bibles, he would have them burned! Yet copies of
Tyndale’s New Testament trickled through the barriers
and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry
VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its
distribution, the more fascinated the public at large be-
came. The Church declared it contained thousands of
errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 14
confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no er-
rors at all. A person risked their own death by burning if they were caught in mere posses-
sion of Tyndale's “forbidden book”.
To the Church of the day, it was rightly feared that having God's Word available to the
public in the language of the common man, English, would have meant disaster to the
Church. No longer would they control access to the scriptures. No longer would people
just believe what was taught. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the
church's income and power would soon crumble. They could not possibly continue to get
away with selling indulgences (the forgiveness of sins) or selling the release of loved ones
from a church-manufactured "Purgatory". People would begin to challenge the church's
authority if the church were exposed as frauds and thieves. The contradictions between
what God's Word said, and what the priests taught, would open the public's eyes and the
truth would set them free from the grip of fear that the institutional church held. The salva-
tion that is through faith, and not works or donations, would finally be understood. The
need for priests would vanish through the Bible’s teaching of the priesthood of all believ-
ers. The veneration of church-canonized Saints and even Mary would be called into ques-
tion. The availability of the scriptures in English was the biggest threat imaginable to the
Church. And neither side would give up without a fight.
Tyndale's flight was an inspira-
tion to freedom-loving English-
speaking men who drew courage
from the 11 years that he was
hunted. Books and Bibles flowed
into England in bales of cotton and
sacks of flour. Ironically, Tyndale’s
biggest customer was the King’s
men, who would buy up every copy
available to burn them… with Tyn-
dale using their money to print even
In the end, Tyndale was caught:
betrayed by an Englishman that he
had befriended. Tyndale was impris-
oned for 500 days before he was
strangled and burned at the stake in 1536.
Tyndale’s last words were, "Oh Lord, open the King of England’s eyes". This prayer
would be answered just three years later in 1539, when King Henry VIII finally allowed,
and even funded, the printing of an English Bible known as “The Great Bible”.
William Tyndale was willing to give his life that English speaking people could have
the Word of God in a language they were able to understand.
Today, there are only two known copies left of Tyndale’s 1525-26 First Edition. Any
copies printed prior to 1570 are extremely valuable.
What would you be willing to go through to just own a Bible in your own language?
William Tyndale died so that you could not only have your own copy, but freely read it
and live it!

The Path to the King James Bible
Page 15
1535 AD

o The first complete printed translation into English
o The first officially approved translation into English
(all others were illegal)
o The Old Testament was translated mainly from Lu-
ther’s German Bible
o Coverdale was also involved in helping translate the
Great Bible of 1539.

Miles Coverdale was a student of William Tyndale, and after the death of Tyndale,
finished translating the Old Testament making use of Luther's German text and the Latin
as sources. In 1535 he combined Tyndale’s New Testament along with his completed Old
Testament, and printed the first complete Bible in the English language.
Unlike Tyndale, Coverdale managed to gain the approval of both ecclesiastical and
royal authorities in order to get the Bible translation published. He also influenced later
English translations by separating the Apocryphal writings, previously interspersed in the
Old Testament, and placed them as a group between the Old and New Testaments. This
took Bible translations one step closer to being simple, honest translations of scripture
only. Coverdale escaped the intense persecution that followed translators of that day and
lived to the good age of 80.

Some of Coverdale’s translation:

Psalm 1:1
“O Blessed is the man, that goeth not in
the councell of the ungodly: that aby-
deth not in the waye off sinners, or syt-
teth not in the seate of the scornefull.”

Psalm 22:1-3 (Chapter 23 in KJV)
“The Lorde is my shepherd, I can want
nothing. He feedeth me in a green pas-
ture, and leadeth me to a fresh water.
He quickeneth my soul, and bringeth
me forth in the way of rightness for his
name sake.”

Isaiah 53:6
“As for us, we go all astraye (like
shepe), every one turneth his owne

Jeremiah 17:1
“Graven upon the edge of your altars
with a pen of iron and with an adamant
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 16
1537 AD

o It is the completion of the Bible that Wil-
liam Tyndale began.
o Translated by John Rogers.
o Used Tyndale’s New Testament and Miles
Coverdale’s Old Testament.
o Licensed by King Henry VIII.
o A better English Bible than the Coverdale
Bible of 1535.

The Matthew's Bible brings together the
work of two giants of sixteenth century English
Bible translation: William Tyndale and Myles
Coverdale. They both shared a vision of making
the Holy Scriptures available to ordinary believ-
ers during a time when kings and popes alike op-
posed translating them into English.
While Miles Coverdale worked on his trans-
lation using Tyndale’s New Testament, another version was being prepared titled the
"Matthew's Bible" since its compiler, pastor John Rogers, knew that having your name as-
sociated with a Bible meant burning at a stake like Tyndale's fate, which is exactly what
ended up happening!
John Rogers finished and published his English Bible within a year of Tyndale's exe-
cution. He completed the translation work of Tyndale by combining Tyndale's Pentateuch
and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and some of Roger's own
translation of the text, producing the second complete English Bible in 1537.
The Matthew’s Bible has the honour of being the first English translation to circulate
freely from the time of John
How thankful we should be
that we have the Word of God!
How thankful we should be that
people such as William Tyndale,
Miles Coverdale, and John
Rogers lived and laboured so
that we could enjoy the wonder-
ful words of life. May the story
behind the Matthew’s Bible en-
courage us to read the Word of
God with diligence to under-
stand God’s purpose and will for

The Path to the King James Bible
Page 17
1538 AD

o A revision of the Matthew’s Bible.
o Called “Great” because it was large
in size.
o Given to every church so everyone
could read it.
o King Henry VIII approved of it.
o The Inquisition sought out and de-
stroyed most copies.

In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, hired
Miles Coverdale at the bequest of
King Henry VIII to publish the
"Great Bible".
It became the first English Bible
authorized for public use, as it was
distributed to every church, chained
to the pulpit, and a reader was even
provided so that the illiterate could
hear the Word of God in plain Eng-
This Bible was known as the Great Bible due to its great size: a large pulpit fo-
lio measuring over 14 inches tall. Seven editions of this version were printed be-
tween April of 1539 and December of 1541.
It would seem that William Tyndale's last wish had been granted... just three
years after his martyrdom.

The Path to the King James Bible
Page 18
1560 AD

o Published During the reign of
Bloody Queen Mary.
o First Bible translated by a team of
o Printed in easy to read Roman
o The first Bible to include verse
o A Puritan Bible.
o Most popular Bible until the KJV
of 1611.

The Geneva Bible (also known as
the “Breeches” Bible) was the Bible of
the Protestant Reformation. It was origi-
nally produced in 1560, more than 50
years before the King James Bible, and it
remained the most popular English lan-
guage Bible among the people until a few
decades after the introduction of the King
James Bible.
The Geneva Bible was first produced in Geneva, Switzerland, by refugees from Eng-
land, fleeing the persecution of Bible believers by Catholic Queen “Bloody” Mary. Many
copies were smuggled back into England at great personal risk. In later years, when Prot-
estant-friendly Queen Elizabeth took the throne, printing of the Geneva Bible moved back
to England.
The Geneva Bible was produced by John Calvin, John Knox, Myles Coverdale, John
Foxe, and other Reformers. It is this version of the Bible that William Shakespeare quotes
from hundreds of times in his plays, and it was the first English Bible to offer a plain ro-
man-style type font in its printings. Roman font is the style of font that we still use today
in most of our writing and communication. The simpler Roman-type was much easier to
read than the Gothic style font used in the other Bibles.
The Geneva Bible was the first Bible taken to America, brought over on the May-
flower ship with the Pilgrim. The Geneva Bible was also the first English Bible to break
the chapters of scripture into numbered verses, and it was the first true “Study Bible” of-
fering extensive commentary notes in the margins. It was the Bible that most people
owned and read at home.

The Path to the King James Bible
Page 19
1568 AD

o Translated mainly by Church of England
o Uses lofty and majestic language.
o Not very clear or easy to understand like
Tyndale’s Bible had been.
o Generally not liked.

Except for the Geneva Bible, the other Eng-
lish Bibles had been largely the work of individual
translators. This sometimes allowed personal view-
points to creep into the way the Scriptures were
In 1561, three years after Elizabeth I ascended
the throne, Archbishop Parker submitted a pro-
posal for a new translation in opposition to the Ge-
neva Bible because of its strong wording against
kings and the Church. So a group of Church of
England Bishops were assembled to prepare a new version, which was to have "no bitter
or controversial annotations to the text." The result was the Bishop's Bible, first printed in
The Great Bible was the basis for this new version. Unfortunately, none of the Bish-
ops were Hebrew scholars. so they had to make use of the Latin texts of the Hebrew Bible.
This meant that the Bishops Bible required many corrections and revisions.
Another problem with this Bible was the fact that it used more "ecclesiastical" lan-
guage (making it sound churchy), and making the wording of the Psalms impossible to
sing. That meant that the Bishops Bible was never popular enough to be read at home. It
was only read at church, and that, as little as possible.
The translators of the King James Version were instructed to take the 1602 edition of
the Bishops' Bible as their basis, although several other existing translations were taken
into account. After it was published in 1611, the King James Version soon took the Bish-
ops' Bible's place as the de facto standard of the Church of England.
Note Psalm 23:1-4 between the Bishop’s Bible and the King James Bible
1 God is my sheephearde, therfore I can
lacke nothyng:
2 he wyll cause me to repose my selfe in
pasture full of grasse, and he wyll leade me
vnto calme waters.
3 He wyll conuert my soule: he wyll bring
me foorth into the pathes of righteousnesse
for his name sake.
4 Yea though I walke through the valley of
the shadowe of death, I wyll feare no euyll:
for thou art with me, thy rodde and thy
staffe be the thynges that do comfort me.
1 The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie downe in greene pas-
tures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the
pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake.
4 Yea though I walke through the valley of the
shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou
art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 20
1609 AD

o Translated by Roman Catholic Bishops.
o An English translation of Jerome’s Latin
translation of the Hebrew and Greek.
o Written to support Catholic teachings in-
stead of just declaring what Scriptures
said in English.
o The basis for all Catholic Bibles today.
o Still contains the Apocryphal Books that
were removed by all the other English

While the Anglicans were printing their
Great, Bishops, and King James Bibles, and
the Protestants were printing their Geneva
Bibles, the Roman Catholics in 1582 finally
give up, retracting their official policy of “kill
anyone who prints the Bible in English”
which they held to for over 1,000 years, and translated their own version of the Bible
into English.
Translated exclusively from the Latin Vulgate (the only source text accepted by the
Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the fact that the original scriptures were in Hebrew
and Greek) this work was done at the College of Rheims in France. This first press run
of the scriptures to ever be authorized as “acceptable” by the Roman Catholic Church
was published in 1582. The Roman Catholic Church did not complete its authorized
translation of the Old Testament until 28 years later in 1610, with the Douay Old Tes-
tament. Often, one will hear of the two printings referred to collectively as “The
When the Rheims translation was published, there was an outcry from both the An-
glican and the Protestant Churches, concerning how grossly inaccurate it was. The
problem was, that while the Anglicans and Protestants were using the original Hebrew
and Greek to do their translations, the Catholics were using only the “Latin Vulgate” to
do their English translations, and even then, they were altering the translation to reflect
more kindly upon Roman Catholic teachings. Sometimes these examples were so glar-
ingly obvious as to almost be laughable. For example, the passage in the Lord’s Prayer
in which Jesus says “Give us this day, our daily bread” is rendered “Give us this day,
our super-substantiated bread” (!) This was done to emphasize the supposed scriptural
legitimacy of the elements of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist) literally becoming the
flesh of Jesus (transubstantiation). Psalm 23
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 21
1611 AD

o Team of 47 Bible Scholars worked for 7
years to translate.
o They translated and reviewed each and every
word at total of 14 times!
o The final edition was published in 1769 with
only minor spelling changes.
o 2011 is the 400th anniversary
o Over 1 billion copies of the King James Bible
have printed since 1611.

The Millenary Petition.
In 1604, the “Millenary Petition,” signed by
1,000 Puritan clergymen, was presented to King
James VI of Scotland as he came to England to
be its new king. The Petition called upon King
James to allow certain changes in church
services and government, such as the elimination of the “sign of the cross,” elaborate
priestly garments, and wedding rings, etc. and stricter church discipline. King James
arranged for a meeting of the Puritan Scholars as well as Church of England Bishops at
Hampton Court, January 14-18, 1604 A.D. to settle (as he saw it) “things pretended to be
amiss in the Church.”
Dr. John Reynolds (1549-1607 A.D.) was the main speaker on behalf of the
Puritans. Only one suggestion from Dr. John Reynolds caught the attention of the king. It
was, “That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original
Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and
only to be used in all churches of England, in time of divine service.” It was this
suggestion which led to the translation and universal publication of the Authorized, King
James Version. The King was well aware that the Great Bible was too cumbersome; the
Geneva Bible was too controversial; and the Bishops Bible was too careless. So, on July
22, 1604. King James announced he had selected 54 men to translate the new Bible. The
qualification required of each man was that he was a proven Biblical scholar.
Jesuit Attempts To Destroy The Translation.
In 1605 A.D. a Jesuit plot to assassinate the King by blowing up the House of Lords
on its opening was uncovered. Eight men, including the traitor Guy Fawkes were captured
and executed. If he had succeeded, all of history definitely would have been different,
including the publication of the greatest work of English literature of all time, the King
James Bible!
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 22
1602 – 1648 AD

William Bedell
The Gospel of John 3:16 in 1648 Irish looks like:

“Oír is mar so do ghrádhuigh Dia an domhan, go dtug sé a éing-
hein Mheic fein, ionnus gidh bé chreideas ann, nach rachadh sé a
mugha, achd go mbeith an bheatha shiorruidhe aige.”

o New Testament translated in 1602 by William O’Donnell
o Old Testament translated in 1648 by William Bedell
o Was sold for only 25 Schillings
o Most copies were burned by priests

The first Irish translation of the New
Testament was begun by Nicholas Walsh,
Bishop of Ossory, who worked on it until his
untimely death in 1585. The work was
continued by John Kearny, his assistant, and
Dr. Nehemiah Donellan, Archbishop of Tuam,
and it was finally completed by William
O'Domhnuill (William Daniell, Archbishop of
Tuam in succession to Donellan). Their work
was printed in 1602.
In 1627, William Bedell arrived in Ireland
to become Provost of Trinity College, Dublin.
In 1629, as Bishop of Kilmore and Ardagh,
he required that all pastors spoke Irish to their
congregations, and he commissioned the
translation of the Old Testament of the Bible
into the Irish Language, with the help of an
Irish rector named Muircheartach Ó Cionga.
He was against abuse, no matter where it
came, and stood with the Catholic tenants of
Kilmore against the excesses of Dr Alan Cooke,
the incumbent chancellor of the diocese. This
proved to be his ruin, for when the 1641
rebellion broke out, William Bedell was arrested, and became ill under the poor conditions
of his imprisonment. He died on 7 February 1642 and was buried next to his wife Leah at
Kilmore, where he received an honourable funeral in the presence of his O'Raghallaigh
(O'Reilly) captors. At his funeral, a Roman Catholic priest, Father Farrelly, was heard to
say, "May my soul be with Beddell's".
The Path to the King James Bible
Page 23
The Influence of the King James Bible on Modern English

No other book, or indeed any piece of culture, seems to have influenced the English
language as much as the King James Bible. Its use of phrases have permeated our every-
day language whether or not we've ever opened a copy. Have you ever said…

We don’t see eye to eye (Isaiah 52:8)
There’s no rest for the wicked (Isaiah 48:22)
You took the word’s out of my mouth (2 Samuel 14:3)
By the skin of your teeth! (Job 19:20)
By the sweat of your brow! (Genesis 3:16)
My heart’s desire (Psalm 21:2)
By the strait and narrow (Matthew 7:14)
The root of the matter (Job 19:28)
From strength to strength (Psalm 84:7)
God forbid! (Genesis 44:7)
Go the extra mile (Matthew 5:41)
Don't miss the boat (Genesis 7)
Holy smoke (Exodus 19:16-18)
Holy cow (Exodus 32:8)
Apple of his eye (Deuteronomy 32:10)
I'll show you a thing or two (1 Samuel 14:12)
You haven't heard the half of it (2 Chronicles 9:6)
It's water under the bridge (Job 11:16)
Lay me down to sleep (Psalm 4:8)
Spare the rod, spoil the child (Proverbs 13:24)
Money talks (Ecclesiastes 10:19)

Did you know?

1. The entire Bible can be read through in just 72 hours at normal reading speed!
2. The whole world had at least a portion of Bible in their language by 300 AD.
3. After the Dark Ages faded, the whole world got the Bible AGAIN by 1900.
4. The Bible is ONE Book made up of 66 separate books.
5. The Bible is divided into two main sections: Old and New Testaments.
6. It has 1,189 Chapters, 31,102 Verses, and 783,137 Words.
7. There are 1,260 Promises given in the Bible, and 6,468 Commands.
8. Number of questions: 3,294.
9. Fulfilled prophecy: 3,268 verses. Yet to be fulfilled prophecies: 3,140 verses.
10. It was written for BOTH the heart and mind.
11. It is written in 6
class level of English.
12. It uses only about 6,000 English words, while Shakespeare used 21,000 words!
13. The Bible is perfectly accurate in all areas it writes about: history, science, people,
places, and even about the future!
14. The Bible can do you no good unless it is read and obeyed!
15. It is the number one continuous best seller in the literary field year after year. Over
6 billion copies have been printed since 1815!

The King James Bible
The Greatest Translation of the Bible in English

Why is the King James Bible the greatest Book of all time?

1. Because of where it came from.
The King James Bible is not an English book. It is an English translation of the He-
brew Old Testament, and the Greek New Testament. It’s the word of God, not men.
2. Because it was translated correctly.
47 of the greatest Biblical scholars of all time, worked full time for 7 years together
as a team, to produce this Bible.
3. Because it was translated honestly.
This Bible was translated without Protestant, Catholic or any denominational
agenda. It was simply a true translation of the word of God from Hebrew and Greek
into English.
4. Because it was translated for reading and meditation.
The King James Bible was translated so anyone with a primary education reading
level could read it, and could easily memorise it and meditate on it – which is the
purpose of a Bible.
5. Because it is still the most quoted Book of all time.
Even though it is 400 years old, its unique phrases and
words are still used in every form of media and publi-
cation throughout the English speaking world. It is
still the definitive standard of the English language.
6. Because of its effect on peoples and nations.
No other translation of the Bible has had such an ef-
fect on the literature, the government, the churches,
and the lives of ordinary people, as the King James
Bible. It is still THE greatest work of the English lan-
guage of all time!

An Informative Pamphlet from
Bible Baptist Church of Ballincollig
Meeting in the Westgate Foundation, located next to the Oriel House
Every Sunday at 10.30am and again at 7pm
Wednesday evening Prayer and Bible Study at 7pm
Postal Address: Unit B, Enterprise Park, Innishmore, Ballincollig, Cork
Tel: 021-4871234 Email: Web:

The AV Defense Booklet Page 1
Contemporary scholars assure us that modern ver-
sions of the Bible are far superior to the old King
James Version of 1611. The main reason advanced by
these scholars for this modern superiority is that to-
day’s translations have older and supposedly more
reliable sources at their disposal upon which to base
their work. We are also assured that today’s scholars
have greatly benefited Bible students by cutting out
or altering many of the familiar readings in the older
work (AV1611) that are now deemed spurious.
Are the modern bible translations, based on more an-
cient and supposedly more reliable sources, really
authentic bibles? If they are really so superior, why
have none of them succeeded in even arresting the
nation’s spiritual decline, let alone bless it with re-
vival, in the way that the Old Book authorized by
King James has done time and again (see pp. 27-29)?
Why is it that none of them are memorable in the
way the Old Translation is? What words and phrases
from any modern bible translation have actually
passed into common household usage like those from
the Old King James Version (see pp. 31-32)? Could it
be that the scholars aren’t telling the truth? Could it
be that they have been deceived by the Devil into
passing off rubbish as the genuine article so that it
would cause whole generations to fall into apostasy?
The aim of this booklet is to exhort each and every
reader to unreservedly get back to believing the Old
Book (AV1611) from cover to cover and by it to get
right with its Author, while there is still time.
“Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause
darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark
mountains and, while ye look for light, he turn it into
the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.”
Jer. 13:16
The AV Defense Booklet Page 2
The night is fast approaching, the darkness is gath-
ering, the cold wind from the desert wilderness is al-
ready buffeting our faces with the bitter chill of the
last days. The hour is late, the need is so great and it
is time for you Christian, to shine.
Rule #1: It is always to be remembered that the Bible
is a spiritual book (Jn. 6:63b) which God exerted su-
pernatural force to conceive, and it is reasonable to
assume that He could exert that same supernatural
force to preserve.
• God’s WRITTEN words are “more sure” than
His speaking from heaven; verbal statements
are not binding, they cannot be proven like
written words; 2 Pet. 1:16-21
• The writers of Scripture did not write under
their own power but “holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost”; the Bible
is not simply a collection of theories and opin-
ions but rather inspired by God Himself; 2 Pet.
1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16
• To inspire the words written on the original
autographs perfect and then lose them over
time would have made their inspiration
meaningless – God promised to preserve His
words forever; Ps. 12:6,7
o Is God capable of preserving His words
perfectly?; Jer. 32:17,27
• Where are the words which Jesus Christ Him-
self spoke of in Matthew 24:35?
• Have those precious and perfect words from
the pens of Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Mat-
thew, Paul and others been lost? Have they
been replaced by words not as pure, not as per-
fect, not as reliable?
• Are we to believe that a God who could over-
come man’s sinful nature in inspiring the Bible
could not overcome that same nature in pre-
serving it?
The AV Defense Booklet Page 3
Rule #2: Satan desires to be worshipped. He has the
ability to counterfeit God’s actions and definitely will
be involved actively in attempting to destroy God’s
word and/or our confidence in that word while seek-
ing to replace it with his own “version.”
• In order to be worshipped as God (Is. 14:14;
Matt. 4:8,9), Satan must imitate God (2 Cor.
4:4; 11:14); Satan is the great counterfeiter
o Satan has his own apostles; 2 Cor.
o Satan has his own prophets; 2 Pet. 2:1
o Satan has his own messiah (Antichrist);
Jn. 5:43
o Satan has his own trinity; Rev. 13
o Satan has his own bride; Rev. 17
o Satan has his own ‘bibles’; 2 Cor. 2:17;
• Satan has tried to corrupt and counterfeit
every work of God; it is naïve to believe that he
would leave the Bible alone
“The Bible is God’s word, and when I see it, I seem to
hear a voice saying, ‘I am the Book of God, man, read
me; I am God’s writing: open my leaves, for I was
penned by God’… I plead with you, I beg of you, re-
spect your Bibles, and search them out. Go home and
read your Bibles… O Book of books! And wast thou
written by my God? Then I will bow before thee, thou
Book of vast authority! For He has written this Book
Himself… let us love it, let us count it more precious
than fine gold!” Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Many Christians now believe that the popular, mod-
ern ‘bible’ translations are superior to the Authorized
Version (also known as the King James Version), be-
cause they are based on a supposedly superior Greek
text. This belief no doubt stems in large part from the
views expressed in the Prefaces of the modern
translations where sweeping allusions to “the best
Greek text” or “the best available Greek text” or “the
earliest and best manuscripts” may be found. In fact,
The AV Defense Booklet Page 4
the Greek text upon which most of the modern New
Testaments are based is actually a corrupt text de-
vised by the Gnostic philosophers of Alexandria,
Egypt, chief of whom was Origen (184-254 AD). Less
than 10% of extant (still in existence) Greek manu-
scripts of the New Testament conform to this corrupt
Historically, the true text emanates from Antioch of
Syria and has been preserved not only in the vast
majority of Greek manuscripts but also in various
faithful early translations, such as the Old Latin, the
Old Syriac, and Gothic. These translations, together
with the Syrian manuscripts, constitute the Bible of
the true believers during the Dark Ages and on into
the Reformation. Other valuable witnesses to the
Syrian text as the true text type are early Christian
writers, known as church ‘fathers.’
This text eventually emerges in the 16
century as an
edited Greek New Testament, later called the “Re-
ceived Text” or “Textus Receptus.” Following numer-
ous editions involving only minor modifications, the
Textus Receptus reappears in pure form in the 17
century as the Authorized Version of 1611; in Eng-
lish, the language of the end times. Subsequent edi-
tions of the AV1611 differ from the 1611 edition only
in matters of spelling, punctuation, and italics, where
obviously variation is possible without discrepancy.
Allowing for correction of typographical errors by the
later editions, the actual TEXT of any King James
Bible available today is the same as that of 1611.
Throughout history, the Syrian text type, especially
in its pure form as the AV1611, is invariably associ-
ated with great movements of the Spirit of God in re-
vival, missionary outreach, social and material prog-
ress and with the lives and ministries of great men
and women of God. The Alexandrian text type, by
contrast, forms the basis for the ‘bibles’ of the Roman
Catholic Church via the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. It
is thus always associated with spiritual deadness,
The AV Defense Booklet Page 5
social and moral degeneration, abominable idolatries
and savage persecutions against true Bible believers,
even to this day, as in Ulster, Latin America, Spain,
and the Philippines.
Sadly, it is this Alexandrian text type which the Body
of Christ in this last century has been deceived into
accepting as “the oldest and best.” This deception
stems from the conniving of Westcott and Hort, two
Cambridge theologians who masterminded the 1881
Revision Committee which produced the Revised
Version (RV), progenitor of most of the modern
translations. The success of the deception may be at-
tributed mainly to the attitudes of born-again, fun-
damental, conservative, evangelical Christians who
have shown more regard for naturalistic scholarship
than for the living words of the living God.
This booklet intends to show that the AV1611 King
James Bible is the pure word of God, given by inspi-
ration of God, infallible and finally authoritative.
There is no issue more important than that of FINAL
AUTHORITY in ALL matters of faith and practice. If
the Christian cannot put his hands on ONE book and
state unequivocally that “this is my final authority,”
he has NO authority which he can read, preach,
teach, believe, and memorize, other than his own
subjective opinion or “scholarship.”
A second reason for this booklet is to expose the mod-
ern translations for what they are – satanic counter-
feits which either omit or distort genuine Scriptures
or impugn them by means of equivocal marginal
notes. It may come as a surprise to some to discover
how the text of the popular New International Ver-
sion (NIV) repeatedly matches that of the Roman
Catholic Douay Rheims and Jerusalem ‘bibles’ and
the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Wit-
nesses. However, this is to be expected, given that the
basic Greek text of these four ‘bibles’ is largely that of
the Alexandrian manuscripts, which are in turn the
basis for Jerome’s Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 6
The “Bible issue” is one of FINAL AUTHORITY. It is
hoped that the sincere Bible believer will see that fi-
nal authority rests with the Book and not with the
‘preferences’ of born again, Bible rejecting fundamen-
A simple definition of a manuscript is anything that
has some portion of Scripture written on it. These
writings were made on two types of material – papy-
rus and parchment. The papyrus was a primitive
form of paper. The parchment type (vellum) was
animal skin and was more durable and more expen-
sive. Papyrus was used by common Christians and
common readers (Mk. 12:37b); the expensive vellum
was used by educated “professional scribes” (Mk.
The manuscripts do not necessarily consist exclu-
sively of books of the Bible. Manuscripts also include
portions of sermons with Scripture references in
them, portions of Scripture used in responsive read-
ings (lectionaries) among a congregation, early Scrip-
ture commentaries or other books which quote some
portion of Scripture. A manuscript that is a copy of a
particular book of the Bible may consist of the entire
book, a few chapters, just a few pages or possibly no
more than a scrap of material with only a few words
from a verse preserved on it (a fragment). The manu-
script era ended with the arrival of printing. Over
5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist
By comparison, there exist only 10 qual-
ity manuscripts of Caesar’s ‘Gallic War’
composed between 58-50 BC. Of Livy’s
‘History of Rome’ written between 59
BC-17 AD, only 35 of the original 142
books survive being represented by a
mere 20 copies. Only two manuscripts
remain of ‘The History of Tacitus’ com-
pleted around 100 AD.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 7
These numbers are even more impres-
sive when one considers the centuries of
persecution leveled against the Holy
Scriptures. It was not some glorious his-
tory of Rome which Emperor Diocletian
consigned to the flames but rather the
convicting record of sinful mankind.
The original autographs (from the pens of Moses,
David, Solomon, Paul, etc.) no longer exist. Every re-
cord of Scripture extant (in existence) is a COPY.
Sometimes manuscripts were sewn together in scrolls
or bound like a book (called a codex).
Vindication of the AV1611 as the pure word of God
rightly begins with a study of its roots. Examination
of the sources of the AV1611 shows how the Lord
preserved His pure word down through the centuries
in order to bring it forth during the Protestant Ref-
ormation in pure form.
Source of the AV1611 New Testament
In brief these are as follows:
• Greek manuscripts
o Uncial or manuscripts written in
o Cursives or manuscripts written in low-
ercase letters
o Lectionary
o Papyrus
• The ancient versions
o Old Latin
o Old Syriac
o Coptic
o Gothic
• Quotations from early church ‘fathers’
Collectors have designated these manuscripts as fol-
• Uncials by capitals, e.g. Aleph •, A, B, C, D,
Delta •, Theta •, Psi •, etc.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 8
• Cursives, lectionaries, and papyri have mainly
been catalogued numerically, e.g. Cursive 28,
Lectionary 547, Papyrus P66, etc.
• The Old Latin manuscripts are catalogued al-
phabetically, e.g. a, aur, d, f, etc. or alphanu-
merically, e.g. ff2, r l, etc.
New Testament Greek Manuscripts (mms.)
Most of these manuscripts contain only parts of the
New Testament.
Types of Manu-
Century When
Number of
Uncials, upper case 4
Cursives, lower
Lectionaries, re-
sponsive readings
Papyri, fragments 3
Total: 5,488
The majority of the Greek manuscripts conform to
the ‘Syrian’ or ‘Byzantine’ Text type, also known as
the ‘Traditional Text,’ ‘Received Text,’ and ‘Textus
Receptus.’ These manuscripts are in essential agree-
ment among themselves. This is essentially the text
of the AV1611. The remainder of the manuscripts are
of the so-called ‘Alexandrian’ Text type. Codex B, Va-
ticanus and Codex Aleph, Sinaiticus are the most in-
famous of the Alexandrian manuscripts. This small,
handful of manuscripts not only disagrees with the
majority but also disagree among themselves.
New Testament Ancient Versions
Version Century When
Number of Cop-
Old Latin 2
Old Syriac 2
Gothic of Ulfilas 4
Armenian; Oth-
ers, e.g. Coptic,
Georgian, etc.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 9
The natural outcome of early missionary activity was
to have the Scriptures translated into other lan-
guages. The significance attached to these transla-
tions when defending the AV1611 cannot be overes-
timated. Whenever the claims of conflicting readings
are evaluated in order to determine the prevailing
text (all things being equal), any version will, of ne-
cessity, outweigh any competing Greek copy. Such an
ancient version will always possess the higher reli-
ability by virtue of the unique conditions required for
an accurate translation. The presumption for this is
that a serious translation effort would not have been
attempted from merely a single, indiscriminate copy.
The natural course of events would have ensured
that a diligent search be undertaken to secure the
most reliable manuscripts.
A second reason for the value of ancient versions is in
their ability to exhibit a text with antedates the old-
est Greek manuscripts. Readings which are chal-
lenged in the AV1611 for their nonexistence in the
“two most ancient Greek authorities” (Codex B and
Codex Aleph) are frequently discovered in the Syrian
and Latin translations of the second century.
A complete Latin Bible, the Italic version, was circu-
lating in northern Italy by 157 AD and contained the
Johannine Comma. The Johannine Comma is 1 John
5:7,8 as it reads in the AV1611:
“For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness
in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and
the blood: and these three agree in one.”
The same passage in an NIV reads as follows:
“For there are three that testify: the
Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the
three are in agreement.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 10
The 19 words that are underlined in the AV1611 cita-
tion are either omitted from modern bibles, or dis-
puted in the margin. The omission is a direct attack
on vital Christian doctrines, including the Trinity,
and the strength of witness to the First Coming in
the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ. There was a trio of
witnesses in heaven, a trio on earth and both sets
agreed amongst themselves and with each other in
The old Latin (Italic) held its own as long as Latin
continued to be the language of the people. The criti-
cal version of Jerome (Latin Vulgate) never displaced
it, and only replaced it when the Latin ceased to be a
living language, and became the language of the
Quotations of Early Church ‘Fathers’
Irenaeus...................130-202 AD
Tertullian ................150-220 AD
Cyprian....................200-258 AD
Augustine................354-430 AD
Clement ...................150-215 AD
Origen......................182-254 AD
Both Clement and Origen were Gnostics. Origen re-
jected the Deity and High Priesthood of Christ, the
physical resurrection, and the Second Advent. He be-
lieved in infant baptism, universal salvation, and for-
giveness of sin through communion. He repeatedly
corrupted Bible manuscripts to conform to his beliefs.
Origen is also most closely associated with the LXX
or Septuagint.
Polycarp...................69-155 AD
Tatian ......................120-200 AD
John Chrysostom....345-407 AD
The AV Defense Booklet Page 11
Tatian’s Diatessaron or Harmony of the Gospels
bears witness to the AV1611 readings in Luke 2:33,
John 5:3b,4; 9:35 and elsewhere. John Chrysostom
was known as the “golden mouthed” preacher. These
men and others quote the New Testament more than
35,000 times. Most of the New Testament can be re-
constructed from their writings. Despite the heretical
beliefs of the Western and Alexandrian Fathers, the
Father’s quotations support the Syrian text ratio 3:2
against the Alexandrian text and in ration 3:1 in 30
important doctrinal passages. Polycarp was a per-
sonal disciple of the apostle John; he perpetuated his
mentor’s fiery denunciation for any who would distort
the Divine record: “Whosoever prevents the oracles of
the Lord… he is the first-born of Satan.”
Old Testament Sources
The following should be noted:
• The Old Testament was in a “settled condi-
tion” by the time of Christ
o Levitical priests were responsible for
keeping and preserving the Old Testa-
ment text; Deut. 31:24-26; 17:18
o When the priests neglected their duties
during the dark periods of Israel’s his-
tory, God’s word became unavailable for
a time (2 Chron. 15:3); God in His
providence protected His word in spite
of their failures (2 Chron. 34:14-19)
o Even during the Babylonian captivity
(which was caused in part by the
priests’ failure to teach the people –
Mic. 3:11,12), His word was available to
those who wanted it (Dan. 9:2)
o When the Jews returned to captivity to
rebuild Jerusalem, the Scriptures were
still pure and intact; Ezra 7:10,11; Neh.
o The Lord Jesus Christ made no distinc-
tion between copies and the original
autographs; God makes no distinction
The AV Defense Booklet Page 12
between the purity of the original and of
an accurate copy made of it, even a copy
made from another copy hundreds of
years after the original was written (see
2 Tim. 3:15,16)
• Hebrew Scriptures were preserved intact by
Masoretic scribes until the advent of printing,
1450 AD
o Many complicated safeguards against
scribal slips were devised, such as
counting the number of times each let-
ter of the alphabet occurs in each book
o These safeguards have renewed mean-
ing when considering Jesus’ words, “Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law”
(Matt. 5:18)
A jot (Hebrew “jod”) is the small-
est letter in the Hebrew alphabet
and can be the trickiest to write
properly; it is found above Psalm
119:73 in most Bibles
A tittle is the minute point or
stroke added to some letters of
the Hebrew alphabet to distin-
guish them from others which
they resemble (the difference be-
tween “daleth,” above Psalm
119:25, and “resh,” above
• Many scholars insist that an allegedly BC
Greek translation of the Old Testament, the
LXX or Septuagint, was used by the Lord Je-
sus and His apostles. The facts are:
o The only evidence for a BC LXX is the
spurious writing Letter of Aristeas
o All LXX manuscripts are extant from
200 AD or later
o The original LXX is the 5
column of
Origen’s 6 column parallel Old Testa-
ment Hexapala and contains the Apoc-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 13
o Brenton’s LXX Edition, Zondervan, uses
texts of Codex B Vaticanus (4
AD) and Codex A Alexandrinus (5
tury) and declares the Apocrypha to be
“a portion of the Bible of Christendom”
The LXX is highly regarded by Greek scholars. If
they can convince the Body of Christ that the LXX
was the Lord’s bible, they could easily and signifi-
cantly extend their influence over the Body. The book
The Mythological Septuagint by Dr. Peter S. Ruck-
man (1996), available from the Bible Baptist Book-
store, provides a detailed study of the dubious nature
of the LXX.
Two Sets of Greek Manuscripts
The New Testament Scripture was providentially
preserved through the priesthood of the believers (1
Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:5,6). The Christians of the late first
century, including the apostle John, through the
guidance of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:12; 1
Jn. 2:20,27), determined the true New Testament
canon and separated it from all the phony “epistles”
which were numerous at the time. After the New
Testament was completed (and even before), believ-
ers were at work faithfully making copies for their
own use and for the use of local churches. As the
copies they used wore out they would make even
more copies to replace them. In this manner the New
Testament became widespread and its copies numer-
ous. Needless to say, Satan was active in trying to
stop this flood of manuscripts, and he retaliated by
producing his own corruptions.
The two main centers of manuscript compilation
were Antioch, Syria and Alexandria, Egypt.
The Antiochan Manuscripts (or Byzantine)
• 95% of all Greek manuscripts belong to this
class (or family)
• They were faithfully preserved by the Bible
believers of Antioch of Syria
• They agree closely with each other
The AV Defense Booklet Page 14
• At least 90% support the AV1611 Text
• They are the basis for the Received Text or
Textus Receptus, the Greek Text underlying
the AV1611
• At least 80-90% of ALL manuscripts support
the AV1611 Text
The Alexandrian Manuscripts
• Only 5% of all Greek manuscripts belong to
this class
• They are either originally Antionchan manu-
scripts, corrupted by Gnostics of Alexandria,
especially Origen or corrupt copies of Antio-
chan manuscripts
• They disagree significantly from Antiochan
manuscripts and even with each other
• 80 heretical sects existed in the 4
century ag-
gravating the problem of manuscript corrup-
tion (even occurring at the time of Paul’s
writing – see 2 Cor. 2:17)
• They form the basis for all ‘bibles’ of the Ro-
man Catholic church
• They form the basis for most modern versions;
most of the differences from the AV1611 arise
from these manuscripts
Manuscript Offshoots
They stem from both sets of manuscripts:
• Some Antiochan type manuscripts are called
‘Caesarean.’ They were probably corrupted by
• Some Alexandrian type manuscripts are called
‘Western.’ They exhibit additions and subtrac-
tions – probably introduced in Rome
Revisionist History
• There is a movement among textual critics
and apostate scholars to reclassify the
FAMILY of manuscripts (Antiochan in par-
ticular) into “categories” in order to dilute the
weight of testimony that favors the Textus Re-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 15
Corrupting the word of God
With Herod’s precursory slaughter of the innocents
(Matt. 2:16), we are not surprised that the Scripture
was also assaulted at its inception. While the Scrip-
tures were being authored, plans were being laid to
destroy them. Paul testified to this early activity
when he wrote to the Corinthians (around 58 AD):
“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of
God” (2 Cor. 2:17). Then around 66 AD, Peter wrote,
while making reference to Paul’s writings: “in which
are some things hard to be understood, which they
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do
also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction”
(2 Pet. 3:16). The word “wrest” means to twist or per-
vert and this Peter confirmed was being done to the
Scriptures. While the Church was still in its infancy,
a heretical group was twisting God’s word into an en-
tirely different meaning.
During the last half of the first century, a belief sys-
tem called Gnosticism had begun to develop. This
was an attempt to produce a successful philosophy,
by mixing previously failed philosophies with the
spiritual discipline of the new religion of Christianity.
Among the assortment of views, Gnostics believed
that all physical matter was inherently evil – which,
naturally, left them confused as to how a good God
could have manifested Himself in evil flesh.
Void of God’s Spirit and quite on their own, the Gnos-
tics attempted to harmonize this error with what was
clearly opposing them in Scripture. Unable to accom-
plish this, they eventually settled on several theories
that contradicted the Scriptures outright. Some
taught that Christ had no body at all but that He was
a phantom. Other taught that Jesus and Christ were
two separate entities. The latter believed that Christ
was the power that descended upon the man Jesus at
His baptism, only to leave Him again just prior to His
The AV Defense Booklet Page 16
As Christians began to explore the Gnostic heresy,
the clear revelation of Jesus Christ given to them in
Scripture became so confused that the apostles them-
selves were forced to address the whole business in
writing. The apostle John branded all Gnostics “anti-
christ” and clearly saw them as forerunners of the
“Little children, it is the last time: and
as ye have heard that antichrist shall
come, even now are there many anti-
christs; whereby we know that it is the
last time. They went out from us, but
they were not of us… Beloved, believe
not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God: because many
false prophets are gone out into the
world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of
God: Every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of
God: And every spirit that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit
of antichrist, whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even now al-
ready is it in the world.” 1 Jn. 2:18,19;
Gnosticism was not only Satan’s attempt to shatter
the truth about Jesus Christ but it would also serve
as a support base upon which Satan, in time, could
effectively position the Antichrist. When the apostles
died, the Gnostics (along with other heretical fac-
tions) began making their most serious moves to de-
stroy the faith by subtracting from Scripture. The
worst corruptions to which the New Testament has
ever been subjected originated within a hundred
years after it was composed.
Eusebius cites the indignation of one Dionysius,
bishop of Corinth (c. 170 AD) for the heretics’ tam-
pering with his personal correspondence as well as
with the Scriptures:
The AV Defense Booklet Page 17
“As the brethren desired me to write
epistles, I wrote them, and these the
apostles of the devil have filled with
tares, exchanging some things, and
adding others, for whom there is a woe
reserved. It is not, therefore, matter of
wonder, if some have also attempted to
adulterate the sacred writings of the
Lord, since they have attempted the
same in other works that are not to be
compared with these.”
Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus denounces an Alexan-
drian Gnostic known as Marcion “the Heretic”:
“He (Marcion) mutilates the Gospel
which is according to Luke, removing
all that is written respecting the gen-
eration of the Lord, and setting aside a
great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in
which the Lord is recorded as most
clearly confessing that the Maker of this
universe is His Father… In like man-
ner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of
Paul, removing all that is said by the
apostle respecting that God who made
the world, to the effect that He is the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
also those passages from the propheti-
cal writings which the apostle quotes, in
order to teach us that they announced
beforehand the coming of the Lord.”
The exceptional number of heretics can be high-
lighted by the marked disagreement among their
numerous mutilations. Eusebius cites the second-
century Father, Gaius, as follows:
“The sacred Scriptures have been boldly
perverted by them… For this purpose
they fearlessly lay their hands upon the
holy Scriptures, saying that they have
corrected them. And that I do not say
against them without foundation, who-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 18
ever wishes may learn; for should any
one collect and compare their copies one
with another, he would find them
greatly at variance among themselves.”
Perhaps the man who did the most to blend the
Scriptures with Gnosticism was Adamantius Origen
(185-254 AD). While his genius was extraordinary,
his preference for Gnosticism, Platonism, Mysticism,
and the early heresies made him anything but a safe
guide or teacher. Though considered the greatest
theologian of the third century, he taught that the
damned and devils would be brought into voluntary
subjection to Christ after they were sufficiently pun-
ished. He believed that the stars and planets had
souls, and were, like men, on trial to learn perfection.
He taught that the soul existed from eternity before
it inhabited the body, and that after death, it mi-
grated to a higher or lower form of life according to
the deeds done in the body. He also taught that Jesus
and the Holy Spirit were created and did not eter-
nally exist as God. Origen had so surrendered him-
self to the furor of turning all Bible events into alle-
gories that he, himself, said, “The Scriptures are of
little use to those who understand them as they are
Origen deliberately changed the Scriptures to suit his
own confused philosophy and, in the process, made
many of the deletions we now find in modern transla-
tions of the Bible. When Constantine (280-337 AD)
became the Emperor of Rome, he endeavored to form
a union between Christianity and paganism. Just as
Origen combined Christianity with Gnosticism in his
philosophy, Constantine sought to unite Christianity
with pagan Rome. Therefore, Constantine commis-
sioned Eusebius, a great admirer of Origen, to pre-
pare fifty ‘bibles’ to be written “on fine parchment in
a legible manner and in a convenient portable form…
by professional scribes…” for use in churches. Euse-
bius, with the aid of a man named Pamphilus, based
The AV Defense Booklet Page 19
their ‘bibles’ upon Origen’s corrupted Scriptures pre-
served in the library at Caesarea.
By the end of the fourth century, the barbarians from
the north who later founded the kingdoms of modern
Europe, such as England, France, Germany, Italy
and other countries, were overrunning the Roman
Empire. They cared nothing for the political monu-
ments of the empire’s greatness, for these they lev-
eled to the dust. But they were overawed by the ex-
ternal pomp and ritual of the Roman Church. They
had been trained from childhood to render full and
immediate submission to their pagan gods. This
same attitude of mind they bore toward the Papacy,
as one by one they substituted the saints, the mar-
tyrs, and the images of Rome for their former forest
gods. But there was danger that greater light might
tear them away from Rome. If, in Europe, these peo-
ples of the north were to be held in submission to
such doctrines as papal supremacy, transubstantia-
tion, purgatory, celibacy of the priesthood, vigils,
worship of relics, etc., the Papacy must offer, as a re-
cord of revelation, a Bible in Latin which would be as
influenced by Origen as the Bible in Greek adopted
by Constantine. Therefore, the Pope turned to the
Catholic scholar Jerome to bring forth a new version
in Latin.
Jerome attempted a major revision of the Old Latin
(Italic) Bible, the second century translation revered
as the preserved word of God for Latin-speaking be-
lievers. Jerome was devotedly committed to the tex-
tual criticism of Origen. Jerome repaired to the fa-
mous library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Cae-
sarea, where the voluminous manuscripts of Origen
had been preserved. Jerome in his early years had
been brought up with an enmity to the Greek text
used by the common people (the Received Text). The
hostility of Jerome to the Received Text made him
necessary to the Papacy. The Papacy in the Latin
world opposed the authority of the Received Text. Did
it not see already this hated Byzantine Text, long ago
The AV Defense Booklet Page 20
translated into Latin (the Italic), read, preached
from, and circulated by the Christians in northern
Italy who refused to bow beneath its rule? For this
reason it sought help from the great reputation which
Jerome enjoyed as a scholar. Although endorsed and
supported by the power of the Papacy, Jerome’s Latin
Vulgate did not gain immediate acceptance every-
where. Yet steadily through the years, the Catholic
Church uniformly rejected the Old Latin and exalted
Jerome’s Vulgate. The Latin Bible of Jerome held
authoritative sway for one thousand years over the
masses, except for those people branded heretics by
For the next ten centuries, God allowed rebellious
man to experience the blessings of Satan’s millennial
kingdom. With true believers and their Bibles forced
underground, this period of history became known at
the Dark Ages. Throughout this era of Roman bond-
age, Europe’s laity wallowed in filth, ignorance,
famine, despair, pestilence, and barbarism. Thanks
to a “timely revision” of the “archaic” Old Latin, in-
fant mortality rates swelled to such unparalleled lev-
els that children were not even given names until
their seventh birthday.
Such deplorable conditions continued to exist in di-
rect proportion to the clergy’s suppression of Scrip-
ture. Laymen were expressly forbidden to read the
Bible by the Council of Toulouse in 1229.
In 1481 AD a very old Greek manuscript (Codex Va-
ticanus) was discovered lying dormant on a shelf of
the Vatican library. In 1844, another old Greek
manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) was discovered in a
wastebasket in St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot
of Mt. Sinai. Both of these manuscripts date back to
the time Eusebius produced his fifty ‘bibles’ for
Constantine. In the late 1800’s, the intellectual com-
munity was startled by the discovery of these two
fourth-century Greek manuscripts. They received
immediate preeminence as a result of their being
The AV Defense Booklet Page 21
several hundred years closer to the original auto-
graphs than the oldest manuscripts available to the
King James translators.
In 1853 two Cambridge professors, Brooke Foss
Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, began pre-
paring a Greek text based primarily on the Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus manuscripts. This Greek text was put
into the hands of liberal theologians who made great
allusions to it as “the best Greek text” or “the best
available Greek text” or “the earliest and best manu-
scripts,” which is now repeated by fundamentalist
who use the NIV, NASV, etc.
First the Gnostics and Origen blended the Scriptures
with the pagan’s view of Christ. Then Constantine,
with the aid of these ‘scriptures,’ blended Christianity
with paganism. Currently, with these same ‘scrip-
tures,’ numerous church leaders and theologians are
blending Protestantism and Catholicism. At the end
(in the Tribulation), ‘Christianity’ will be blended
with every other religion. Finally, a pagan world will
be united and lead by their ‘Christ,’ the Antichrist.
“Older” but not “Better”
Although Alexandrian manuscripts are OLDER than
Antiochan, it will be shown later that they are NOT
BETTER. There are several reasons why extant Al-
exandrian manuscripts have survived longer than
their Antiochan counterparts:
• The Egyptian climate was more conducive to
manuscript preservation than the Syrian
• Persecution of Antiochan Christians was more
protracted and intense
o The pagan emperor Diocletian perse-
cuted the churches of Asia Minor; any
manuscripts that were found in
churches were publicly burned
o The number of manuscript witnesses
are weaker prior to the 5
century but
once the persecution was lifted the text
rebounded dramatically
The AV Defense Booklet Page 22
• The Antiochan manuscript material was an
early form of paper; these manuscripts were
therefore more fragile than the Alexandrian,
which consisted of best quality vellum or an-
telope skin
• The Antiochan manuscripts were used more
than Alexandrian
• The Antiochan manuscripts were sometimes
destroyed after recopying
o This was to protect the text from cor-
ruption by mistakes in further copying
from a heavily worn manuscript
• Some scholars theorize that the Antiochan
manuscripts stem from the so called Lucian
Recension, an alleged 4
century standardiza-
tion of the Antiochan text type where the Al-
exandrian text was “edited” by the Syrian
church to produce the Antiochan text. It is
then further alleged that this standard text
then supplanted the older Alexandrian type,
supposedly closer to the original manuscripts –
There is no historical evidence to support these
allegations, which were utterly refuted by
Dean Burgon.
The analogy of textual transmission as a flowing
stream is described by Grady, citing the work of
Pickering and Scrivener to refute the notion that the
oldest texts are automatically the best:
“The ‘oldest is best’ advocate will often
resort to the analogy of a flowing
stream. This line of reasoning assumes
that the closer one gets to the stream’s
source, the purer the water must be.
Pickering throws in the proverbial
monkey wrench:
‘This is normally true, no doubt, but
what if a sewer pipe empties into the
stream a few yards below the spring?
Then the process is reversed – as the
polluted water is exposed to the purify-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 23
ing action of the sun and ground, THE
BECOMES (unless it passes more
pipes). That is what happened to the
stream of the New Testament transmis-
sion. Very near to the source, by 100 AD
Grady continues “the available manu-
script evidence supports this conclusion
by exhibiting both an excessive corrup-
tion in the earliest manuscripts and an
exceptional coherence in the latter.”
Brake wrote, “Although there are variants within the
Textus Receptus these are extremely few and often
trivial, which demonstrates the highly stable charac-
ter of the manuscript tradition.” Hodges continues:
“No one has yet explained how a long,
slow process spread out over many cen-
turies as well as over a wide geographi-
cal area, and involving a multitude of
copyists, who often know nothing of the
state of the text outside of their own
monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve
this widespread uniformity out of the
diversity presented by the earlier forms
of text. Even an official edition of the
New Testament would have great diffi-
culty achieving this result as the history
of Jerome’s Vulgate demonstrates.”
Here Hodges notes “the more than 8,000 Vulgate
manuscripts which are extant today exhibit the
greatest amount of cross contamination of textual
types.” He continues,
“But an unguided process achieving
relative stability and uniformity in the
diversified textual, historical, and cul-
tural circumstances in which the New
The AV Defense Booklet Page 24
Testament was copied, imposes impos-
sible strains on our imagination.
Herein lies the greatest weakness of
contemporary textual criticism. Deny-
ing to the Majority text any claim to
represent the actual form of the original
text, it is nevertheless unable to explain
its rise, its comparative uniformity, and
its dominance in any satisfactory man-
ner. All these factors can be rationally
accounted for, however, if the Majority
text represents simply the continuous
transmission of the original text from
the very first. All minority text forms
are, on this view, merely divergent off-
shoots of the broad stream of transmis-
sion whose source is the autographs
Hodges concludes his evaluation of the Majority text,
“The manuscript tradition of an ancient
book will, under any but the most ex-
ceptional circumstances, multiply in a
reasonably regular fashion with the re-
sult that the copies nearest the auto-
graph will normally have the largest
number of descendants. The further
removed from the history of transmis-
sion a text becomes from its source the
less time it has to leave behind a large
family of offspring. Hence in a large
tradition where a pronounced unity is
observed between eighty percent of the
evidence, a very strong presumption is
raised that this numerical preponder-
ance is due to direct derivation from the
very oldest sources. In the absence of
any convincing contrary explanation,
this presumption is raised to a very
high level of probability indeed. Thus
the Majority text, upon which the King
The AV Defense Booklet Page 25
James Version is based, has in reality
the strongest claim possible to be re-
garded as an authentic representation
of the original text. This claim is quite
independent of any shifting consensus
of scholarly judgment about its readings
and is based on the objective reality of
its dominance in the transmissional his-
tory of the New Testament text. This
dominance has not and – we venture to
suggest – cannot be otherwise ex-
There was once a poster with the caption: “Bibles
that are falling apart are usually read by people who
aren’t.” Surely it is attested by common experience
that any book which receives frequent and heavy use
deteriorates in a few years. Hills explains,
“Burgon regarded the good state of
preservation of B and Aleph in spite of
their exceptional age as a proof not of
their goodness but of their badness. If
they had been good manuscripts, they
would have been read to pieces long
ago. ‘We suspect that these two manu-
scripts are indebted for their preserva-
tion, solely to their ascertained evil
character; which has occasioned that
the one eventually found its way, four
centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the
Vatican Library; while the other, after
exercising the ingenuity of several gen-
erations of critical Correctors, eventu-
ally (viz. in AD 1844) got deposited in
the wastepaper basket of the Convent
at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and
Aleph been copies of average purity,
they must long since have shared the
inevitable fate of books which are freely
used and highly prized; namely, they
would have fallen into decadence and
disappeared from sight. Thus the fact
The AV Defense Booklet Page 26
that B and Aleph are so old is a point
against them, not something in their
favor. It shows that the Church rejected
them and did not read them.”
It should be remembered that a GOOD LATE COPY
is to be preferred over a BAD EARLY COPY. Bur-
gon’s comments that B and Aleph survived because
they are poor manuscripts matches Gail Riplinger’s
observation concerning the survival of the papyri.
She ends her chapter on a chilling note:
“The errors in these ancient manu-
scripts are important to note, because
liberal scholars hope to recast the bible
in a mold closer to these manuscripts.
Comfort hopes: ‘It is my hope that fu-
ture editions of the Greek text will in-
corporate even more of the readings
found in the early papyri…’
The NIV translators say, Preface vii,
‘…the work of translation is never
wholly finished.’ The New Age boasts of
their plans for a new bible from the ‘ar-
chaeological archives.’ The stage is set
for the Antichrist to pull back the veil
and launch HIS FINAL VERSION of
the story.”
Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were the three larg-
est and most influential cities in the Roman Empire
during the time of Christ. Yet to the Christian their
influence concerning Bible corruption and preserva-
tion is of much greater importance. The Scriptures
themselves testify to the location of the center for
manuscript compilation and distribution which the
Lord ordained.
Alexandria, Egypt
The AV Defense Booklet Page 27
• The second largest city of the Roman Empire,
was the world capital for science, education,
and scholarship
o The famous library of Alexandria con-
tained half a million or more books on
o Vigorously pursued were the studies of
mathematics, astronomy, poetry, and
o Alexandria was a Greek city by found-
ing and thought but because of the city’s
open-mindedness, it became a city
known for its cosmopolitan collection of
the religions and philosophies of the
known world
• This home town of Philo and Origen domi-
nated the theology of surrounding Egypt and
o Philo, a Jewish theologian, combined
Judaism with Platonism to establish
the allegorical approach to the Old Tes-
tament; he taught that the hidden,
deeper meaning of a passage of Scrip-
ture was far superior to the plain, lit-
eral meaning
o Philo was more of a Greek philosopher
than theologian; he desired to use the
Old Testament to support his Greek
o A theological school was established in
Alexandria in the second century after
Christ by Pantaenus and was continued
by Clement of Alexandria; the school
elevated Greek philosophy and empha-
sized the allegorical interpretation of
Scripture – the school was later brought
into great prominence by a man named
• Origen demonstrated religious fervor and de-
votion but not a spiritual relationship with
The AV Defense Booklet Page 28
o Origen is certainly unworthy of his
reputation as a great Bible scholar be-
cause of his false doctrine and heretical
teaching, e.g. God the Father is the
originating cause of God the Son, the
Holy Spirit was subordinate to and cre-
ated by God the Son, purgatory, bap-
tismal regeneration, transubstantia-
tion, etc.
o Origen developed a formal method of in-
terpreting the New Testament Scrip-
tures by applying Philo’s allegorical in-
Many were his errors, but one is
especially baneful; stemming
from a perverted interpretation
of Matthew 19:12, the overzeal-
ous Origen castrated himself as a
means of avoiding future tempta-
tion; he could have saved himself
a lot of pain by reading
Deuteronomy 23:1
Concerning Origen’s preference
for allegorical interpretation, it
was the humorous observation of
Edward Gibbons that, “It seems
unfortunate that, in this instance
only, he should have adopted the
literal sense.”
o He is famous for his labors to produce a
“correct” text of the Greek Bible; how
much of his false doctrine affected his
Biblical criticism?
One of the most horrendous of
Origen’s hatchet jobs concerns
John 1:18 where he calls into
question the eternality of Christ:
“No one hath seen God at any
GOD, who is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 29
This heresy that Jesus Christ is
a “god” begotten somewhere in
eternity is found in Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus, and in such mod-
ern perversions as the NASV and
o Origen thought the Scriptures were
subject to him instead of him being
subject to the Scriptures, this allowed
him to eliminate the power of God from
his mind and make whatever changes
he deemed necessary to the text
Today’s textual critics treat the
Bible in the same manner; schol-
ars believe God inspired words
but preserved thoughts, therefore
they are free to change words to
their liking
o The Greek text which was being formed
during the time of Origen came to be
known as the Alexandrian Text; this
text is represented mainly by two Greek
manuscripts – Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
• The Alexandrian Text is still the basis of mod-
ern Bible corruptions; as is the practice of
modern scholarship, Alexandria subtracted
from the word of God
• The Bible is negative in its references to Alex-
andria and Egypt
o Egypt is called “the house of bondage”
(Ex. 20:2) and “the iron furnace” (Deut.
o God called His Son out of Egypt; Matt.
o God called Jacob out of Egypt; Gen. 49
o God called Israel out of Egypt; Ex. 15
o God called Joseph’s bones out of Egypt;
Ex. 13:19
o God never wanted His people to return
to Egypt; Deut. 17:16
The AV Defense Booklet Page 30
o The ships that took Paul from Caesarea
to Rome for trial were from Alexandria;
Acts 27:6; 28:11
o Alexandria’s opposition to true doctrine
is demonstrated by the Alexandrian
Jews disputing with Stephen in the
temple; Acts 6:9
o A man from Alexandria named Apollos
was eloquent in speech and very knowl-
edgeable in the Scriptures but was mis-
taken on baptism; his high degree of
knowledge confirms the emphasis on
scholarship in his home town, however
his lack of sound doctrine points to the
characteristic problems of Alexandria;
Acts 18:24-26
Rome, Italy
• Capital of the Roman Empire and the empire’s
largest city
• Rome emphasized form, legalism and tradition
• From Italy, Rome dominated the theology and
spiritual life of southern Europe and northern
o Cyprian (195-258 AD) taught the doc-
trine of the primacy of the Roman
church over the other churches; he fur-
ther claimed that anyone outside the
Roman church was lost and therefore
made way for the Roman Catholic mo-
nopoly of salvation
o Jerome (340-420 AD) strongly promoted
self-denial, celibacy of the clergy, and
the worship of Mary; around 382 AD
Pope Damasus commissioned him to re-
translate the New Testament into Latin
– he used the work of Origen to help in
his translation which was later ac-
cepted as the official Roman Catholic
o Augustine (354-430 AD) was bishop of
Hippo of North Africa; although there is
The AV Defense Booklet Page 31
not space to discuss his doctrine, he es-
tablished what came to be known as the
western type of interpretation which
teaches that the Scripture must con-
form to the interpretation of the Church
(Matt. 15:9)
• Through tradition, Rome became the center of
Biblical addition – the Apocrypha is one ex-
ample of how Rome added to the Scripture
o Rome took Alexandria’s diluted bible
(which subtracted from the word) and
added to it according to its traditions
o The unchanging practice of Roman Ca-
tholicism has been to place tradition
above the word of God; this practice was
made dogma at the Council of Trent in
• Rome was known as a place which persecuted
Christians; 2 Tim. 1:16,17
o Rome will be the center of the one world
religion in the Tribulation, the mother
of harlots, drunken with the blood of the
saints; Rev. 17
o Rome is identified by historians as the
city of seven hills which is mentioned in
Revelation 17:9
Antioch, Syria
• The third largest city of the Roman Empire;
located in the East, Antioch dominated the re-
gions of Syria and Asia Minor, the lands of
early apostolic work
• Antioch was known for her luxury and cosmo-
politan flavor, but also for a literal interpreta-
tion of Scripture
o According to this approach the Bible
means what it says and says what it
o Rome took the ecclesiastical approach of
tradition (the traditions of the church
and church theologians determine the
meaning of the passage); Alexandria
The AV Defense Booklet Page 32
took the allegorical approach of the
scholars (Scriptures were to be spiritu-
alized by scholars to conform it to their
philosophical beliefs); Antioch took the
literal approach (there is no need to
change or manipulate Scripture because
the word of God is already perfect)
• Most of the New Testament books were either
written or received in this part of the world
• The Bible is positive in its references to
Antioch of Syria
o In Genesis 24, Abraham (type of God
the Father) commissioned his servant
Eliezer (type of God the Holy Spirit) to
go back to his kindred to find a bride
(type of Christ’s Gentile bride) for his
son Isaac (type of God the Son); where
does Isaac get his Gentile bride –from
“Laban the SYRIAN” (Gen. 25:20)
o One of the first deacons was from
Antioch; Acts 6:5
o The church in Antioch was a preaching
church; Acts 11:20,23
o The church in Antioch was a witnessing
church; Acts 11:21,24
o The church in Antioch was a teaching
church; Acts 11:26; 13:1
o The church in Antioch was a serving
church – the word “Christian” origi-
nated in Antioch; Acts 11:26
o The church in Antioch was a giving
church; Acts 11:29,30
o The church in Antioch was a praying
church; Acts 13:2,3
o The church in Antioch was a missionary
church; Acts 13:3,4
• The Syrian Text was the underlying basis for
the King James Version of 1611
Which city would GOD choose to compile a New Tes-
tament (1 Cor. 14:33)? Which city would YOU
The AV Defense Booklet Page 33
Two Lines of Bibles
The figure below shows how two main streams of Bi-
bles have been derived from the two major manu-
script groupings.
The Antiochan Stream
• This stream stems from the Antiochan manu-
• This stream appears with very little change in
many Protestant Bibles and culminates in the
• The Waldenses (or Vaudois) were Bible be-
lieving Christians of Northern Italy; their
Italic Bible dates from the 2
century AD and
essentially matches the Text of the AV1611
• Wycliffe appears to have used both the Old
Latin and the Vulgate for his Bible (1382);
Wycliffe’s Bible did NOT contain the Apocry-
The Alexandrian Stream
• This stream stems from the Alexandrian
The AV Defense Booklet Page 34
• Constantine (331 AD) ordered the historian
Eusebius to produce 50 ‘bibles’ from Origen’s
mutilated manuscripts
o Codex B Vaticanus and Codex Aleph
Sinaiticus are probably of this group;
Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5
• Around 380 AD, Jerome translated the corrupt
Alexandrian text into Latin
o The Latin Vulgate of Jerome became
the official ‘bible’ of the Roman Catholic
Church for 1,000 years
o The Roman Catholic Church intended
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to replace the
Old Latin (Italic) used by the common
people throughout Europe
• The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus
but contains MANY Alexandrian readings and
is therefore a hybrid; Jerry Falwell was the
leading promoter of this version
• Westcott and Hort were the two Cambridge
academics who masterminded the Revision
Committee which produced the Revised Ver-
sion in 1881 based upon the Alexandrian
• Rome tried to flood England with the Jesuit
Rheims ‘bible’ of 1582 but the English people
rejected it; She then resorted to the Armada of
1588 in order to catholicize the people of Eng-
land against their will
Codex B and Codex Aleph
The two most prominent Alexandrian manuscripts
are Codex B Vaticanus and Codex • Aleph Sinaiticus.
A summary of their history and contents reveals
their corrupt nature.
Codex B Vaticanus
• It was found in excellent condition in the Vati-
can library in 1481 and never influenced the
Protestant Reformation
The AV Defense Booklet Page 35
• It omits Genesis 1:1-46:28, parts of 1 Samuel,
1 Kings, Nehemiah, Psalm 105:26-137:6,
Matthew 16:2,3, John 7:53-8:12, the Pauline
Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, Revela-
o It seems suspicious indeed that a
manuscript possessed by the Roman
Catholic Church omits the portion of
the book of Hebrews which exposes the
“mass” as useless (Heb. 10:10-12)
• It leaves blank columns for Mark 16:9-20 thus
providing additional testimony for the exis-
tence of the passage
• It includes the Apocrypha as part of the Old
Testament Text; Protestant Bibles do NOT
• Although attractive physically (written on
vellum), it is found to be of very poor literary
quality; Dr. Martin declares, “B exhibits nu-
merous places where the scribe has written
the same word or phrase twice in succession”
Codex • Aleph Sinaiticus
• It was found in a trash pile in St. Catherine’s
Monastery near Mt. Sinai in 1844 by Tischen-
• It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-
7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, Exodus, Joshua,
1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Judges, Hosea,
Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Mark 16:9-20,
John 7:53-8:12
• It adds Shepherd of Hermes and Epistle of
Barnabus to the New Testament Text
• Dr. Martin states, “Aleph shows the works of
ten different correctors down through the cen-
• Aleph (along with Vaticanus) owe part of their
preservation to the fact that they were written
on vellum (antelope skin), whereas most other
documents of that period were written on pa-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 36
Codices Aleph and B disagree with each other over
3,000 times in the Gospels alone. Nevertheless, they
have been designated as “the most reliable early
manuscripts” and “the earliest and most reliable
manuscripts” by the NIV New Testament.
“The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and
Aleph is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.
These are two of the least trustworthy documents in
existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort’s position
that ‘A Text formed by taking Codex B as the sole
authority would be incomparably nearer the truth
than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or
single document’ we venture to assert that it would be
on the contrary, by far the foulest Text that had ever
seen the light: worse, that is to say, even than the Text
of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great
deal.” Dean Burgon
Two Lines of Church History
The Bible believing line
• The Bible of Antioch goes to the ends of the
earth via the Waldenses, Lollards, Albigenses,
Picards, Lyonists, Petrobrusians, Henricians,
Berengarians, Bogomiles, Paulicians, Cathari,
and Montanists, and other Bible believing
groups, including English Methodists and
• This Bible was translated into Indian and
Chinese dialects long before 1890
• Every major language had access to the Re-
ceived Text in their own language before 1901
• All revivals, reformation, soul winning, and in-
terest in Bible study follows this Text
• The acknowledged great men of God, Bunyan,
Wesley, Carey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon and
other follow this Text, for all or most of their
public ministries
• Material prosperity, political stability, hu-
manitarian effort, progress in art, literature,
music, science and technology and the emer-
gence of a stable, productive, law abiding,
The AV Defense Booklet Page 37
morally upright, educated “middle class” follow
the dissemination of this Text
The Bible Rejecting Line
• The ‘bible’ of Alexandria was used by Jerome
to translate the so-called ‘Vulgate’
• This text predominated in Europe throughout
the Dark Ages
• This was or is the text of the Popes, the Jesu-
its, the Inquisition, and by association catholic
dictators such as Charlemagne, Bloody Mary,
Philip II, the Hapsburgs, Mussolini, Hitler and
catholic terrorist groups such as the IRA and
those like them such as the ANC
• This is the text that produced Italy, Latin and
South America, Spain, Portugal, South Ire-
land, the Philippines and – indirectly – Russia,
both Czarist and Marxist; the history of these
nations is one of widespread poverty, political
instability, corruption and repression, terrorist
movements, lack of true missionary zeal, lack
of true Christian conduct and – until recently
– absence of religious freedom
• No Scriptural work for God ever stems from
this text but every major war since 400 AD
• This text was resurrected in 1881 by Westcott
and Hort in place of the Reformation Textus
Receptus as the ‘Revised Version’; the latter
part of the 19
century marks the beginning of
Britain’s decline as a world power
• This pro-Roman Catholic text (used by modern
versions) is used to portray the AV1611 as
weak, unreliable, inaccurate, outdated, and
generally untrustworthy – who is the author of
that ideology?
The accompanying figure below shows two lines of
church history, according to the two lines of Bibles
descending from the two major manuscript divisions.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 38
The AV Defense Booklet Page 39
The Work of the Missionaries
In the silent watches of the night, along the lonely
paths of Asia Minor where robbers and wild beasts
lurked, might have been seen the noble missionaries
carrying manuscripts, and verifying documents from
the churches of Judea to encourage their struggling
brethren under the iron heel of the Papacy.
The Vaudois (or Waldenses) of Northern Italy took a
solemn oath to maintain the purity of the Scriptures
(1561) for the sake of future generations:
“We promise to maintain the Bible,
whole and without admixture, accord-
ing to the usage of the true Apostolic
Church, persevering in this holy relig-
ion, though it be at the peril of our life,
in order that we may transmit it to our
children, intact and pure, as we received
it from our fathers.”
These early and devoted believers maintained a
faithful witness to the Gospel of Christ throughout
Medieval times and laid a sure foundation for the
Reformation which came about in the 16
through the ministry of Martin Luther.
There was no kingdom of Southern and Central
Europe to which these missionaries did not find their
way, and where they did not leave traces of their visit
in the disciples whom they made… their track being
marked with the edifices for worship and the stakes
of martyrdom that arose around their steps.
The fog was rolling away from the plains and hills of
Europe. The pure Bible which long had sustained the
faith of the Vaudois, was soon to be adopted by others
so mighty that they would shake Europe from the
Alps to the North Sea. The light had begun spreading
unobserved, and the Reformation was on the point of
being anticipated. The demon possessed Innocent III
was the first to decry the streaks of day on the crest
of the Alps. Horror-stricken, he started up, and began
The AV Defense Booklet Page 40
to thunder for his pandemonium against a faith
which… was threatening to dissolve the power of
The retaliation of Rome was characteristically sav-
age. John Milton gave testimony to her brutality in
his poem On the Late Massacre at Piedmont (1655):
“Avenge, O Lord, Thy slaughtered
saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains
Even them who kept Thy truth so pure of
When all our fathers worship stocks and
An eyewitness account of the massacre had this to
“My hand trembles so that I scarce can
hold the pen, and my tears mingle in
torrents with my ink, while I write the
deeds of these children of darkness –
blacker even than the Prince of Darkness
himself.” Jean Leger, Waldensian pastor
For more details of “Alexandria” replacing “Antioch”
see Fox’s Book of Martyrs.
The role of the editor was the immense undertaking
of compiling the sometimes variant testimony of
thousands of witnesses in order to reassemble the
true New Testament text. The task of the editor was
to assemble all of the extant witnesses possible then
carefully compare their readings and establish which
ones possessed a reliable text. The editor could ex-
amine other witnesses to the text aside from the
Greek. The versions (Old Latin, Syrian), lectionaries,
writings of the church fathers, etc. would help shed
light on the true text.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 41
It is through a slow, painstaking process that an edi-
tor reviews the extant witnesses and then establishes
what the original text said. He has to go through
piles of manuscript fragments, plus unroll scrolls,
and examine folio books – all without chapter and
verse references! He then reduces his findings to one
single text. When finished, the editor compiles his
entire New Testament text and publishes it for the
world to use in translating Scripture.
With the dawning of the Reformation, God used a
number of distinguished scholars to produce editions
of the New Testament in Greek, from the faithfully
preserved manuscripts of Antioch. These Greek edi-
tions were to culminate in the publication of the
AV1611 a century later.
Erasmus of Rotterdam
• Refugees from the fall of Constantinople (1453
AD) brought thousands of Greek manuscripts
to Europe
• Desiderius Erasmus was the intellectual giant
of Europe, an outstanding scholar who trav-
eled widely in pursuit of his researches; al-
though a Catholic, he publicly denounced the
Roman Catholic Church in many books; he
classified Greek manuscripts and studied the
church ‘fathers’ extensively
o When his parents died from the plague,
he was in the care of an uncle; the uncle
did not want him and promptly sent
him off to a monastery to be rid of him
o Destined against his will to be a Roman
Catholic priest, Erasmus chose to be-
come an Augustinian on the sole attrib-
ute that they were known to have the
finest libraries available in Europe
o His behavior was somewhat bizarre by
Augustinian standards; he refused to
keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat
The AV Defense Booklet Page 42
on Fridays, and (though ordained) chose
never to function as a priest
• Between 1516 and 1535, Erasmus published
five editions of the Greek New Testament Re-
ceived Text
o His first two editions did not contain
the Johannine Comma (1 Jn. 5:7), al-
though the reading had been found in
non-Greek texts dating back as early as
150 AD
o The third (1522) includes the Johannine
Comma – Erasmus included it in the
third edition after two Greek manu-
scripts were found and presented to him
that contained it
o He mainly used five Antiochan manu-
scripts to compile his New Testaments
but had access to many more
o He rejected the Vulgate of Jerome and
knew of almost all the important vari-
ant readings in the Greek New Testa-
ment manuscripts
o In 1534, Martin Luther used Erasmus’
second edition to bestow upon his be-
loved Germany her first complete Bible
inspiring the Reformation adage,
“Erasmus laid the egg and Luther
hatched it.”
“I would have the weakest woman read the Gospels
and the Epistles of St. Paul… I would have those
words translated into all languages, so that not only
Scots and Irishmen, but Turks and Saracens might
read them. I long for the plowboy to sing them to him-
self as he follows the plow, the weaver to hum them to
the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with
them the dullness of his journey… Other studies we
may regret having undertaken, but happy is the man
upon whom death comes when he is engaged in these.
These sacred words give you the very image of Christ
speaking, healing, dying, rising again, and make Him
The AV Defense Booklet Page 43
so present that were He before your very eyes you
would not more truly see Him.” Erasmus
Robert Stephanus
• Stephanus was a French printer and scholar
• He produced two editions of the Hebrew Old
Testament; the first nominally Christian pub-
lication in Europe of the Hebrew Old Testa-
ment appeared in 122 AD and was mainly the
work of Cardinal Ximenes
• He produced four editions of the Greek New
Testament Received Text; The Interlinear
Greek English New Testament first published
by George Ricker Berry (1897) is the 3
of Stephanus (1550).
• Stephanus was forced by Roman Catholics to
leave Paris in 1550 because of his work on the
New Testament; he settled in Geneva and be-
came a Protestant
• With Beza, he was largely responsible for the
verse divisions of the AV1611 and all subse-
quent versions
Theodore Beza
• Beza was Calvin’s disciple and successor at
• He produce 10 editions of the Greek New Tes-
tament Received Text
• The AV1611 Text is based largely on his 4
Edition (1588-1589)
• His editions upheld AV1611 readings for
Matthew 6:13, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 2:14, John
7:53-8:11, 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7
which are omitted, altered or disputed by all
modern versions
• Beza “astonished the world… with the manu-
scripts he unearthed”
The Elzevir Brothers
• They were Dutch printers of Leiden, in the
The AV Defense Booklet Page 44
• They produced two editions of Greek New Tes-
tament Received Text, in 1624 and 1633; a fur-
ther five editions were published between 1633
and 1678.
• The phrase “Textus Receptus” first appears in
the preface to the 1633 edition: “You have
therefore the text now received by all (textum
ab omnibus receptum) in which we give noth-
ing changed or corrupt.”
As the Greek New Testaments were being published
on the Continent, God was at work preparing the
English Bible, before and during the Reformation.
These were the Englishmen whom He used for this
John Wycliffe, 1324-1384
• John Wycliffe has been called “The Morning
Star of the Reformation,” “the father of the
English Reformation” and the founder of Eng-
lish Non-conformity
• He was also called “The flower of Oxford”; he
was converted about the time of the Black
Death (1348) to become the “Evangelical Doc-
• Of the Pope, he said “Anti-Christ, the proud,
worldly priest of Rome and the most cursed of
clippers and purse-kervers (bag snatchers)”
• He compiled the first complete Bible in Eng-
lish (1382); Wycliffe’s Bible was later revised
by Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey, in
order to match the Vulgate of Jerome more
• In 1415, his body was exhumed and burnt and
the ashes cast into the River Swift
Of the Bible Wycliffe said:
“As the doctrines of our faith are in the
Scriptures, believers should have the
Scriptures in a language familiar to the
people… It is impossible for any part of
The AV Defense Booklet Page 45
the Holy Scriptures to be wrong. In Holy
Scripture is all the truth; one part of
Scripture explains another.”
William Tyndale, 1494-1536
• He was a student of Erasmus, at Cambridge;
he was probably converted there under the
ministry of Latimer, Bilney, and Cranmer
• He was “so skilled in seven languages, He-
brew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English,
French, that whatever he spoke you would
suppose it his native tongue”
• He is said to have “stamped his genius upon
the English thought and English language”
• He produced two editions of the New Testa-
ment, in 1526 and 1534; this was the first
English New Testament translated from the
Greek Received Text
• He was betrayed, strangled and burnt at the
stake at Vilvorde on October 6, 1536; his last
words were, “Lord, open the King of England’s
• The AV1611 New Testament is 80% that of
To the Abbots of Winchcombe and Tewkesbury he
had said:
“I defy the pope and all his laws. If God
spare my life, ere many years I will
cause a boy that driveth the plough to
know more of the Scriptures than thou
John Rogers, 1500-1555
• He was educated at Cambridge and converted
by the Scriptures and the witness of Tyndale
• He was responsible for the printing of the Mat-
thew’s Bible, in which Tyndale’s work is re-
produced as far as possible, supplemented
where necessary by that of Miles Coverdale,
taken largely from Luther’s German
The AV Defense Booklet Page 46
• Matthew’s Bible is the English foundation of
the Great Bible 1539, the Geneva Bible 1560,
the Bishop’s Bible 1568 and the Authorized
King James Bible of 1611 (AV1611)
• John Rogers was burnt at the stake, February
4, 1555, the first to suffer thus during the
short and tyrannical reign of Mary Tudor
God’s Englishmen
The men that produced the early English Bibles had
these things in common:
• They were genuine scholars who approached
the Scriptures believing them to be the true
words of God
• They had a God-given desire to impart the
pure words of God to ordinary people, NOT
keep it locked up in the original languages
• They rejected the Roman Catholic church and
suffered as a result; it follows that Bible be-
lievers are anti-Catholic and Bible reading
countries are NOT catholic countries
“Where the word of a king is, there is power” Ecc.
To complete the work of Tyndale and the other pio-
neers of the 16
centuries, the Lord raised up “a band
of men, whose hearts God had touched” (1 Sam.
10:26) “valiant for the truth upon the earth” (Jer. 9:3)
King James I, The British Solomon
• James was the first man to unite the feuding
tribes of Scotland into one nation
• James united Scotland and England, laying
the groundwork for the British Empire, birth-
place of the greatest missionary movement of
the modern age
• James founded the Province of Ulster, by far
the most Bible believing, prosperous and
Christian sector of Ireland
The AV Defense Booklet Page 47
• James was the first earthly monarch on record
to encourage the propagation of God’s word in
the language of the people
• James believed in salvation by grace and in
the word of God, never wavering from his per-
sonal adherence to Protestant belief
• James broke the back of witchcraft in Scotland
• James was an accomplished scholar; he knew
Latin, Greek, and French perfectly, Italian
and Spanish adequately and wrote poetry,
theology and a tract against the use of tobacco
• He has been called “the most hated character
in English history for Greek and Hebrew
scholars in the Protestant church, especially
the modern fundamentalist branch”
• James gave Royal Assent to the Puritan pro-
posal for a new Bible translation (1604)
• Catholic conspirators tried to assassinate King
James I in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 in or-
der to replace him with a Catholic monarch
• James put out an anti-Catholic version of the
Bible with a note in the Preface that the pope
was the “man of sin”
Scholars of 1611
“There were many chosen that were greater in other
men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the
truth rather than their own praise.” Miles Smith, The
Translators to the Reader
Advocates of the modern versions often assume that
they are the product of scholarship far superior to
that of the translators of the AV1611, but this as-
sumption is not supported by the facts. The learned
men who labored on our English Bible were men of
exceptional ability, and although they differed among
themselves on many matters of church order, ad-
ministration and doctrine, they approached the task
with a reverent regard for the Divine inspiration,
authority, and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. To
them it was “God’s sacred truth” and demanded the
exercise of their utmost care and fidelity in its trans-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 48
lation. These were some of the 47 men chosen to pro-
duce the 1611 Bible:
Dr. John Reynolds
• He was the Regius Professor of Divinity at Ox-
ford (1585)
• Reynolds was the leading Puritan who peti-
tioned the king for a new translation of the Bi-
• Noted as a distinguished Greek and Hebrew
scholar, “his memory and reading were near to
a miracle”
• Having become a fellow at Corpus Christi
College at age 17, Dr. Reynolds was known as
“a living library, a third university.”
Dr. Miles Smith
• He was Bishop of Gloucester (1612) and writer
of the preface to the AV1611, The Translators
to the Reader
• “He had Hebrew at his fingers’ end; and he
was so conversant with Chaldee, Syriac, and
Arabic, that he made them as familiar to him
as his native tongue.”
• It was said of Miles Smith that he was “a very
walking library”
Dr. Laurence Chaderton
• He was Fellow of Christ’s College and a noted
• Distinguished as a Latin, Greek, and Hebrew
scholar, he was still actively preaching at age
o To dedicate oneself to purely academic
objectives tend to deaden one’s spiritual
perceptions; this is why most scholars
lose sight of the spiritual side of the Bi-
ble debate – it is truly difficult to main-
tain a robust mind and a fervent heart
o Chaderton’s intense scholarship and
dynamic preaching ability are not to be
The AV Defense Booklet Page 49
taken lightly; many men have one or
the other, only a handful possess both
o Even more amazing is that the transla-
tion of the AV1611 included so many es-
teemed scholars with dynamic preach-
ing ability
• His sermons had won about 40 of the clergy to
Dr. John Boys
• Fellow of St. John’s, Cambridge, to which he
was admitted at age 14
• He was able to read Hebrew at the age of 5
• As a distinguished Greek scholar, he some-
times devoted himself to his studies of Greek
in the university library from 4 am to 8 pm
• Of the man destined to become the commit-
tee’s final editor, McClure said, “He was so
familiar with the Greek Testament that he
could, at any time, turn to any word that it
Dr. Lancelot Andrewes
• He was bishop of Wincester and Chaplain to
Queen Elizabeth I
• This man of intellect was also a fervent
preacher; he was the means of converting
many papists by his preaching and disputa-
• “His knowledge in Latin, Greek, Hebrew,
Chaldee, Syriac and Arabian… was so ad-
vanced that he may be ranked as one of the
rarest linguists in Christendom…”
• Many hours he spent each day in private and
family devotions; he was one in whom was
proved the truth of Luther’s saying, that “to
have prayed well, is to have studied well”
• “…in his last illness he spent all his time in
prayer and when both voice and hands failed
in their office, his countenance showed that he
stilled prayed and praised God in his heart,
The AV Defense Booklet Page 50
until it pleased God to receive his blessed soul
to Himself”
Dr. John Laifield
• Chaplain to the Earl of Cumberland and rector
of St. Clement Danes
• Of him it is said, “That being skilled in archi-
tecture, his judgment was much relied on for
the fabric of the tabernacle and temple”
o The seating of Dr. Laifield seems to in-
dicate an amazing insight on the behalf
of the translators which drove them to
be certain that they examined their as-
signments from all angles
Dr. William Bedwell
• Rector of St. Ethelburgh’s, Bishopsgate and
later vicar of Tottenham High Cross
• He was famous as “an eminent Oriental
scholar”; he published an edition of the epistles
of John in Arabic, with a Latin version
• He commenced a Persian dictionary which is
among Archbishop Laid’s manuscripts, still
preserved in the Bodelian Library at Oxford
• In 1615 he published his book, ‘A Discovery of
the Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran’
• He had a fondness for mathematical studies
and invented a ruler for geometrical purposes
Dr. Henry Saville
• Fellow of Merton, Warden of Merton, Provost
of Eton; he was knighted in 1604
• Dr. Saville was known for his Greek and
mathematical learning; he was so well known
for his education, skill with languages, and
knowledge of the word, that he became Greek
and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth
during the reign of her father Henry VIII
• He is chiefly known by being the first to edit
the complete works of John Chrysostom, the
most famous of the Greek Fathers
The AV Defense Booklet Page 51
Dr. Richard Kilbye
• Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1610)
and an excellent Hebrew scholar, he was also
expert in Greek
• He once heard a young preacher give three
reasons why a particular word in the AV1611
should have been translated differently; he ex-
plained to the young preacher how he and oth-
ers had considered all three reasons “and
found thirteen more considerable reasons why
it was translated as now printed”
Not only were the translators of 1611 exceptional
scholars but also Bible believers. With the bloody
Reformation still afresh in their mind’s eye, the
translators of the Authorized Version were fully cog-
nizant of the inestimable value of the word of God.
Materials Used for the AV1611
The following list shows that the translators of 1611
had more than sufficient material for their vital task
• All preceding printed English and foreign lan-
guage Bibles; these included the Jesuit
Rheims Version
• The printed Greek texts of Erasmus, Stepha-
nus, and Beza
o Out of the 252 passages in which these
sources differ sufficiently to affect the
English rendering, the AV1611 agrees
with Beza against Stephanus 113 times,
with Stephanus against Beza 59 times,
and 80 times with Erasmus or the
Complutensian or the Latin against
Beza and Stephanus
• The Complutensian Polyglot with the Masore-
tic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament; the
translators also had the Antwerp Polyglot of
• Several important uncial manuscripts and a
great mass of cursive manuscripts
• The Old Latin (Italic)
• The Gallic and Celtic versions
The AV Defense Booklet Page 52
• Jerome’s Vulgate
• Variant readings from Codices A and B
The “older” renderings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
were very much before the scholars of the AV1611 as
REPRESENTED in the Latin Vulgate and the Douay
The Translation Process
When these men began to translate they were di-
vided into six committees, each one working on a sec-
tion of the Bible. Every member of each committee
worked individually, and after he finished with his
section, he brought it to his committee for group ex-
amination. They would then all go over it together,
and once they agreed on the reading, they would send
it to another committee for their examination. If
there was any special problem with a word or pas-
sage, they would send a letter to every learned man
in England for assistance. This process took over
seven years to complete. In 1611, after a final exami-
nation by a small group of translators, the text was
completed and sent to the printers.
The Original Title Page for the AV1611
An exact reprint of the AV1611 Authorized Version is
available from the Oxford University Press. Inspec-
tion of the title page tends to dispel some of the
myths about the AV1611, which have often been
propagated by apostate fundamentalists
• The title is THE HOLY BIBLE
• The title is NOT ‘The Authorized Version’; its
“authorization” came from its Author
• The title is NOT ‘The King James Version,’ al-
though this term is commonly used even by
Bible believers; the term was first applied long
after the publication of the AV1611
• The title does NOT include the Apocrypha as
part of the Scriptures
The AV Defense Booklet Page 53
“We Anglo-Saxons have a better Bible than the French
or the Germans or the Italians or the Spanish. Our
English translation is even better than the original
Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain
this: I have no theory to account for the so-called in-
spiration of the Bible, but I am confident that the
Authorized Version was inspired.” William Lyons
Phelps, Lampson Professor of English Literature at
Yale University (1923)
Why is the AV1611 the perfect word of God? The rea-
sons are given below.
The Absence of Copyright
• The AV1611 in all its editions carries no copy-
o The study notes, cross references, maps,
etc. may be copyrighted but not the Bi-
ble text itself
o The “crown copyright” that King James
granted to printer Robert Barker was so
the AV1611 could be printed; a modern
copyright expresses authorship and
• All modern versions are copyrighted by their
respective publishing companies
• By taking out a copyright on a so-called “Bi-
ble,” the copyright owner admits that this is
not God’s word but THEIR OWN WORDS
“Copyright – Exclusive right given by law for terms of
years to author, designer, etc., or his assignee to print,
publish, or sell, copies of his original work.” The Con-
cise Oxford Dictionary, 5
Edition (1964)
The Time of its Publication
• It was published before the advent of French
atheism, German rationalism and English de-
ism; God could work through men whose
minds had not been infected by modern phi-
losophy and “the oppositions of science falsely
so called” (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 54
• Questionable texts and words in the Bible do
not become questionable until AFTER 1611;
the first “textual critic” of the AV1611 in the
modern sense is Richard Simon, a Roman
Catholic priest
• The translators lived at a time when the reign
of Bloody Mary was still in living memory
• They made no attempt to honor the manmade
traditions of Rome; compare Matthew 1:25,
23:14, Acts 8:37, Colossians 1:14, James 5:16,
2 Peter 1:20 in the AV1611 with the equiva-
lent readings in the New International Version
(NIV) or Jerusalem Bible (JB)
• The English language in the 16
and 17
turies was perfectly suited to expressing the
thoughts and concepts of Hebrew and Greek;
English words were “simple, broad and ge-
neric”; that is to say, words were capable of
containing in themselves not only their central
thoughts, but also all the different shades of
meaning which were attached to that central
thought – examples include conversation,
bowel, frame, instant, discover, savour, meat,
corn, and church
• The AV1611 was translated during the Phila-
delphia period (Rev. 3:7-13) of church history
o The messages to the seven churches of
Revelation 2 and 3 go beyond the par-
ticular churches of the first century and
present a prophetic look at the course of
church history from the apostolic age
(represented by the church of Ephesus)
to the Rapture of the Body of Christ
(represented by the church of the
o Philadelphia represents the period of
church history from around 1500 to
1900 AD
o This is the greatest period in church
history; this is the only church of the
seven churches that is not told to repent
The AV Defense Booklet Page 55
o This church period saw the rise of Mar-
tin Luther and the Protestant Reforma-
tion as well as the Great Awakening in
America centuries later
o This church period has “an open door”
because it kept the word of God (Rev.
3:8); this is the church period that pub-
lishes the AV1611 – the next church pe-
riod of Laodicea (around 1900 to the
Rapture) has a shut door (Rev. 3:20)
o This church period brings with it the
Industrial Revolution, the Agricultural
Revolution, the Scientific Revolution,
and every major progressive step of
man since the world began to that time
including great works of art and music
For those who ignorantly think
that “Bibles” have nothing to do
with the social, economic, and
political conditions of countries
(as well as the weather and the
crops), let it be known that na-
tions are run and controlled by
the Author of the Book (Dan.
4:17,35; Jer. 49-51); their crops,
weather, and financial matters
are controlled by God (Ps.
135,136,147; Is. 40-42)
o This church period saw the great reviv-
als under John Wesley, George White-
field, Jonathan Edwards, Peter Cart-
wright, Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody,
Charles Finney, Sam Jones, etc.
o This church period witnessed the great
missionary works of Hudson Taylor,
Adoniram Judson, William Carey,
David Livingston and thousands of oth-
ers of like precious faith
o Great institutions such as Harvard,
Yale, and Princeton were founded to
educate men and women in the doc-
trines of the Christian faith; orphan-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 56
ages like that of George Muller in Bris-
tol, England were established to train
children for God
o The publication of the Revised Version
(1881) was the sunset of revival and the
dismal dawn of the Laodicean church
The Honesty of its Preservation
• No translation from one language into another
can be verbatim, or word-for-word
• The AV1611 translators inserted words in
italics which had no direct equivalents in the
Hebrew or Greek texts but which were neces-
sary for clarity, good English style and gram-
matical sense
• The translators also rendered the second part
of 1 John 2:23 in italics because it was absent
from the Received Text, although attested by
other ancient witnesses
• The practice of inserting italics shows that the
AV1611 is an honest translation (Rom.
12:17b); most modern translators do not ex-
hibit this degree of honesty
• Note the importance of the word “is” in italics
in 2 Timothy 3:16
o Usually when fundamentalists are
stumped in a passage that contains an
italicized word they advocate removing
it, e.g. the word “unknown” in 1 Cor.
o To remove one italicized word and leave
another in is to claim Divine inspiration
in knowing which words should go and
which words should stay
• By omitting the italicized words (“the brother
of”) in 2 Samuel 21:19 we have the Bible say-
ing that Elhanan killed Goliath; to remove the
italicized words would cause this verse to con-
tradict with 1 Samuel 17:50 which states that
David killed Goliath
The AV Defense Booklet Page 57
• There is evidence of God’s hand concerning the
italics in the English text itself
o In Romans 10:20 Paul quotes Isaiah
65:1; the words “them that” are in ital-
ics in Isaiah (they are not in the He-
brew), however the words are NOT in
italics in Romans 10:20 because the
Greek words for them exist in the text –
Paul quotes the Hebrew as if the words
are there but they are not in any He-
brew text; they are only found in the
AV1611 text of Isaiah
o For other instances, compare Ps. 16:8
with Acts 2:25 (“he is”); Ps. 94:11 with 1
Cor. 3:20 (“are”); Deut. 25:4 with 1 Cor.
9:9 (“the corn”)
• Also of note, while quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 in
Matthew 4:4 Jesus quotes the entire verse in-
cluding the King James italicized word –
again, God must want the italicized words in
His Book
o Deut. 8:3 – “…man doth not live by
bread only, but by every word that pro-
ceedeth out of the mouth of the
o Matt. 4:4 – “…Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
The Instruments of its Preservation
• See section entitled “The Company of 1611” on
pp. 23-24
• Not only were the translators of great ability
and character but many of them knew what it
mean to suffer for Christ; they endured perse-
cution, hardships, and mistreatment by the
hands of the enemies of the Gospel
• In 1611, there were none of the “modern con-
veniences” such as radio, television, internet,
to steal the translators time not to mention
corrupt their minds; they were able to medi-
tate and study upon the word of God without
The AV Defense Booklet Page 58
many of the distractions believers endure to-
• Though they were from varied backgrounds
and differed on church order and administra-
tion and some other matters, each one had the
highest regard for the Scriptures and believed
them to be the very words of the living God
The Fruits of its Preservation
“Ye shall know them by their fruits… Even so every
good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.” Matt. 7:16,17
God has used the AV1611 not only to bring the lost to
Christ but also to civilize and educate entire nations
which were ignorant of Him and His ways. No Bible,
in any other language, or at any other time (including
the ‘original autographs’) can approach the results
God has obtained through the AV1611.
• When the AV1611 was published, England
was a second-rate power in the world; it was
not until after she took a stand against “pop-
ery” and for the truth, that God began to ex-
pand her territory – after the Authorized Ver-
sion was published, the great British Empire
began to form
o At its height (during the 1800’s), the
British Empire controlled one-fourth of
the earth’s land area – wherever saved
Englishmen went they took their Bibles
with them
o As long as Britain honored and believed
the AV1611 God honored her but when
she began to abandon it and replace it
God began to abandon her; after the
Revised Version was published, Brit-
ain’s empire began to crumble
• The AV1611 has been the Bible behind every
major revival in the English speaking world
since its publication
The AV Defense Booklet Page 59
For the skeptic who would challenge this analogy by
insisting that the modern ‘bible’ movement has born
similar amount of fruit, we respond with the words of
Job 38:3 – “Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I
will demand of thee, and answer thou me.”
• Where are the preachers of Whitefield’s stat-
ure who could address 100,000 people without
a microphone and remain audible for a phe-
nomenal distance?
• When was the last time you saw refined New
Englanders responding to a sermon by
screaming, “Is there no way of escape?” while
clutching pews and pillars for fear that the
ground itself would open beneath them? Such
was the case when Jonathan Edwards
preached his famous sermon, ‘Sinners in the
Hands of an Angry God’
• How do today’s scholars compare to men like
John Wesley who found time to write 233
books and pamphlets while riding over
250,000 miles on horseback?
• Where are the prison ministry workers who
would lock themselves in overnight with death
row inmates and literally sing them into
Heaven at the gallows like Charles Wesley
• Can anyone name two modern songwriters
who have composed nearly 17,000 quality
songs between them as did Charles Wesley
and Fanny Crosby?
• With hundreds of “Christian” organizations in
operation today, where is the parallel to a
sickly William Booth planting his Salvation
Army in 58 countries while preaching the
Gospel in over 34 languages?
• Where is the modern equivalent to the staying
power of the preachers of yesteryear? Of all
ministerial graduates of Yale from 1702-1775,
79% served one parish there entire life.
• How many missionaries have you heard of like
William Carey who taught himself six lan-
guages and stayed on the field for 44 years
The AV Defense Booklet Page 60
without a furlough to translate the Scriptures
into 44 languages and dialects?
• Do you know a prayer warrior like George
Mueller who without a single stewardship
program prayed in $7.5 million dollars to feed
2,000 orphans daily, not to mention distribut-
ing 111 million Gospel tracts and 300,000 Bi-
bles while supporting 163 missionaries as
well? He also read the Bible through over 200
times and went on a 19 year, 200,000 mile
evangelistic circuit after he was 70 years old.
• Would you prefer to discuss the subject of Holy
Spirit power? In Charles Finney’s day, sea
captains testified that conviction broke out
among passengers as their ships neared ports
where revival was in progress.
• When did you last see figures like 50,000 souls
out of a total New England population of only
300,000 coming to Christ during the Great
Awakening of 1740-1770?
• D.L. Moody preached to 100,000,000 people
over a century ago with 1,000,000 professing
Christ as Saviour.
• Have you ever observed a worldwide move-
ment of God’s power resulting in 2.5 million
legitimate conversions without the instrumen-
tality of a big-name evangelist? The Fulton
Street Prayer Revival (1857-1862) was started
on September 23
by layman Jeremiah C.
Lanphier as a weekly prayer meeting with six
in attendance. Less than six months later over
10,000 Christians were praying daily! The re-
sultant harvest saw peak periods reaching
50,000 souls a week!
Is the symbolism inherent in the name King James,
which marvelously anticipated that Bible’s ensuing
track record for souls, just coincidence? According to
Bible numerology, the number nine is God’s number
for fruit bearing
• In the ninth chapter of Genesis we read, “And
you, be ye fruitful and multiply…” (vs. 7)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 61
• Abraham was 99 years old when he fathered
Isaac; here we have a double 9 to emphasize
the miracle of such advanced fruit bearing
o The human gestation period is nine
o The chosen seed is passed along to Ja-
cob who fathers the twelve tribes of Is-
rael; the name Jacob is the Hebrew
equivalent of James
• The birth of Israel’s throne is in the ninth
chapter of the ninth book (1 Samuel) of the Old
Testament from which Jesus, the King of
kings, will rule one day
• The conversion of the most productive soul
winner of all time (Paul) is recorded in Acts
chapter 9
• The ninth book (Galatians) of the New Testa-
ment lists the nine fruit of the spirit (5:22,23)
• If you count the number of letters in the words
King James, Holy Bible, Scripture, or word of
God you will find the answer will equal the to-
tal of the individual numbers in 1611 added
together (1 + 6 + 1 + 1 = 9)
o It’s probably also just a coincidence that
the pastor of the first local assembly is
also named James
Today’s modern translations haven’t been able to
spark a revival in a Christian school, let alone be ex-
pected to close a bar. In fact since the arrival of our
modern English translations, beginning with the
American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, America
has seen:
• God and prayer kicked out of our public school
• Abortion on demand legalized
• Homosexuality accepted nationally as an “al-
ternative lifestyle”
• In home pornography via TV, VCR, and inter-
• Child kidnapping and pornography running
• Dope has become an epidemic
The AV Defense Booklet Page 62
• Satanism on the rise
If the above is considered a “revival” then let’s turn
back to the AV1611 to stop it.
For a British evaluation of the results of rejecting the
AV1611 for the Revised Version and the corrupt fruit
of other modern versions (Lk. 6:43-45) see the book
Britain in Sin (1998) available from Christian Voice.
The Preeminent Place it gives to the Lord Je-
sus Christ
• The AV1611 is unique in this respect.
• All modern translations detract from the Per-
son and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
o It is true Christ’s Deity can be found in
the new translations in some places but
in many of the most clear and impor-
tant passages it is absent
o Satan knows he cannot yet destroy
every reference to Christ’s Deity in
these versions because they would then
no longer resemble (imitate) a true Bi-
• The NIV and NKJV omit the definite articles
from Isaiah 9:6
• The NIV omits “Lord,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “God”
or similar terms 162 times in the New Testa-
ment and slanders the Lord further in Daniel
3:25, Micah 5:2, Matthew 20:20, Luke 2:33,
23:42, John 1:3, 3:13,16, 9:35, Acts 3:13,
4:27,30, Romans 14:10, 1 Timothy 3:16,
Hebrews 4:8, and 1 John 5:7
• The NKJV margin upholds many of the cor-
ruptions of the NIV text for these verses and
retains in its text the NIV readings in
Matthew 20:20, John 1:3, Acts 3:13, 4:27,30,
7:45, Hebrews 4:8

The Pride and Inconsistency of Its Critics
There is a monumental difference between the sin-
cere seeker of truth asking a question and desiring
The AV Defense Booklet Page 63
an honest answer and the prideful critic who asks the
question, not to get an answer but rather to display
his contempt for the subject at question. Pilate once
stood before Truth incarnate and said, “What is
truth?” Pilate did not wait for the answer from Jesus.
In fact, he did not even ask it as a question, he made
a statement (see Jn. 18:38). This narrow minded
bigotism is common among the “educated class” and
is symptomatic of one-sidedness in investigation and
a definite failure to consider all points of view. Many
of the questions listed below are good questions when
asked sincerely. But the critic uses the questions to
accuse the AV1611 rather than learn the truth about
the preservation of inerrant Scripture.
Where was the Bible before 1611?
• In the available Antiochan manuscripts; they
have been available in some form, either in
copies of Koine Greek, the Old Latin, the Syr-
ian Peshetto, etc.
o God has preserved His word in numer-
ous languages and translations over the
centuries, e.g. Latin, Syriac, etc. but
this is probably only the hem of the
o The fact that we may not know where
God’s preserved word was in 950 AD
has no bearing on us today; neither does
our ignorance negate the promises of
God to preserve His word
• The Roman Catholic Church persecuted true
believers for centuries during the Dark Ages,
but small remnants of believers scattered
throughout Europe and western Asia re-
mained true to God and continued to preserve
His word in various languages; during this pe-
riod of darkness untold gallons of blood was
shed to preserve the purity of Scripture – does
your Bible mean that much to you? Are we to
abandon the Bible of the martyrs to embrace
the Alexandrian readings of their murderers?
The AV Defense Booklet Page 64
o This is similar to God keeping a pure
copy of His word hidden during the
years of Israel’s rebellion and idolatry
so the good king Josiah could find it and
bring about reforms in the land (2 Ki.
o God kept His word “hidden” from the
Mother of Harlots (the Roman Catholic
Church) until it was time to bring about
a Reformation!
Was Luther’s German translation or earlier English
translations (Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, etc.) the inerrant
word of God?
• The Lord can use a Bible that is not perfectly
preserved if it is honestly translated to the
best of the translator’s ability, e.g. Luther’s
translation; God’s truth is still powerful even
when presented in clay vessels
• A version does not have to be perfect in order
to be usable by the Lord BUT God did do
something very special with the Authorized
Version; the AV1611 is His perfect, inerrant
word, purified and completely pure
• The English speaking people did have ‘the
word of God’ prior to 1611 but they did not
have God’s infallible and preserved word to the
English speaking people (AV1611); actually
they had MORE of the word of God than peo-
ple reading modern translations today because
the early English Bibles were based largely on
the Textus Receptus
o Before the word of God as a whole was
completed, it was still the word of God
in part
• The translations available prior to 1611 gave
more light than nothing at all; we should not
despise the day of small things – God can use
Scripture as I quote it, even if I do not quote it
The AV Defense Booklet Page 65
If the AV1611 is the only “perfect” English Bible,
where is the “perfect” Bible to be found in other lan-
guages? Isn’t God obligated to furnish such a transla-
tion in every other language of the world?
• The supposition that there must be a perfect
translation in every language is erroneous and
inconsistent with God’s proven practice; it is
defining God in man’s own image and requir-
ing Him to live up to our standard of fairness
o If God were required to be fair by giving
everyone the same thing, He would be
required to send a tsunami or other dis-
aster on every nation of the world, just
to be fair
o The promise of preservation (Ps. 12:6,7)
was to all generations (Ps. 100:5), not to
every language – a generation refers to
a time period, not any particular nation
or ethnic group
• There were many languages on earth at the
time that God chose to inspire His Old Testa-
ment in Hebrew – this was the language of His
chosen people, the Jews
o God did not feel obligated to supply His
words in Egyptian, Syrian, Ethiopian or
any other language at the time the Old
Testament was written
o The Old Testament was given exclu-
sively to the Jews
• There were many languages on earth when
God chose to inspire His New Testament in
Koine Greek – this was the predominant lan-
guage of the world at that time
o God did not feel obligated to supply His
words in any other language of the day,
not even Hebrew
o This time, instead of giving His word to
a nation, such as Israel, He simply gave
it to Christians who were told to wit-
ness of Jesus Christ to the world (Acts
The AV Defense Booklet Page 66
• Before combining His two Testaments, God
would need to choose which language He
would make common to the world – English is
the common language of the end times
o There had been good Latin and Syrian
translations of the New Testament, but
these languages never became common
to the entire world
o God chose an island of purity, a nation
not shackled by Romanism – England; a
nation with a language so descriptive
that it could best deliver His message
o Today, even nations antagonistic to the
West must teach English to their busi-
ness and military personnel – English is
the language of the world
• The AV1611 has the WORDS of God and is the
perfect, inerrant, preserved WORD of God for
English speaking people; God will honor His
word in other languages based upon transla-
tions from the Received Text – these foreign
language Bibles based upon the Received Text
would be considered the ‘word of God’ for that
particular foreign language
o If there is doubt upon a particular pas-
sage in a foreign language Bible then
the AV1611 will shed light to the ap-
propriate meaning of that passage; if
there is a variant passage in a foreign
language Bible then the AV1611 will
give the true meaning of the passage
o A missionary, preacher, etc. should
never cast doubt in the minds of the na-
tive people on the authority of their for-
eign language Bible – the focus should
be reaching them with the gospel of Je-
sus Christ using an honest translation
in their own tongue from the Received
The AV1611 was written in Old English which needs
updating to modern English
The AV Defense Booklet Page 67
• Many people are under the FALSE impression
that the King James Bible was written in Old
o The original King James Bible was set
in Gothic type face; this FONT is some-
times referred to as Old English
o The use of “thee’s” and “thou’s” was in
use in common speech in 1611 and is
not at all associated with “Old” or even
“Middle” English
o Many critics like to assert that the
English of the AV1611 is “Old” English
in order to mislead
• Old English was spoken from 449 AD to
around 1100 AD
o When the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in-
vaded England (449 AD) they brought
with them their own individual lan-
o Old English looked nothing like the
English of today and could not be read,
spoken, or understood by someone who
speaks Modern English
o The sentence “The man saw the
woman” in Old English would be “Se
guma geseah pa cwen”
• Middle English was predominant from around
1100 AD to 1450 AD
o It began to develop in 1066 AD when
the Norman’s invaded England
o Middle English would not be readily
understood by those who speak Modern
o The sentence “One placed knotted cords
about their heads” in Middle English
would be, “Me dide cnotted stenges abu-
ton here haeued”
• Modern English came into existence around
1450 AD and was basically solidified by the
end of the 16
century; around 1500 AD, major
changes in vocal pronunciation, inflection, and
The AV Defense Booklet Page 68
spelling simplified and helped solidify the lan-
o The English used in the AV1611 was
not only the common language of that
day, but it was also the English lan-
guage in its purest form
o The English language has degenerated
from what it was in 1611 to what it is
The AV1611 contains many archaic words which
need to be updated
• If a critic of the AV1611 complains to you
about the archaic Elizabethan English, etc.,
just ask him to read 1 John 5:12 – “He that
hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not
the Son of God hath not life.”
o The eternal destiny of all mankind will
one day be determined by these 19, one
syllable words. How much plainer can
you get?
• Many supposedly archaic words are little
changed from their modern equivalents and
may be found in a Concise Oxford Dictionary;
moreover, alteration of a word in the AV1611
Text may destroy its full range of meaning
• Critics overlook the fact that the AV1611 con-
tains or has produced many ‘modernisms’; ex-
amples include addict, artillery, God save the
king, powers that be, head in the clouds,
housekeeping, scapegoat, love sick, a little bird
told me, labour of love, darling, at wit’s end,
shambles, advertise, publish, the course of na-
ture, and many others
• Historian Green comments, “As a mere liter-
ary monument, the English version of the Bi-
ble remains the noblest example of the English
tongue. Its perpetual use made it from the in-
stant of its appearance the standard of our
language. But for the moment its literary ef-
fect was less than its social. The power of the
book over the mass of Englishmen showed it-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 69
self in a thousand superficial ways, and in
none more conspicuously than in the influence
it exerted on ordinary speech… the mass of
picturesque allusion and illustration which we
borrow from a thousand books, our fathers
were forced to borrow from one.”
• Many writers and poets have taken inspira-
tion from the AV1611, e.g. Wordsworth, Keats,
Longfellow, Melville, Whitman, Dickinson,
Twain, Hemingway, etc.
• Much of the “archaic words” criticism is di-
rected against the personal pronouns “thee”
and “thou” etc.; however, these supposedly ar-
chaic forms enable the reader to distinguish
between the second person singular (“thee”)
and the second person plural (“you”), a distinc-
tion lost in the English of today – the retention
of “thee,” “thou,” “ye,” etc. therefore make the
o Compare Luke 22:31,32 in an AV1611
with an NIV or NKJV
AV1611 “And the Lord said,
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan
hath desired to have you, that he
may sift you as wheat: But I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not: and when thou art con-
verted strengthen thy brethren.”
NIV “Simon, Simon, Satan has
asked to sift you
as wheat. But I
have prayed for you, Simon, that
your faith may not fail. And
when you have turned back,
strengthen your brothers.” [a]
Luke 22:31 The Greek is plural
o The NIV has to insert a marginal note
to enlighten the reader
• One should be guided by the Bible itself in the
treatment of “archaic” words; see 1 Samuel
9:9,11 where the “archaic” word “seer” is ex-
plained (vs. 9) but retained in the Text (vs. 11)

The AV Defense Booklet Page 70
The AV1611 is hard to understand and therefore we
need modern versions
• Understanding the Bible depends a lot on the
attitude with which you approach it; if you
drag yourself up to the Bible, groaning and
moaning about how hard the Bible is to under-
stand, don’t expect God to show you anything
• Rebuking the whining, Living Bible advocates
of his day, the fourth century giant Chrysos-
tom retorted, “But still you will say, ‘I cannot
understand it!’ What marvel? How shouldest
thou understand it, if thou will not read nor
look upon it?”
• If the AV1611 is “hard to understand” why did
its Text cause the English people to become a
Bible loving people, “the people of the Book” in
the words of historian Green?
• Gail Riplinger cites the results of a survey car-
ried out by the Flesch-Kincaid Research Com-
pany on the ease of reading of various Bible
versions, including the NIV and NKJV – the
AV1611 was found to be the easiest Bible to
read in 23 of 26 comparisons
• The AV1611 is acknowledged to be the easiest
to memorize; the NIV is particularly defective
in this respect because it uses, on average,
twice as many syllables as the AV1611 in any
given passage
• The belief that modern renderings are neces-
sary for understanding denies the principles of
interpretation stated by Joseph (Gen. 40:8),
Solomon (Prov. 2:1-5), Daniel (Dan. 2:19-28)
and the Lord Himself (Jn. 14:26; 16:13)
• The AV1611 was not hard to understand for
those converted under its preaching, when it
was allegedly 120 years out of date:
“Two hundred miners standing
in the field near the colliery at
Bedworth, Warwickshire, listened
with astonishment while a young
Oxford graduate explained how
they might have their sins for-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 71
given. In the town of Bedworth
colliers were rated heathen, ani-
mals, brutes who had no use in
life other than to wrest coal from
the earth. To be treated with re-
spect and interest was a new ex-
perience. The unlicensed preacher
could see ‘white gutters made by
their tears, which plentifully fell
down their black cheeks.’ It was a
new experience for George White-
field as well…”
The AV1611 is a translation and translations are
made by imperfect men. Therefore the AV1611 must
be imperfect
• This criticism overlooks the fact that the origi-
nals were written by imperfect men; Moses
was a murderer (Ex. 2:12), David committed
adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:2,4-15,21),
Solomon was apostatized (1 Ki. 11:1-8), Daniel
committed sacrilege (Dan. 2:46), Peter cursed,
swore and denied the Lord (Matt. 26:74), Paul
disobeyed the Lord and spent two years in
prison (Acts 21:4,11-13; 24:27), John tried to
worship an angel, not once but twice (Rev.
19:10; 22:8,9)
• If a translation is held to be imperfect for that
reason, what of the ORIGINALS for Genesis
42:23, Moses’ conversation with Pharaoh (Ex.
4-14), Peter’s speech from Joel (Acts 2:16-20),
the reading from Isaiah 53 in Acts 8:32, and
Paul’s speech in Acts 22:2-21? – The written
originals of these passages were
TRANSLATIONS, were they imperfect?
o In other words, when Joseph was a
ruler in Egypt he spoke to his brethren
in Egyptian (Gen. 42:23) but Moses
wrote of the account in Hebrew – did
God inspire Joseph’s Egyptian state-
ments, the Egyptian interpreter’s ver-
bal translation or Moses’ written
The AV Defense Booklet Page 72
translation as found in the Hebrew of
the Old Testament?
o God did not bother with presenting
these passages (and over 30 like them)
in their original languages, e.g. Paul’s
statements in Acts 22 were given orally
in Hebrew but written down in Greek
by Luke
o “All scripture is given by inspiration of
God” (2 Tim. 3:16) – the word “scrip-
ture” by its very root (“script”) is a term
for written words – therefore the
translations are inspired words of God
o To say that a translation cannot be
“word-perfect” to the original language
is to invent a problem where no problem
exists; God can give His words to any-
one in any language exactly the way He
wants them to have them without the
words being identical to the original
o The word of God does not lose its purity
and authority by being translated; God
can easily direct or influence translators
to choose words that say what He wants
said in any language
• There are three “translations” spoken of in the
Bible and in all three cases the translation re-
ferred to is better than the original (see 2 Sam.
3:7-10; Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5)
• Critics should note that God has promised to
PRESERVE the word which He gave by inspi-
ration (Ps. 12:6,7)
• A variation on this criticism is that “good,
godly men corrected the AV1611 on occasion,
so it must need correcting.” The simple answer
is that when ANY man “hold[s] the truth in
unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18) by exalting HIS
own authority over that of the BIBLE, he
CEASES to be “good” and he ceases to be
The AV Defense Booklet Page 73
• “My glory will I not give to another” (Is. 42:8),
not Torrey, not Spurgeon, not Wesley, not
Moody, not Scofield, not ANY other
The original edition of the AV1611 contained the
• The Apocrypha is fourteen books (most written
before the time of Christ), that are not Scrip-
ture and not part of the canon; the word “apoc-
rypha” means “not genuine; spurious; counter-
• The Apocryphal books were never acknowl-
edged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish
Church, and therefore were never sanctioned
by our Lord
• The Apocrypha in the AV1611 was contained
BETWEEN the Testaments; it was NOT part
of the Old Testament and was not stated to be
Scripture in the title page of the AV1611
• The Apocrypha was removed from the 1613
edition and several subsequent, major editions
published before the 19
century, when it be-
came usual for publishers of the AV1611 to
omit the Apocrypha
• Dr. Gipp states, “In the days when our Bible
was translated the Apocrypha was accepted
reading based on its historical value, though
not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of
the Catholic Church. The King James transla-
tors therefore placed it between the Old and
New Testaments for its historical benefit to its
readers. They did not integrate it into the Old
Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian
manuscripts. If having the Apocrypha between
the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative,
then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
manuscripts of Alexandria, Egypt must be to-
tally worthless since their authors obviously
didn’t have the conviction of the King James
translators and incorporated its books into the
text of the Old Testament thus giving it
authority with Scripture.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 74
The AV1611 is obscure in some passages and inaccu-
rate in others and therefore it should be improved
• One should consider whether “Nephilim” (Gen.
6:4), “curds” (Is. 7:15), “carved images” (Num.
33:52), “demons” (Matt. 4:24; 7:22; 8:16, etc.)
and “Hades” (Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13) in the NIV
are “clearer” than the AV1611 renderings, “gi-
ants,” “butter,” “pictures,” “devils,” and “hell,”
even if the NIV terms are more accurate,
which they are NOT
• Note that “hades” and “demons” are translit-
erations, not translations and are perpetuated
throughout the NIV and NKJV, although nei-
ther the NIV nor the NKJV transliterated “ou-
ranos” for “heaven”!
• Critics will change a “clear” verse in the
AV1611 to make it more “accurate” and alter
an “accurate” verse to make it “clearer”; obvi-
ously the overriding aim is to alter the AV1611
Text at any cost
• Note where the AV1611 correctly translates
“Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, the
critics insert “Joshua” because they cannot
understand that Joshua is an Old Testament
type of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, as-
sociated with the destruction of an accursed
city (Josh. 6:26; Rev. 18; 19:2); moreover,
Joshua 5:13-15 shows that the Lord Jesus
Christ did command the people of Israel dur-
ing their invasion of the Promised Land as
“captain of the host of the Lord,” Who received
worship from Joshua, just as He did from the
disciples centuries later (Matt. 14:33)
o This Old Testament appearance of the
Lord “whose goings forth have been
from of old, from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2)
was promised in Exodus 23:20-23,
which refers to “Mine Angel” of Whom
God says “for my name is in him”
o The modern translations all overlook
this essential feature of the conquest of
The AV Defense Booklet Page 75
Canaan and in so doing fail to give glory
due to the Lord Jesus Christ
“Easter” in Acts 12:4 of the AV1611 is a
mistranslation of the word “pascha” and should be
translated as “Passover.”
• The Greek word “pascha” appears 29 times in
the New Testament; 28 of those times the
word is rendered “passover” in reference to the
night when the Lord passed over Egypt and
killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Ex. 12:12)
thus setting Israel free from 400 years of
• The key to unlocking the passage is verse 3,
“Then were the days of unleavened bread…”;
Peter was arrested DURING the “days of un-
leavened bread”
o AFTER the Passover (Ex. 12:13,14) –
which included eating a lamb as well as
unleavened bread (Ex. 12:5-8) – seven
days were to be fulfilled in which the
Jews were to eat unleavened bread (Ex.
12:15-18), these are “the days of unleav-
ened bread”
o The dates for the observance were the
through the 21
of April (the “first
month” in the Jewish calendar) – 8
DAYS total; the first day is the Passo-
ver followed by SEVEN “days of un-
leavened bread” (Ex. 12:18)
o The Passover was sacrificed on the first
night (Num. 28:16-18)
o Whenever the Passover is mentioned in
the New Testament, the reference is
always to the meal, to be eaten on the
night of April 14
, not the entire week
• Acts 12:3 says that Peter was arrested during
the DAYS (plural) of unleavened bread; the
Passover had already come and gone
o Luke 22:1 says, “Now the feast of un-
leavened bread drew nigh, which is
called the Passover” – this doesn’t mean
The AV Defense Booklet Page 76
the WHOLE feast of unleavened bread
was considered the Passover, JUST
THE FIRST DAY; remember, unleav-
ened bread was eaten with the Passover
o Mark 14:12 says, “And the FIRST day
of unleavened bread, when they killed
the passover…”
o Luke 22:7 says, “Then came THE DAY
of unleavened bread, when the passover
must be killed” – NOTE it is called “the
day” (singular) not the “days” (plural),
the “DAYS of unleavened bread” fol-
lowed the DAY of the Passover (see
Num. 33:3; Josh. 5:10,11; Ezra 6:19,22)
o Ezekiel 45:21 says, “In the first month,
in the fourteenth day of the month, ye
shall have the passover, a feast of seven
days; unleavened bread shall be eaten”
– in other words, unleavened bread
shall be eaten on THE DAY of the
Passover (April 14
) followed by seven
days of eating unleavened bread (“the
days of unleavened bread”); the phrase
in vs. 21b that “unleavened bread shall
be eaten” is referring to both the Passo-
ver (on the 14
) as well as the feast of
seven days (15
• Herod could not possibly have been referring
to the DAY of the Passover in his statement in
Acts 12:4
• Having established that “pascha” should NOT
be translated as Passover in Acts 12:4 it
should be noted that the word for Easter is ex-
actly the same as the word for Passover in
most languages of the world
o Pascha (Latin), Pâques (French),
Pasqua (Italian), Pasen (Dutch) mean
BOTH Easter and Passover; only the
CONTEXT formulates the difference –
PLEASE NOTE that the resurrection of
The AV Defense Booklet Page 77
the Lord Jesus occurred three days
AFTER the Jewish Passover
o The Oxford English dictionary lists
many early English literary sources
that employed the word Easter to refer
to the Resurrection; the earliest being
890 AD
o With the exception of English and Ger-
man, all other European languages do
not have a separate word for Easter and
Passover but simply use a single term
derived from Pesach (Hebrew for
Passover) – in one way this is an advan-
tage to the foreign believer who imme-
diately associates Jesus Christ as the
Passover Lamb
o As we shall see the English rendition of
Easter and Passover in the AV1611 is
superior and needs to be exalted into its
rightful place instead of scorned by the
critics – the Holy Spirit inserted a tex-
tual indicator that something other
than the Jewish Passover was being re-
ferred to in the text
• The etymology of our English word Easter was
noted by C.F. Cruse (c. 1850 AD) that, “our
word Easter is of Saxon origin and of precisely
the same import with its German cognate
Ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teu-
tonic form of auferstehen/auferstehung, that is
o The German word Ostern (equivalent of
Easter) is related to Ost (meaning east
or rising of the sun), and as Cruse
noted, comes from the older Teutonic
forms of erster (first) and stehen
(stand), which then became erstehen
(an older form meaning “resurrection”),
and which in turn became auferstehen
(current form meaning “resurrection”)
o Thus Ester in English, which later
morphed into Easter, came from Oster,
The AV Defense Booklet Page 78
which later morphed into Ostern in
o The English word Easter means
RESURRECTION – specifically, the
• When Wycliffe provided the first English
translation of the Bible from the Latin, he did
not provide an English equivalent for pascha;
the words he used were pask and paske – still
a basic type of Hebrew word pesach and the
Greek pascha
o Wycliffe’s translation had the same
characteristics as most languages do to-
day concerning the translation of pas-
cha as meaning both Easter and Passo-
o When Tyndale applied his talents to the
translation of the New Testament from
Greek into English, he was not satisfied
with the use of a completely foreign
word, and decided to take into account
the fact that the SEASON of the Passo-
ver was known generally to English
people as “Easter”
o Tyndale gave us a greater advantage by
using the word Easter in his translation
and then also inventing the term
Passover; ultimately this gave us two
separate words for two distinct occa-
• Tyndale was responsible for both Easter and
Passover to be in the English Bible; in his
1525 New Testament, Tyndale used the Eng-
lish word Easter to translate the Greek word
pascha, which was formerly transliterated –
this was the first time this Greek word had
been translated into an English word in a Bi-
ble translation
o Tyndale used this word as a synonym
for the word expressing the Passover
and also a descriptive word revealing
the New Testament fulfillment of the
The AV Defense Booklet Page 79
Passover in Christ’s death, burial and
o Of the 29 times the Greek word pascha
occurs in the New Testament, Tyndale
has Ester (or Easter) 14 times, Ester-
lambe 11 times, Esterfest once, and
Paschall Lambe three times
o In 1525, Tyndale’s New Testament was
printed, five years later in 1530 he
printed the Pentateuch (Gen-Deut);
when Tyndale was working on the New
Testament, the word Ester (Easter) was
adequate to translate Pascha, but when
he started the Old Testament book of
Exodus, in 12:11, he discovered the
word Easter, which means resurrection
was insufficient
o If he used the English word Easter,
which describes Christ resurrection, in
the translation of the Old Testament
Hebrew Pesach, he would be speaking
of an event that had not yet happened
o The Easter lamb or resurrection lamb
was a logical translation in a New Tes-
tament setting, but seemed rather odd
in the Old Testament; so Tyndale with
his amazing linguistic ability formed
the word Passover, and used it in all 23
places of the Old Testament Pentateuch
o The Hebrew word Pesach was under-
stood by the Israelites at the time to
mean skip over or to limp; so Tyndale
used two words (“pass” and “over”)
meaning to skip over or limp over,
which shortly became the one word
Passover in the 1530 Pentateuch, but
Ester (Easter) remained in Tyndale’s
revision of the New Testament in 1534
• It is likely that Tyndale’s use of Easter in his
New Testament is indebted to his knowledge
of Luther’s German translation, which uses
“Oster” in the same way
The AV Defense Booklet Page 80
o Tyndale with his expertise in the Ger-
man language knew of the Ester-Oster
association; Luther obviously consid-
ered Oster as both a synonym for the
Jewish Passover and a phrase used for
the resurrection of Christ
• The correct etymology of Easter was recog-
nized by the King James translators who
added an important factor to the use of the
word Easter – they refined the semantic range
of Easter to be translated only ONCE as
Easter (Acts 12:4)
o As stated earlier, the Greek word pas-
cha appears 29 times in the New Tes-
tament; in 28 of those instances it is re-
ferring to the Old Testament Passover;
but in Acts 12:4 it is referring to the
Christian resurrection celebration and
not just the Old Passover
o Pascha is translated as Passover in 1
Corinthians 5:7 (“For even Christ our
passover is sacrificed for us”) as it al-
ludes to the Jewish custom of carefully
putting away from their houses all
leaven upon the approach of the feast of
the Passover, thus making Passover
more readable than Easter (or Tyn-
dale’s “Easter lamb”) in context
o A paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 5:7
would be “For Christ our ‘fulfillment of
the Old Testament Pascha’ is sacrificed
for us”
o There is a pre-resurrection pascha, and
there is a post-resurrection pascha, the
difference is night and day, and it is the
very RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ
Himself that forces the distinction
o The fact that modern ‘bible scholars’
rigidly insist that pascha must mean
Passover regardless of context is iron-
clad proof of the deplorable state of
learning in our day; their insistence not
The AV Defense Booklet Page 81
only demonstrates a severe ignorance of
both Greek and English etymology, but
even more, a gross and pervasive igno-
rance of the dynamics of language itself;
in short, modern ‘bible scholars’ have
become slaves of words, slaves of lexi-
cons, slaves of very language itself
• The word “Easter” signifies the resurrection of
the Lamb of God (see Rev. 5:6,13)
o The word Easter is derived from the
word east – the sun rises in the east to
bring the light of the new day; Malachi
4:2 testifies of Christ that, “unto you
that fear my name shall the SUN of
righteousness ARISE with healing in
his wings” – a post resurrection event
o The death of Jesus Christ – "Christ our
passover" (1 Cor. 5:7) – occurred
BEFORE the days of unleavened bread;
the resurrection of Jesus Christ oc-
curred DURING the days of unleavened
o It should be noted that the translators
of the AV1611 translated pascha as
Passover in all of its other contexts,
thus demonstrating that they were fer-
vently aware of the semantic range of
this word, unlike our modern critics;
they translated the word pascha as
Passover in the other contexts because
those passages clearly employ the word
pascha in a pre-resurrection context
o Due to the unction of the Holy Ghost,
the translators of the AV1611 had the
grace to perceive the distinction in con-
text in Acts 12:4, and thus realized that
this distinction mandated the post-
resurrection translation of Easter
o The resurrection is preached consis-
tently throughout the book of Acts; Acts
1:22; 2:31; 4:2,33; 17:18,32; 23:6,8;
The AV Defense Booklet Page 82
• “Easter” was not celebrated at this time so
why would Acts 12:4 refer to “pascha” as
o The Holy Spirit inserted the word
Easter in the English to signify the day
of the resurrection even though it was
not known as “Easter” at the time of
Luke’s writing
o There are other examples in the Bible of
celebrations being established by God’s
people to commemorate a great deliver-
ance or event (see Est. 9:26,27; Jn.
10:22) – it would not be inconsistent for
early believers to recognize the day of
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
o The early Christians began very soon to
commemorate the yearly event later
known as Easter; Polycarp (c. 120 AD),
who was a disciple of the Apostle John,
met with Anicetus to discuss the proper
date for this celebration
• Why would the pagan Herod wait until “after
Easter” to bring Peter before the people?
o At the time of the Jewish Passover cele-
bration and the days of unleavened
bread, there were multitudes of both
Jews and Gentile proselytes present in
o Herod knew if he brought forth Peter to
be killed before the assembled masses,
they would have to make public the ac-
cusations laid against him; Peter might
well preach a sermon in his defense (see
Paul in Acts 22)
o Peter had already preached sermons
with the result that 3,000 were con-
verted at Pentecost and another 5,000
on a later day; thousands more could
potentially be converted through the
preaching of Peter about Christ and the
RESURRECTION especially at the
The AV Defense Booklet Page 83
time of EASTER, and Herod might well
have a riot on his hands
o Perhaps Herod thought it better to wait
till the multitudes had gone home after
the days of unleavened bread and then
deal with Peter in a quieter fashion
• The Holy Spirit included the insertion of the
words “then were the days of unleavened
bread” just before the inclusion of the word
Easter to prove that Luke (the author of Acts)
was talking about the Christian Pascha (i.e.
Easter, the celebration of the resurrection) and
NOT the Jewish Pascha (the Passover)
o The days of unleavened bread were
AFTER the feast of the Passover and
thus the pascha mentioned in Acts 12:4
is definitely NOT the Jewish Passover
o The word is the Christian pascha
(Easter), the resurrection celebration
that occurs THREE DAYS LATER (in
the midst of the days of unleavened
bread), as Scripture, history, etymology
and logic all attest
• There are those that argue that the word
Easter is a reference to the pagan festival
celebrating the goddess of fertility and sunrise;
this theory is based on phonetics and not on
historical verification
o The argument is based on the notion
that Easter sounds like the female deity
of spring Ishtar (Babylonian) and
Eostre (Saxon) and therefore they must
be related;
The theory goes on to connect
Eostre with the Hebrew word
Ashtoreth (“the queen of
o It seems strange to think that the King
James translators (as well as Tyndale,
Martin Luther, Coverdale, Matthews,
etc.) would insert the name of the pagan
The AV Defense Booklet Page 84
god of Spring called Ishtar in place of
the word pascha – if it was true that the
pagan name was inserted into Acts
12:4, then when Luther and Tyndale
named Christ the Easter lamb (in 1
Cor. 5:7) were they calling Christ the
‘fertility goddess’ lamb? Absolutely not
o This theory based on phonetics is com-
plicated by the fact that Easter was
originally pronounced and spelled Ester
o It is unfortunate that some dictionaries
and encyclopedias have endorsed this
false view of the origin of the word
Easter without one shred of evidence
• It is true that pagan traditions often have be-
come Roman Catholic practice, and many of
those traditions are now associated with
Easter (eggs, rabbits, etc.) but this does not
overthrow the connection of the word Easter
with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ
o Various pagan practices did attach
themselves to the Easter celebration
many centuries later, LONG AFTER
the Easter celebration had its beginning
o Easter has ALWAYS been celebrated
during the season of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ; this is testified to by early
church ‘fathers’ such as Polycarp and
The AV1611 of today is not the same as the original
AV1611 but has been changed in 20,000 places.
Therefore we can legitimately introduce more changes.
• The changes in the AV1611 are mainly
changes in spelling, punctuation, italics, mar-
ginal references, capitalizations and rectifica-
tion of printing errors
o God’s preservation in translation does
not mean He guarantees that each
printer is preserved from error as he
prints the Bible, even in modern print-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 85
• The first edition of the Authorized Version was
printed in Gothic typestyle; in 1612 an edition
of the Authorized Version was printed in Ro-
man typestyle – just the changes in typestyle
alone account for thousands of the changes be-
tween the 1611 edition and later ones
o The Gothic letter “v” looks like a Roman
“u”; the Gothic “j” looks like the Roman
“i”, etc.
o As a result the word love would be ren-
dered “loue” in Gothic typeset
• In the early seventeenth century spelling had
not yet become standardized; the way words
were spelled in the first edition of 1611 are dif-
ferent than the spelling of those words today
o Often an additional “e” was placed at
the end of the word, e.g. “doore,” “feare,”
“loude,” etc.
o Double vowels were more frequent, e.g.
“bee,” “doe,” “hee,” “goe,” etc.
o Changes like this make up the majority
of differences between the edition of
1611 and the edition we have today
o NOTE, the meanings of the words are
not changed, only the spelling
• Most of the typographical errors due to the
printing conditions of the time were corrected
by 1629; two of the original translators took
part in making these corrections (Samuel
Ward and John Bois); later editions corrected
whatever slight typographical errors still re-
mained; listed below are some examples
showing the 1611 reading first then the pres-
ent reading and finally the date the correction
was made
o seek good – seek God (1617)
o requite good – requite me good (1629)
o this thing – this thing also (1638)
o And Parbar – At Parbar (1638)
o shalt have remained – ye shall have
remained (1762)
o returned – turned (1769)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 86
• Modern critics refer to the “thousands of revi-
sions” made to the 1611 as if they were on a
par with the recent bible versions; they are
not, the overwhelming majority of them are ei-
ther type style or spelling changes; the few
which do remain (approx. 400) are clearly cor-
rections of printing errors made because of the
tediousness involved in the early printing pro-
o Many of the “changes” would not be no-
ticeable to the ear if someone was
reading the text out loud (these are not
included in the estimate of 400)
o Some “changes” were made in later edi-
tions then changed back to the reading
of 1611 in a still later edition; if some-
one wanted the number of changes to be
as high as possible then these could be
counted as two changes (these are not
included in the estimate of 400)
o The so-called “revisions” are not true
revisions; they are various editions
printed to correct previous printing er-
rors; not one edition was to “revise” the
words; the intent of these editions
(apart from spelling and punctuation
updating) was to restore the original text
given by the translators to the printers
• According to the American Bible Society
(1852): “The English Bible as left by the
translators has come down to us unaltered in
respect to its TEXT… With the exception of
typographical errors and changes required by
the process of orthography in the English lan-
guage, the text of our present Bibles remains
unchanged, and without variation from the
original copy as left by the translators.”
• Changes in the modern versions include
elimination of words, phrases, verses, and
whole passages of Scripture, resulting in the
denial of the virgin birth, the blood atonement,
salvation by faith alone and the Deity of
The AV Defense Booklet Page 87
Christ; these changes are therefore of an en-
tirely different NATURE from those of the
AV1611 Editions which did not change the
meaning of the verse
• For a more complete explanation see Dr. David
Reagan’s article “The King James Version of
1611, The Myth of Early Revisions” available
The King James Version became known as the
‘Authorized’ Version because King James decreed that
it become the Bible of the Church of England.
• This is NOT correct; the King James Version
became known as the Authorized Version due
to its universal acceptance among Christians
of the world, not due to a proclamation from
King James himself
• Hills states, “Although it is often called the
‘Authorized’ Version, it actually was never
authorized by any official action on the part of
the Church or State. On the contrary, its uni-
versal reception by the common people of all
denominations seems clearly to be another in-
stance of the providence of God working
through the God-guided usage of the Church.”
• Ruckman says, “The AV1611 had no royal
backing, no royal promoting, no act of Parlia-
ment behind it, and the University Press was
allowed to print any other version of the Bible
along with it.”
• McClure states concerning the AV1611, “Its
origin and history so strongly commended it,
that it speedily came into general use as the
standard version, by the common consent of
the English people; and required no act of par-
liament nor royal proclamation to establish its
The AV1611 can be tolerated but surely any transla-
tion is satisfactory so long as it contains the funda-
mentals of the faith and we win souls.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 88
• The “fundamentals of the faith” can be written
on the back of an envelope and found even in a
Jerusalem Bible (JB) of Roman Catholics or
New World Translation (NWT) of the Jeho-
vah’s Witnesses; this does not mean that they
are Bibles
o Finding a dollar bill in a trash can does
not make it a bank; finding the “funda-
mentals” in a version of Scripture does
not make it a Bible
• The AV1611 will always give much greater
emphasis on the “fundamentals” than the
modern versions
• If a bible is to be selected on the basis of pref-
erence, which is what the above criticism im-
plies, perhaps one should ask what Bible does
GOD prefer?
The AV1611 may be tolerated but it is still inferior to
“the Greek.”
• To this criticism, it may reasonably be asked
WHICH Greek text, because there are about
two dozen different Greek texts; they can
roughly be divided into three groups:
o The ‘Received Text,’ such as the editions
of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, etc.
o The ‘Alexandrian Text,’ such as those of
Tregelles, Tischendorf, Griesbach, Hort,
Nestle (who is probably the best known
o The ‘Majority Text’ of which there are
two rival editions, by Farstad and
Hodges (1982) and Robinson and Pier-
pont (1991)
o No such animal as “THE Greek” text
exists on the face of the earth; again
WHICH Greek text?
• The 26
edition of Nestle (1979) restored 467
Receptus readings which had been deleted in
previous editions for the past 100 years…
The AV Defense Booklet Page 89
o Nestle’s editors supposedly did this on
the basis of evidence from the papyri,
indicating that Receptus readings actu-
ally predate Alexandrian readings
• While Nestle will use Codex B repeatedly to
alter Receptus readings, he may abruptly
switch to another manuscript if B agrees with
the Receptus
o “Him” is omitted from John 14:7 by
Nestle’s 21
edition using B, but all of
Luke 24:12 is omitted using Codex D,
although B agrees with the Receptus
o Note that these omissions bear on the
Deity of Christ and the resurrection of
o Similar inconsistencies exist in the se-
lection of the texts for the NIV and
other modern versions – the NASV is an
English translation of Nestle’s 23
tion and the NIV is an English transla-
tion of Nestle’s 26
• This criticism really amounts to the denial of
the promise of God to preserve His word; Ps.
• There are at least seven reasons why the
AV1611 is in fact superior to “the Greek” and
to “the Hebrew”
o The AV1611 uses “synagogues” (Ps.
74:8) instead of the Hebrew “meeting
places,” showing that the reference is
yet future, to the Great Tribulation
o The Premillennial order of the books
from 2 Chronicles to Psalms (2 Chroni-
Psalms) in the English Bible preserves
the order of events in the history of Is-
rael from the destruction of Jerusalem
(70 AD) to the Second Advent (destruc-
tion and dispersion-return-boundary-
replacement of Gentile bride with Jew-
ish bride-Tribulation-Second Advent);
The AV Defense Booklet Page 90
this order is superior to that of the He-
brew Bible
o In an age ruled by television, “pictures”
(Num. 33:52) is far superior to the
original Hebrew of “carved stones”
o The AV1611 alone uses “forces” (Dan.
11:38) instead of the literal Hebrew
“fortresses.” The AV1611 reading is su-
perior because it is a reference to the
use of electricity (Lk. 10:18), the highest
form of energy, especially in the Tribu-
lation (Rev. 13:13)
o The AV1611 uses “churches” (Acts
19:37), showing where pagans devoted
to the “Queen of heaven” (Jer. 44:19) ac-
tually worship; this is far superior to
the “original Greek” which gives “tem-
o The AV1611 has “Easter” (Acts 12:4) in-
stead of the literal Greek equivalent
“passover”; Easter signifies the resur-
rection of the Lamb of God which took
place during the “days of unleavened
bread” not on the day of the Jewish
o The AV1611 alone has “corrupt” in 2
Corinthians 2:17, where the “original
Greek” is “peddle,” according to the
modern revisers; there is no danger in
selling the AV1611, because it isn’t cor-
rupt; however, there could be a great
danger in the selling of CORRUPT bi-
Did the King James translators mislead their readers
by saying that their New Testament was “translated
out of the original Greek?”
• The question is misleading; the title page at
the beginning of the AV1611 says it was
“translated from the original tongues” (lan-
guages) clarifying their “original Greek”
statement on the New Testament title page
The AV Defense Booklet Page 91
• Clearly the translators were referring to the
original Greek language; they didn’t claim to
have the original autographs
Without some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, you
cannot be an independent student, or reliable inter-
preter of the word of God
• The Lord’s comment on this type of condescen-
sion is in Luke 10:21
• Common people should not have to ask some
Greek or Hebrew scholar what the Lord has
said; Mk. 12:37b
• The doctrine of the priesthood of believers has
been subtly replaced by an esoteric priesthood
of Hebrew and Greek professors who would
have you believe that you cannot understand
God’s word without their “humble” assistance
o With great astuteness did Luther once
note that Satan’s first appearance in
Scripture was under the tree of knowl-
o When confronted with the “high
priestly” credentials of superior scholar-
ship, linguistic skills, and historic posi-
tions, etc., simply quote 1 John 2:27a –
“But the anointing which ye have re-
ceived of him abideth in you, and ye
need not that any man teach you.”
• This criticism can also be “interpreted” as fol-
o All translations are made by men who
are imperfect and therefore their
translations are imperfect
o Any translation is therefore inferior to
the original which was perfect
o The original was in Greek
o I know Greek and you don’t; therefore
you will have to come to me (or buy my
books) to find out what God actually
The AV Defense Booklet Page 92
Westcott and Hort
The Devil was not slow to oppose the great blessings
of revival, soul-winning and enterprise brought about
by the God honored AV1611 Holy Bible. Through the
agency of his own papal church, Satan concentrated
his attack on the nation which had produced the
Book. His attack culminated in the efforts of Westcott
and Hort, two Cambridge academics, to displace the
AV1611 as the English Bible by means of their own
Revised Version (RV) based mainly on the text of the
Alexandrian manuscripts, which in turn formed the
basis of Roman Catholic ‘bibles’ such as the Latin
Vulgate and the Jesuit Douay Rheims. The attack
developed as follows:
• The Jesuit Counter-Reformation had begun
even before the publication of the AV1611
o Jesuits dominated the Council of Trent
(1546), convened to defeat the Reforma-
o This council declared that belief in justi-
fication by faith alone was accursed
(Canon IX), thus cursing the Lord Jesus
Christ (Jn. 3:16) and that the Apocry-
pha and church tradition were of equal
authority with the Bible
• Jesuits tried unsuccessfully to impose their
own English ‘bible’ translation on the English
people (1582), based on the Alexandrian text
o The Douay-Rheims ‘bible’ was a trans-
lation of the Latin Vulgate and there-
fore contained the multiplied perversi-
ties also found in the Alexandrian texts
of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
o The Pope’s English ‘bible’ was not is-
sued to help Catholics but rather to
hurt Christians
• The Counter-Reformation nevertheless gath-
ered momentum with the emergence of
“higher critics,” particularly Germans, who at-
tacked the Received Text and exalted the Al-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 93
exandrian text; among these critics were
Schleiermacher, Griesbach, Wellhausen,
Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles – they
were the new Gnostics
o Griesbach believed that Christians fal-
sified Scripture to teach their faith
more fervently; he never expressed any
apprehension that heretics might delete
and alter doctrinal passages (see Is.
• German higher criticism invaded England in
the early 19
century, resulting in the Pusey-
ite movement to reunite the Church of Eng-
land with the Church of Rome; Cardinal
Newman was one of the early defectors
o Edward Pusey is credited with spear-
heading the pro-Catholic Oxford move-
ment within the Church of England
o The Cambridge academics, Westcott
and Hort, were strongly influenced by
Pusey, Newman and Coleridge (who
imported the new German Gnosticism
to England), and by Richard Simon
After years of spreading pro-
Vatican propaganda within the
Church of England, John New-
man defected to Rome where he
was given a Cardinal’s hat;
within one year of his exodus,
over 150 clergy and laymen also
crossed over to join him
• Romanizing of the Church of England was well
underway by 1870, when the Southern Convo-
cation of the Church of England called for re-
vision of the Text of the AV1611; the Northern
Convocation refused to take part and there
was no such demand from ordinary members
of the Church
• The Revised New Testament was published in
1881; the “testimony” concerning some of its
translators include:
The AV Defense Booklet Page 94
o Edgar Goodspeed did not believe in the
Deity of Jesus Christ; he viewed Christ
as a social reformer who gave His life as
a martyr for a cause
o Henry Cadbury said concerning Jesus
Christ, “he was given to overstate-
o Walter Bowie believed that the Old Tes-
tament was legend rather than fact
o Clarence Craig denied the bodily resur-
rection of Christ
o William Irwin believed that the Jewish
prophets inflated the position of God in
the Bible
• Westcott and Hort compiled the Greek text,
based largely on Codices Aleph and B, which
were “secretly committed” into the hands of
the Revision Committee and used as the basis
for the Revised Version
o This text differs radically from the Re-
ceived New Testament Text, in 5,337
places or in about 2 of every 3 verses
• The RV differs from the AV1611 in over 36,000
places; this is more than one change in every
verse, although the first working rule of the
committee was that as few alterations as pos-
sible were to be introduced to the Text of the
o Of the 25 members of the committee,
only a small minority, led by Dr. Scriv-
ener, endeavored to abide by the rules
and they were consistently outvoted by
the others
• The work of Westcott and Hort can be ex-
plained by their beliefs, expressed in their own
words; even if clandestinely, they were ser-
vants of Satan and of Rome
• Hort states:
o “The book which has most engaged me
is Darwin… My feeling is strong that
the theory is unanswerable.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 95
o “Evangelicals seem to me perverted
rather than untrue. There are, I fear,
still more serious differences between
us on the subject of authority, and espe-
cially the authority of the Bible.”
o “Think of the vile Textus Receptus
leaning entirely on late manuscripts; it
is a blessing there are such early ones.”
o “I have been persuaded for many years
that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship
have very much in common in their
causes and their results.”
o “We maintain ‘Baptismal Regeneration’
as the most important of doctrines…”
• Westcott states:
o “No one now (1890), I suppose, holds
that the first three chapters of Genesis,
for example, give a literal history.”
o “I reject the word infallibility of Holy
Scriptures overwhelmingly”
o “Behind the screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size
of life (a Virgin and dead Christ)… Had
I been alone I could have knelt there for
o “I never read an account of a miracle (of
Christ), but I seem instinctively to feel
its improbability.”
Perhaps Hort’s disbelief in a literal Devil best ex-
plains his scientific approach to textual criticism. By
their elimination of a real Devil, the revisers would
be left with a non-threatened text. And such a text
would require no supernatural preservation.
By their own published statements, Westcott and
Hort acted on the basis of the natural man’s view of
the New Testament text, priding themselves on
treating the text of the New Testament as they would
any other ancient book. Would God choose such men
as Westcott and Hort to ‘revise’ His Book? Would
The AV Defense Booklet Page 96
John Burgon, Dean of Chichester
In every age God has had men who like David have
“served his own generation by the will of God” (Acts
13:36). Such a man was John Burgon. His scholarly
refutation of Westcott and Hort’s revisions to the
Holy Bible, entitled ‘The Revision Revised,’ stands
unchallenged to this day.
• Burgon was Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford,
Gresham Professor of Divinity and Dean of
Chichester (1876-1888)
• He was described as “a deep and laborious
student… examining the original (i.e. extant)
manuscripts on every occasion, and he himself
discovered many manuscripts in his search for
the truth in textual matters… As for his
learning, even his adversaries acknowledged
that it was very great.”
• He personally scrutinized Codices Aleph and
B, concluding, “we suspect that these two
manuscripts are indebted for their preserva-
• Whereas Hort declared of the New Testament
“we dare not introduce considerations which
could not reasonably be applied to other an-
cient texts,” Burgon “believed that the New
Testament had been divinely inspired and
providentially preserved… two basic verities
which make it different from the textual criti-
cism of any other book”
• Burgon readily acknowledged the hand of Sa-
tan in the corruption of New Testament
manuscripts: “Vanquished by THE WORD In-
carnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice
against the WORD written. Hence… the ex-
traordinary fate which befell early transcripts
of the Gospel”
• He was a staunch defender, not only of the Re-
ceived Text but of the AV1611; of the 1881 Re-
vision he said “We are thoroughly convinced
that the project of a rival Translation is not to
The AV Defense Booklet Page 97
be entertained for a moment. For ourselves we
deprecate it entirely”
• Burgon carefully set out seven test of truth for
manuscript readings; antiquity is only one of
the seven:
o Antiquity of witnesses
o Number of witnesses
o Variety of evidence
o Respectability of witnesses
o Continuity of witnesses
o Context
o Internal considerations
• He declared that “In the balances of these
seven Tests of Truth the speculations of the
Westcott and Hort school, which have be-
witched millions are ‘Tekel,’ weighed in the
balances and found wanting”
• Hort had rejected the text of the majority of
manuscripts by assuming that it represented a
standardization text complied by Lucian of
Antioch in the 4
century; this so-called “con-
flation” or “recension” theory in support of
which he could cite only a mere eight verses;
Hort’s theory is refuted utterly by Burgon, who
states that “not a shadow of proof is forth-
coming that any such recension as Dr. Hort’s
imagines ever took place at all”
• Burgon vigorously defended Scriptures re-
jected by Westcott and Hort using Aleph and
B, for example:
Mark 16:9-20
Although retained by the RV, this passage was de-
leted from Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testa-
ment and is disputed by the NIV and other modern
Burgon showed that:
“With the exception of the two uncial
manuscripts which have just been
named (Aleph and B), there is not one
codex in existence, uncial or cursive (and
The AV Defense Booklet Page 98
we are acquainted with, at least, eight-
een other uncials, and above six hun-
dred cursive copies of this Gospel),
which leaves out the last twelve verses of
Burgon also cited overwhelming testimony from the
ancient versions, lectionaries and church fathers in
favor of these verses.
John 7:53-8:11
This passage is also omitted from the Westcott and
Hort Greek text and disputed by the NIV and other
modern versions.
Burgon showed that:
“An omission which owed its beginning
to a moral scruple was eventually ex-
tended for a liturgical consideration and
resulted in severing twelve verses of St.
John’s Gospel – chapter 7:53-8:11 – from
their lawful context. “ However, he states
that “Jerome, who was familiar with
Greek manuscripts (and who handled
none of later date than B and Aleph),
expressly related that (the passage) ‘is
found in many copies both Greek and
Again, Burgon cited other evidence overwhelmingly
in favor of the passage, including 61 of the 73 copies
of John’s Gospel in the British Museum which con-
tain the passage.
The differences between the AV1611 and modern
versions cited below are but a small selection of those
which are NOT minor.
Comparison of Old Testament Readings
Genesis 1:1
“heaven” AV1611
The AV Defense Booklet Page 99
“heavens” NIV, NKJV, JB, NWT
• The singular “heaven” in Genesis 1:1 of the
AV1611 compared with the plural “heavens” in
Genesis 2:1 of the AV1611 is a “nugget” (tex-
tual indicator) left in the Bible for “workman”
(2 Tim. 2:15) to discover
• The cataclysmic event that covered the uni-
verse in water (Gen. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:5-7) was
“cleaned up” by God (Gen. 1:6-8) and resulted
in waters being placed above the firmament
(cosmos); this water above the firmament
separated the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2) from
the second and first heavens
o Before Genesis 1:2, the “heavens” were
a continuum – no barriers between the
first heaven (atmosphere), second
heaven (cosmos), and third heaven
(abode of God) so that it could be
thought of as “one” heaven (singular)
o After Genesis 1:2, there is “water that
be above the heavens” (Ps. 148:4); the
“heavens” referred to in Psalm 148 are
the first and second heavens – read it
again, there is WATER above the
HEAVENS (plural)
o This water “above the heavens” is also
known as the Crystal Sea; Rev. 4:6
o This Sea of Glass (frozen water – like
ice CRYSTALS) represents a firm and
impassable barrier between the world of
man (below) and the abode of God
o This is a present Sea of Separation that
will no longer exist when God destroys
the old world and makes all things new
after the 1,000 years Kingdom of
Heaven and the final judgment that
follows; Rev. 21:1
Genesis 1:21
“whales” AV1611
The AV Defense Booklet Page 100
“creatures of the sea” (NIV), “sea creatures” (NKJV),
“sea serpents” (JB), “sea monsters” (NWT)
• Whales are the one species not named by
Adam (Gen. 2:19) because they are a type of
Satan; Job 41:1; Ps. 104:26; Eze. 29:3; 32:2;
Jer. 51:34; Jonah 1:17; 2:2; Matt. 12:40
o Note first that the term “whales” (Gen.
1:21) matches that of “leviathan” (Ps.
o Each is then specified in distinction
from “every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abun-
dantly” and “the things creeping innu-
merable, both small and great beasts”
which teem in “this great and wide sea”
• “Leviathan” is typified in the physical realm by
the whale but he is also “that crooked serpent”
(Is. 27:1), another of God’s creatures whom
“his hand hath formed” (Job 26:13) and who
inhabits “the deep” (Job 41:31); he also exists
in the spiritual realm because he “beholdeth
all high things” (Job 41:34; Eph. 6:12)
o He must be Satan because not only is
he “that crooked serpent” he is a spirit
being who can breathe fire, even “the
fire of God” (Job 1:12,16; 41:21)
o Moreover, “he is a king over all the chil-
dren of pride” and “upon the earth there
is not his like” (Job 41:33,34) whose
heart “was lifted up” (Eze. 28:17; Is.
• God has named Leviathan’s earthly type (Gen.
1:21) instead of delegating this responsibility
to Adam (Gen. 2:19) because Adam “the son of
God” (Lk. 3:38) should have a testimony
equivalent to that of the last Adam, the Lord
Jesus Christ: “the prince of this world… hath
nothing in me” (Jn. 14:30)
• The modern versions now try to cover for the
enemy, who was once, ironically, “the anointed
cherub that covereth” (Eze. 28:14)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 101
Genesis 1:29
“replenish” AV1611
“fill” NIV, NKJV, JB, NWT
• The opening reference to a pre-Adamic inhab-
ited earth is lost by the modern versions
• The word “replenish” means to refill in its
most common meaning
• In the case of Genesis 9:1 where Noah and his
family are instructed to repopulate an earth
that has been wiped out by the flood, the word
“replenish” as translated in the AV1611 ren-
ders a more accurate English meaning than
does the word “fill”
• Every time the word “replenish” is used in the
Bible it has to do with something that was
once full, that became empty and then was
made full again; Eze. 27:25; Is. 23:2
Genesis 3:5
“gods” AV1611
• Psalm 82 shows that there are “gods” in the
universe; they were judges of nations, the
“sons of God” (Gen. 6:2), “the angels which
kept not their first estate” (Jude 6)
• Their judgments corrupted the whole earth
(Gen. 6:11,12) such that God “delivered them
into chains of darkness” (2 Pet. 2:4), “unto the
judgment of the great day” (Jude 6, Is.
• This explains the significance of references to
“the gods of Egypt” (Ex. 12:12), against whom
the Lord executed judgment and “the gods of
the people which are round about” (Deut.
13:7), whose images God commanded Israel “to
utterly overthrow… and quite break down”
(Ex. 23:24)
• The material images hearkened back to the
time of “gross darkness” (Is. 60:2) when the
renegade angelic “gods” corrupted the earth
and will do so again, according to the Lord Je-
sus Christ (Lk. 17:26,27)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 102
• The modern versions obscure the cross-
Genesis 6:8
“grace” AV1611
“favor” NIV, NWT, JB
• This is the first appearance of the magnificent
word “grace,” which appears in the Bible 170
times, the last occasion being Revelation
22:21; why must it be changed?
Genesis 20:10
“What sawest thou” AV1611
“What was your reason” NIV
“What did you have in view” NKJV, NWT
“What possessed you” JB
• The modern versions fail to recognize that “the
light of the body is the EYE” (Matt. 6:22)
• Abraham’s sin of fear (compare Gen. 12:2,12),
arose from what he SAW
• He SAW how the Egyptians regarded Sarah
(Gen. 12:14,15) and he SAW that Abimelech
did the same
• The desire to sin (Gen. 20:9) often begins with
the EYES (Matt. 6:22,23; Mk. 9:47; 2 Pet. 2:14;
Jam. 1:14,15 with 1 Jn. 2:15,16)
Genesis 49:6
“digged down a wall” AV1611
“hamstrung oxen (or similar)” NIV, NKJV, NWT, JB
• The modern reading comes from the LXX
• Inspection of Genesis 34:28,29 reveals that
oxen were NOT hamstrung but taken captive,
along with other livestock and other men’s
• The AV1611 reading for Genesis 49:6 therefore
matches Job 24:16 exactly and the modern
versions are wrong
Deuteronomy 16:21
“grove of any trees” AV1611
“wooden Asherah pole (or similar)” NIV, NWT, JB
The AV Defense Booklet Page 103
“any tree as a wooden image” NKJV
• By altering “groves,” the modern versions ob-
scure the reference to MODERN
MARIOLATRY, where a statue of ‘the Virgin’
is often planted in a GROVE of TREES
1 Samuel 14:27,29
“enlightened” AV1611
“brightened” NIV, NKJV, JB
“beamed” NWT
• All the modern versions miss the typology with
respect to the words of Scripture and the wis-
dom or “light” that they give (Ps. 19:8,10;
Job 26:13
“formed the crooked serpent” AV1611
“pierced the gliding serpent” NIV, NWT
“pierced the fleeing serpent” NKJV
“pierced the transfixed serpent” JB
• The modern versions obscure this reference to
Satan as a created being
Job 41:25
“by reason of breakings they purify themselves”
“they retreat before his thrashing” NIV
“because of his crashings they are beside themselves”
“due to consternation they get bewildered” NWT
“the billows of the sea retreat” JB
• The modern versions obscure the cross refer-
ence to 1 Kings 18:28, which reveals that ritu-
als observed today in the Philippines demon-
strate that Roman Catholicism is the modern
heir to Phoenician Baal worship
Psalm 39:5,11
“every man at his best state is altogether vanity…
every man is vanity” AV1611
“each man’s life is but a breath (or similar)” NIV,
The AV Defense Booklet Page 104
• The cross reference is not to James 4:14 but to
Ecclesiastes, especially 6:12, because Solomon
realized man’s “best state” more than any
Psalm 55:18
“for there were many with me” AV1611
“for there were many against me (or similar)” NIV,
• The modern versions contradict the cross ref-
erence to 2 Kings 6:17 and 2 Chronicles 32:7
Proverbs 1:32
“prosperity” AV1611
“complacency (or similar)” NIV, NKJV, NWT, JB
• Prosperity, not complacency, will damn most
American people today; Lk. 12:18-21; 1 Tim.
6:9; Jam. 5:1-5
• The Lord warned in the passage from Luke of
the rich fool who laid up “treasure for himself”
but was “not rich toward God”; Israel forsook
the Lord during a time of great material
abundance (Deut. 32:13-16)
• Sodom’s iniquity that led to abomination and
in turn to her eventual overthrow was “pride,
fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness”
(Eze. 16:49,50)
• The modern versions obscure the cross-
references to “the days of Lot” just before the
Lord’s return; Lk. 17:28-30; 2 Pet. 2:6-8
Proverbs 23:33
“Thine eyes shall behold strange women” AV1611
“Your eyes will see strange things” NIV (“sights” for
“things”), NKJV, NWT, JB
• The context is drunkenness; an ex “9
alcoholic” once said, “liquor and women – al-
ways go together”
Isaiah 5:14; 14:9,15; 28:15,18; 57:9
“hell” AV1611 each time
“grave” NIV each time
The AV Defense Booklet Page 105
“sheol, Hell, Sheol (4 times)” NKJV
“sheol” NWT, JB
• Hell is NOT the grave and “sheol” is a trans-
literation, NOT a translation
• Whoever is behind the modern translations is
very reluctant to use the word “hell”
• See also Ezekiel 31:16,17; 32:21,27; Amos 9:2;
Jonah 2:2; Habakkuk 2:5, where of the modern
versions, only the NKJV uses “hell,” except in
Jonah 2:2 where it resorts to “sheol”
Daniel 3:25
“the Son of God” AV1611
“a son of the gods” NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB
• The AV1611 always exalts the Lord Jesus
• The modern reading can not be correct because
“a son of the gods” would be a GIANT (Gen.
6:4) causing God grief (Gen. 6:6)
Hosea 13:9
“O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself” AV1611
“I will destroy you, O Israel (or similar)” NIV, JB
“O Israel, you are destroyed” NKJV
“It will certainly bring you to ruin, O Israel” NWT
• Israel willfully rejected the words of God (Hos.
6:5-7; 8:1,12) and destroyed herself
• Hosea 13:9; 14:4-8 show that God will NOT
destroy Israel, in spite of the NIV
• The NKJV adopts a compromise reading
Micah 5:2
“whose goings forth have been from of old, from ev-
erlasting” AV1611
“whose origins are from old, from ancient times (or
similar)” NIV, NWT, JB
• The verse is a reference to the preexistence of
the Lord Jesus Christ, who does NOT have an
origin (Jn. 1:1-3)
• The NIV reading is therefore blasphemous
Comparison of New Testament Readings
The AV Defense Booklet Page 106
Manuscript evidence is included for the New Testa-
ment readings which follow. The AV1611 readings
are supported by the majority of manuscripts unless
otherwise stated. The following comparison will show
that evidence against the AV1611, from “older and
better” manuscripts usually means extracts from a
few ancient corrupt uncials of Alexandrian character,
e.g. Aleph and B.
John Burgon’s comments are directed against the
Westcott-Hort Greek text underlying the Revised
Version of 1881 but since the RV is the precursor of
most of the modern versions – and like them essen-
tially a Roman Catholic ‘bible’ – Burgon’s remarks
apply with equal force today.
Matthew 1:25
“firstborn” is omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV
margin, NWT, JB to uphold Catholic teaching of
Mary as a perpetual virgin
Burgon states that only 3 uncials, Aleph (Sinaiticus),
B (Vaticanus), Z and two cursives omit “firstborn.”
Ruckman states that the word is found in the “Egyp-
tian” family of manuscripts (e.g. C), the “Western” (D)
and the “Byzantine” (i.e. the Receptus). He states
that it is also found in Tatian’s Diatessaron, a Syrian
translation of the Gospels (circa 170 AD).
Burgon cites the Latin Vulgate, Peshitta and Philox-
enian Syriac, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and
Slavonian versions in favor of the AV1611 reading.
Burgon also cites the following “fathers” as bearing
witness to the word:
century: Tatian
century: Ambrose, Athansius, Augustine,
Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Didymus,
Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa
century: Isidorus Pelus, Proclus
century: Photius
The AV Defense Booklet Page 107
Matthew 2:11; 9:18; 14:33; 20:20; Mark 5:6
“Worship” has been altered to “adored” by DR (all five
“Kneeling down” or “knelt” or “did obeisance” by NIV
(Matt. 9:18; 20:20; Mk. 5:6), NKJV (Matt. 20:20),
NWT (all five verses), JB (all five verses)
Ruckman states that the word “proskuneo” for “wor-
ship” is in ALL Greek manuscripts
Matthew 5:22
“without a cause” is omitted by the DR, RV, Ne, NIV,
NKJV margin, JB, NWT
• The omission makes a sinner out of Jesus
Christ (Mk. 3:5)
Burgon states that the omission of these words was
originally the work of Origen (184-254), preserved in
a writing of Jerome. Commenting on Matthew 5:22 in
relation to Ephesians 4:31, Origen assumed the text
he had in front of him was wrong, indicating it in-
cluded the words as found in the AV1611!
Burgon reveals that only Codices Aleph and B omit
the words. ALL other uncial copies have them. Fuller
and Ruckman state that the words are found in the
Byzantine Text, embodying the majority of the Greek
manuscripts. Burgon states that every extant copy of
the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Armenian
versions contain the words.
Burgon cites the following fathers in support of the
AV1611 reading:
century: Irenaeus, Justin Martyr
century: Cyprian, Origen
century: Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom,
Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory of
Nyssa, Hilary, Lucifer
century: Cyril of Alexandria, Isidorus,
Theodore of Mops, Theodoret
century: Severus
century: Antiochus the monk, Maximus
The AV Defense Booklet Page 108
Matthew 6:7
“vain repetitions” AV1611, RV, Ne, NKJV
“babbling, babble” NIV, JB
“same thing over and over again” NWT
• The AV1611 reading is faithful to all extant
• Note that the NWT is nearer to the correct
reading than the NIV reading, which would
enable any number of “Hail Marys” to be re-
peated with a clear-conscience
Matthew 6:13
“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, for ever. Amen” is omitted by the DR, RV, Ne,
NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB
Fuller, citing Burgon, states that of more than 500
relevant (Greek) manuscripts, all but nine contain
the AV1611 reading. Hills states that uncials B,
Aleph, D, Z, and six cursives omit the words, together
with 9 manuscripts of the Old Latin and all of
Jerome’s Vulgate.
Evidence for the authenticity of the AV1611 reading:
century: Didache (discovered 1875),
Tatian’s Diatessaron, Old Syriac (Peshitta)
century: Coptic and Sahidic (i.e. Egyptian)
century: Apostolic Constitutions, Old
Latin manuscript k, Gothic (Ulfilas) and
Armenian versions
century: Uncial W, Chrysostom, Isidore of
Pelusium, Georgian version
century: Uncials Sigma, Phi; Ethiopic ver-
sion; Palestinian, Harclean, and
Curetonian Syriac
century: Uncials E, L
century: Uncials G, K, M, U, V, Delta,
Phi, Pi; Old Latin f, g; Cursives 33, 565, 892
century: Cursive 1079
The AV Defense Booklet Page 109
Matthew 17:21
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting” omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV margin,
Burgon states that every extant uncial except Aleph
and B and every extant cursive except one contain
the verse. Of the versions, the Old Latin, Syriac, Cop-
tic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic at-
test to the verse, with only the Curetonian Syriac and
Sahidic omitting it. He cites additional ancient
authorities including:
century: Tertullian
century: Origen
century: Ambrose, Athanasius,
Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Hilary, Juvencus
century: Clement of Syria, John Damas-
Burgon also cites the Syriac version of the Canons of
Eusebius and the readings of the entire Eastern
Church on the 10
Sunday after Pentecost from the
earliest period, in favor of the verse.
Matthew 18:11
“For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that
which was lost” is omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV
margin, NWT, JB
Burgon states that the verse is attested by every
known uncial except Aleph, B, L and every known
cursive except three. Also bearing witness to the
verse are the Old Latin, Peshitta, Curetonian and
Philoxenian Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic,
Georgian, and Slavonic versions. Of the fathers citing
the verse, Burgon lists:
century: Tertullian
century: Origen
century: Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysos-
tom, pope Damsus, Hilary, Jerome,
Theodorus Heracl
The AV Defense Booklet Page 110
Matthew 27:4
“The innocent blood” AV1611
“innocent blood” RV, NIV, NKJV, JB
“righteous blood” NWT
• Christ’s blood differs from other innocent blood
(Deut. 19:10; 1 Ki. 2:31; Jer. 19:4) in that it is
God’s blood (Acts 20:28)
• Insertion of the definite article in the English,
not “the Greek,” makes this clear
Mark 1:2
“The prophets” is changed to “Isaiah the Prophet” in
the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB
• The modern reading is incorrect because
Isaiah did NOT write the quotation in verse 2,
Malachi did; Isaiah was quoted in verse 3
• The quotation from Malachi was a reference to
Jehovah God the Father; the “thy” and “thee”
of Mark 1:1,2 is the “me” of Malachi 3:1 – the
Deity of Christ is hidden in the modern read-
Ruckman states that the AV1611 reading is found in
all four families of manuscripts (Alexandrian, Byzan-
tine, Caesarean, Western) plus citations dating from
202 AD (150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
In sticking with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the mod-
ern readings have produced a mistake in their ‘bi-
Mark 9:44,46
“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched” is omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV
margin, NWT, JB
Ruckman states that A, D, K, X, Theta, Pi, and the
majority of Receptus Greek manuscripts support the
AV1611. The verses were omitted in the manuscripts
of Origen and Eusebius (i.e. Aleph and B).
Mark 15:28
The AV Defense Booklet Page 111
“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he
was numbered with the transgressors” is omitted by
the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB
Ruckman states that the verse is found in the vast
majority of manuscripts and in the Old Latin and Old
Syriac of the 2
and 3
centuries respectively
Mark 16:9-20
The NIV has a note between verse 8 and 9 stating
that the most reliable early manuscripts do not con-
tain Mark 16:9-20. The NKJV has a marginal note
stating that Aleph and B do not contain the verse,
although most other manuscripts of Mark do.
The evidence in favor of the authenticity of Mark
16:9-20 is overwhelming. The TBS publication ‘The
Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses of… Mark’
states that only two Greek manuscripts (Aleph and
B) out of a total of 620 which contain the Gospel of
Mark, omit the verses. Burgon states that a blank
space has been left in B, where the verses should
have been but where the scribe obviously omitted
As further evidence in favor of the verses, Burgon
century: Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac
versions, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
century: Coptic and Sahidic versions,
Hippolytus, Vincentius, ‘Acta Pilati’ – by an
unknown author, Apostolic Con-
century: Curetonian Syriac and Gothic
versions, Syriac Table of Canons,
Eusebius, Macarius Magnes,
Aphraates, Didymus, The Syriac ‘Acts
the Apostles,’ Epiphanius, Leon-
tius, Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom,
Jerome, Augustine
The AV Defense Booklet Page 112
century: Armenian version (some copies),
Codices A and C, Leo, Nestorius, Cyril
of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch,
Patricius, Marius Mercator
and 7
centuries: Codex D, Georgian and Ethiopic
versions, Hesychius, Gregentius,
Prosper, Archbishop John of
Thessalonica, Bishop Modestus of
Hills explains the omission of verses 9-20 from a
handful of documents as indicative of the work of
heretics, especially docetists who sought to deempha-
size post resurrection appearances of the Lord from
the Gospel record.
Although the “scholars” have concurred in denounc-
ing Mark 16:9-20, they have remained in hopeless
disarray when attempting to explain such an incon-
gruous ending. With every single book of the New
Testament concluding on a positive note (24 of them
with the word “Amen”), what are we to think of such
a negative ending as:
“And they went out quickly, and fled
from the sepulcher; for they trembled
and were amazed: neither said they any
thing to any man; FOR THEY WERE
AFRAID.” Mk. 16:8
Luke 2:33
“Joseph and his mother” has been altered to “the
child’s father and mother” or similar by the DR, RV,
Ne, NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB
Ruckman states that the AV1611 reading is found in
an 8
century manuscript, in two from the 9
and one from the 10
century plus “nearly all” the
Caesarian type texts and Old Latin witnesses. Fuller
indicates that the modern reading which tries to
make Joseph Christ’s natural father, comes from
The AV Defense Booklet Page 113
Jerome, using the corrupt text (i.e. Aleph and B) of
Luke 4:4
“but by every word of God” is omitted by the RV, Ne,
NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB
Ruckman states that the words are found in three
families of manuscripts (Western, Caesarean, Byzan-
tine) and in Tatian’s Diatessaron (2
century). Aleph
and B and their associates omit the words, together
with the Boharic (North African) and Coptic versions.
Luke 6:48
The final clause “founded upon a rock” has been al-
tered to “well-built” or similar by the RV, Ne, NIV,
NKJV margin, NWT, JB
• 1 Corinthians 10:4 and 1 Peter 2:6-8 reveal
that the modern reading obscures the Lord Je-
sus Christ
Burgon states that the AV1611 reading is supported
by A, C, D, 12 other uncials and the whole body of
cursives, the Syriac, Latin and Gothic versions. The
modern reading has been derived from Aleph and B.
Luke 23:42
“he said unto Jesus, Lord” has been changed to “He
said ‘Jesus’” or similar by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV
margin, NWT, JB
Hills states that the majority text, the Old Latin and
the Sinaitic Syriac versions support the AV1611,
while the modern reading is found only in Papyrus
75, Aleph, B, C, L and the Sahidic version. Ruckman
states that no less than 80 uncials and 70 cursives
have the AV1611 reading. Both Hills and Ruckman
explain how the modern reading is properly attrib-
uted to the corrupting influence of docetic heretics.
John 1:3
The AV Defense Booklet Page 114
“by” has been changed into “through” by the NIV,
Given that “In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), there is a big difference be-
tween “by” and “through.” Note that on this occasion,
the NKJV has impugned the AV1611 in its text with
respect to this important reference to the Deity of the
Lord Jesus Christ, not just in its margin.
John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9
“only begotten” has been altered to “one and only” or
similar by the NIV and JB. The NKJV margin and
Ne support the Arian and NWT reading in John 1:18
that Jesus was a “begotten God.”
• Note that the modern reading cannot be cor-
rect according to Job 1:6, Luke 3:38, and John
1:12, which show that Jesus Christ is NOT
God’s “one and only son”
“Monogenes” is found in the vast majority of manu-
scripts and is correctly translated “only begotten.”
The omission of “begotten” is obtained from Papyri
66, 75, Aleph, and B. “Only begotten God” is attribut-
able to Valentius (a 2
century heretic), whose cor-
rupting influence is preserved in P66, Aleph, B, C, L.
John 3:13
“which is in heaven” is omitted by NIV, Ne, NKJV
margin, NWT
Only P66, 75, Aleph, B, L and a few other ancient
witnesses omit the words. The vast majority of wit-
nesses, including some from the 2
and 3
support the AV1611 reading.
John 7:53-8:11
The NIV notes in its text that the earliest and most
reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 115
The NKJV notes in its margin that the verses are not
regarded as original by the Nestle-United Bible So-
cieties text but are found in over 900 manuscripts.
The NWT places the passage in the margin.
The JB notes in the margin that on the basis of style,
the author is not John and that the oldest manu-
scripts do not contain the passage.
Fuller cites Burgon as stating that of 73 copies of
John’s Gospel in the British Museum, 61 contain
John 7:53-8:11 as found in the AV1611. He also cites
a further 60 copies, from three distinct lines of ances-
try, which agree with the AV1611. He alludes to 35 of
the BM copies, which contain a marginal note stating
that verses 1-11 are not to be read on Whitsunday.
Thus he explains how the Lectionary practice of the
early church would have accounted for the omission
of the verses from some of the 70 cursives from which
they are absent.
Burgon states that the verses are found in the large
majority of later copies (i.e. over 900 manuscripts, as
the NKJV so obligingly notes). Burgon also cites in
favor of the passage as found in the AV1611:
• Codex D and the Old Latin codices b, c, e, ff, g,
h, j
• Jerome (385 AD), who included it in the Vul-
gate after surveying older Greek copies, stat-
ing it was found “in many copies both Greek
and Latin” before 415 AD
• The Ethiopic (5
century), Palestinian Syriac
century), Georgian (5
centuries), some
copies of the Armenian (4
centuries), Sla-
vonic, Arabic, and Persian versions
• Ambrose (374 AD), Augustine (396),
Chrysologus (433), Faustus (400), Gelasius
(492), Pacian (370), Rufinus (400), Sedulius
(434), Victorius (457), Vigilius (484) and others
The AV Defense Booklet Page 116
• The Lectionary practice of the Eastern
Church, from the earliest times (i.e. the 2
Ruckman cites in favor of the passage, the Didache
century document of Apostolic Teachings), Apos-
tolic Constitutions (4
century) and Eusebius (324
AD) citing Papias (150 AD) as recognizing the pas-
sage. The Montanists (2
century) were also aware of
the passage. Ruckman also cites besides D, uncials
M, S, and Gamma from the 5
, 8
, and 9
in favor of the AV1611.
John 10:14,15
“and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me”
has been altered to “my sheep know me – just as the
Father knows me” or similar by the DR, RV, Ne, NIV,
• The objection to the modern rendering is that
it equates the knowledge of the Lord by the
believer to that which is enjoyed by the Fa-
ther; the results is either to deify man or hu-
manize God, either tendency being heresy
Burgon states that the proportion of manuscripts of
John which support the AV1611 is “996 out of a
1000.” He states that the modern reading – unques-
tionably the work of heretics – is found only in Aleph,
B, D, L. The AV1611 is also supported by the Syriac,
Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Macarius (4
century), Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret (5
and Maximus (7
Acts 2:47
“Church” has been omitted or altered to “number” or
similar by the DR, RV, Ne, NIV, NWT, JB. The
NKJV margin indicates that “to the church” is omit-
ted from the Nestle-United Bible Societies Text.
• Omission of the word “church” is objectionable
on the grounds that it eliminates the cross ref-
erences to Acts 5:14, 11:24 and thus obscure
The AV Defense Booklet Page 117
the fact that the “Body of Christ” (Col. 1:18,24)
began in Acts 2
The TBS states that the evidence against the AV1611
reading is uncials Aleph, A, B, C, G, cursive 81 (1044
AD), some manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate,
the Egyptian, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions and
quotations in the writings of Cyril and Lucifer. These
hostile witnesses are few and vastly offset by the evi-
dence supporting the AV1611.
Standing in favor of the AV1611 reading are uncials
D, E (both 6
century), P (9
century) 049, 056, 0142;
the “main stream of the very numerous Byzantine
manuscripts” plus “independent” copies of the Byzan-
tine group including numbers 33, 1739, 181, 436, 451,
945, 104, 88, 326, 330, 1241, 2412, 2127, 614, 2492,
1877, 629, 630, 2495. Also in favor of the AV1611 are
the Old Latin manuscripts e, d (each 4
the Peshitta and Harkelian Syriac.
Acts 8:37
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I be-
lieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is omitted
by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB.
The verse is absent from most Greek manuscripts,
however the verse is found in uncial E (6
ries), the Old Latin (2
century), the Vulgate (5
tury) and is cited by Irenaeus (180 AD) and Cyprian
(250 AD). Ruckman also cites Tertullian (2
Pacian (370 AD), Ambrose and Augustine (4
tury) as knowing the verse.
Romans 14:10
“judgment seat of Christ” has been altered to “judg-
ment seat of God” or similar by the RV, Ne, NIV,
NKJV margin, NWT, JB.
Hills states that the AV1611 reading is not only the
majority reading but it is cited by Polcarp (1
turies), Tertullian and Marcion (both 2
The AV Defense Booklet Page 118
The modern alteration comes from Aleph, B, D2 plus
other Western and Alexandrian texts and is almost
certainly a deliberate heretical substitution.
Colossians 1:14
“through his blood” is omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV,
NKJV margin, NWT, JB.
• The omission makes redemption equal to for-
giveness – which it is NOT
The omission is attributed to Origen but citations for
the AV1611 reading date from the 2
1 Timothy 3:16
“God” has been altered to “He” or “Who” by the RV,
Ne, NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB. The DR has
• The alteration of “God” to “He” or “Who” obvi-
ously constitutes an attack on the Deity of Je-
sus Christ by the modern textual critics
The TBS state that all the early Greek editions of the
New Testament (Ximenes, Erasmus, Beza, Stepha-
nus) read “God was manifest” and hence this must
have been the reading of the manuscripts available to
those editors. The wording of their editions is re-
flected in all the early English translations (Tyndale
1534, Great Bible 1539, Geneva 1557, Bishops’ 1568)
except the surviving copies of Wyclif (1380) derived in
part from the Vulgate. Moreover, the European ver-
sions associated with true Bible believers (Italian
Diodati, French Osterwald, Spanish Valera, German
Luther, Portuguese Almeida) all concur with the
However, the 19
and 20
century Greek editions of
the New Testament, culminating in those of Westcott
and Hort and Nestle, all rejected “God” in 1 Timothy
3:16 in favor of “who.” These corrupt texts form the
basis for most of the modern translations. According
to Burgon, the only ancient witness in support of
“who” is Aleph (4
century), while D (6
century) has
The AV Defense Booklet Page 119
“which.” C (5
century) and F and G (9
century) are
indistinct in this place and their testimony therefore
equivocal, while Codex B does not contain 1 Timothy.
In addition, Burgon cites only one cursive copy of
Paul’s Epistles, designated ‘Paul 17,’ as reading
“who” in 1 Timothy 3:16. Burgon states that of the
ancient versions, only the Gothic (4
century) une-
quivocally witnesses to “who.” Agreeing with D in ex-
hibiting “which” in 1 Timothy 3:16 are the Old Latin
century), Vulgate (4
century), Peshitta Syriac
century), Coptic and Sahidic (3
centuries) and
Ethiopic (6
centuries) versions. The only fathers
in opposition to “God” are Gelasius of Cyzicus (476
AD), who cites “which” and an unknown author of
uncertain date, who also cites “which.” The TBS state
that the Latin, Peshitta and other versions may well
have been influenced by the erroneous reading in D,
of the ‘Western’ family. Later copies of the Peshitta
century) may have been influenced by the views
of Nestorius, who evidently denied that Christ was
both God and man.
The most ancient Greek uncial in favor of “God” in 1
Timothy 3:16 is Codex A (5
century). In support of A
are uncials K, L, and P all of the 9
century. The ex-
tant cursive copies of Paul’s letters number 300, of
which 254 contain 1 Timothy 3:16. Of these, no less
than 252 read “God,” in agreement with the AV1611.
Added to this favorable testimony are 29 out of 32
Lectionary copies from the Eastern Church, reaching
back to the earliest times, i.e. before Aleph, which
support the reading “God.” Burgon also cites the
Georgian (6
century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD),
and the Slavonic (9
century) versions as reading
“God.” The fathers in support of the AV1611 are as
century: Barnabus, Ignatius (90 AD)
century: Hippolytus (190 AD)
century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle
ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264
AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus
The AV Defense Booklet Page 120
century: Basil the Great (355 AD),
Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD),
Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of
Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa
(370 AD)
century: Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD),
Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius II (496 AD)
century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512
century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD),
John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus
Studita (790 AD)
James 5:16
“faults” has been altered to “sins” or similar by the
DR, RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV (“trespasses”), NWT, JB.
• The alteration is ready made for the abomina-
ble Roman Catholic “confessional,” shows how
modern revisers will alter the word of truth to
accommodate the whore of Revelation 17
Gail Riplinger confirms that manuscripts Aleph, B,
A, P, Scrivener’s a, c, d and Tregelles 13 read “har-
matias” (“sins”). She adds that the majority of Greek
manuscripts, including uncials K, L, 049 and cursives
322, 323, 1846, and 2298 read “paraptomata”
(“faults”) and explains that the minority manuscript
reading is a corruption which was discarded by the
early church. It is therefore preserved in only a few
manuscripts and has no unbroken testimony down
through history. The reader should note that this is
in complete contrast to the few AV1611 readings such
as Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7,8 which are not found in
the majority of extant manuscripts but nevertheless
enjoy considerable support from many other sources,
dating from the 2
1 John 5:7,8
“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three
that bear witness in earth” is omitted by the RV, Ne,
NIV, NKJV margin, NWT, JB.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 121
This passage, known as the ‘Johannine Comma,’ is
lacking from most of the 500-600 extant Greek
manuscripts which contain 1 John, although Dr. Gill
stated in the late 18
century that “out of sixteen an-
cient copies of Robert Stephens’, nine of them had
(the passage).”
Citing Nestle’s 26
Edition as the source, Moorman
lists nine Greek manuscripts in his work which con-
tain the Comma, four in the text and five in the mar-
The main authorities for the passage are the Old
Latin Text of the 2
century, including manuscript r,
written in the 5
century and the Speculum, a
treatise containing the Old Latin Text, written, ac-
cording to Moorman, early in the 5
century and sev-
eral fathers. Fuller, citing Wilkinson, states that the
passage was found in the Old Latin Bibles of the
Waldenses, whose text pre-dated Jerome’s Vulgate.
The Old Latin text carried sufficient weight to influ-
ence the later copies of the Vulgate, most of which
from 800 AD onward incorporated the passage.
The fathers who cite the passage include Tatian, Ter-
tullian (both 2
century), Cyprian (250 AD), Priscil-
lian (385 AD), Idacius Clarus (385 AD), several Afri-
can writers of the 5
century and Cassiodorus (480-
570 AD).
The combined influence of these authorities, together
with grammatical difficulties which arise if the
Comma is omitted, was sufficient to ensure its place
in most editions of the Textus Receptus and hence
the AV1611, where it undoubtedly belongs. The
omission of the Comma from the majority of the
manuscripts most likely stems from the influence of
Origen and some of his supporters, who did not ac-
cept the doctrine of the Trinity.
The NEW King James Version (NKJV)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 122
• The NKJV has made 100,000 changes to the
• The NKJV omits the following words:
o “Lord” 66 times
o “God” 51 times
o “heaven” 50 times
o “fornication” 23 times
o “repent” 44 times
o “blood” 23 times
o “hell” 22 times
o “devil” 26 times
o “soul” 137 times
o “damnation” entirely
o “new testament” entirely
• Often the NKJV removes a simple, single syl-
lable word and replaces it with a more diffi-
cult, multiple syllable word
o Gen. 35:4 – “oak” (AV1611) with “tere-
binth trees” (NKJV)
o Lev. 4:11 – “dung” (AV1611) with “offal”
o Judg. 8:13 – “sun was up” (AV1611)
with “Ascent of Heres” (NKJV)
o Ruth 4:5 – “raise up” (AV1611) with
“perpetuate” (NKJV)
o Jer. 19:3 – “evil” (AV1611) with “catas-
trophe” (NKJV)
o 2 Cor. 5:2 – “house” (AV1611) with
“habitation” (NKJV)
o Titus 1:6 – “unruly” (AV1611) with “in-
subordination” (NKJV)
• The NKJV often excludes references to gender
(“wise” instead of “wise men,” “human wis-
dom” instead of “man’s wisdom,” “each one” in-
stead of “every man,” etc.)
• The NKJV is inconsistent in its use of capitali-
zation in reference to Deity
• The occultic Mobius symbol (serpent noad) on
the spine of the NKJV should have been a
dead giveaway of its author; popularized by
Satanist Aleister Crowley (c. 1900), this an-
cient depiction of 666 was also featured on the
The AV Defense Booklet Page 123
cover of Led Zeppelin’s rock album The Pres-
In Summary…
Even this brief (and far from exhaustive) survey
shows how the modern versions approved by many
fundamentalists (NIV, NKJV) repeatedly:
• Weaken or cast doubt on the testimony of
• Agree, with only a few exceptions, with bibles
declared by fundamentalists to be corrupt
(NWT, JB, and often the DR) against the
• Follow or support the corrupt Alexandrian text
of Westcott and Hort
• Detract from the Person and Deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ
• Fail to improve on many important truths re-
vealed by the AV1611 and indeed tend to ob-
scure such truths
• In particular, obscure many verse which deal
with Hell, Rome, and devils
The answer to the question “whence comest thou?”
concerning the Bible reveals:
• Two lines of Bibles
• Two lines of Greek manuscripts
• Two lines of church history
• Two lines of men
Of each of these two lines, one is honoring to God and
one is not; of each of these two lines, one is honored
BY God and one is not
Practical Suggestions
• Be guided by conscience (Acts 24:16); no one
should be forced to abide by any bible against
the dictates of conscience
• Be aware of the facts in the selection of a bible:
“The prudent man looketh well to his going”
(Prov. 14:15)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 124
• Be honest; if no bible is inerrant, then NO bi-
ble should be declared “the infallible word of
God” for “God is light, and in him is no dark-
ness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5)
• Be consistent; if a bible IS the “pure and per-
fect word of God,” then it must be ENTIRELY
the pure and perfect word of God: “But as God
is true, our word toward you was not yea and
nay” (2 Cor. 1:18)
• “Be ready always to give an answer to every
man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15)
• Don’t correct the Book – it will correct you
The following criticisms (in italics) were addressed to
Alan O’Reilly (author of ‘O Biblios’ The Book) by a
scholarly gentleman; his criticisms are typical of the
genre. Following the criticisms is Mr. O’Reilly’s re-
You should become acquainted with the standard
scholarly works
• Who sets the standard and on what basis? It
appears that the basis is to alter the AV1611
at all costs
• One’s time and financial resources are limited;
the Christian’s time should be invested into
what will reinforce fidelity to the Holy Bible,
not weaken it
• Whatever “the standard scholarly works are,”
the effect of following them is to become a Bi-
ble rejecting destructive critic
You have an attitude which is constantly looking for
papal plots, which repeatedly attributes the lowest
possible motives to textual critics and translators
• It is a realistic attitude; in addition to the
works by Edmond Paris and Avro Manhattan,
the reader should consult:
o Jesuit Plots from Elizabethan to Modern
Times, Albert Close
The AV Defense Booklet Page 125
o The Babington Plot, J.E.C. Shepherd
o The British Monarchy and the See of
Rome, Michael McCarthy
o Is Albert for Real?, Sid Hunter
o All Roads Lead to Rome, Michael de
• Academia has yet to show that papal plots
aimed at overthrowing the word of God and
replacing it with the authority of Rome are not
in operation even now
You overlook the fact that the critics (Origen, Jerome,
Westcott-Hort, NIV committee, etc.) leave so much in
the text which stands in complete contradiction to
their alleged purposes
• Ruckman answers as follows, “90% of Sinaiti-
cus and Vaticanus… have to read with the
Byzantine family in order to pass off as Bi-
• 1 Corinthians 5:6 states that “a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump.” How many words
of the ‘Divinely inspired original’ did Mother
Eve have to change in order to damn the en-
tire human race? (Gen. 2:16,17; 3:2,3)
Your claims that the KJV is superior to the original
Hebrew and Greek… the God breathed originals… are
• The AV1611 can be READ, the originals
CANNOT and were NEVER collated into one
volume; the verse usually quoted in support of
“the God-breathed originals” (2 Tim. 3:16) re-
fers to copies of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15),
NOT the originals
• The AV1611 has chapter and verse divisions,
which even the modern translations must fol-
low; the oldest manuscripts do NOT
• The AV1611 has word separation so that it can
be more easily understood; the oldest manu-
scripts do NOT
• The AV1611 is rhythmical and easy to memo-
rize which Greek and Hebrew are NOT
The AV Defense Booklet Page 126
• The AV1611 has been responsible for the con-
version of more souls than any original auto-
graph or any copy made within five centuries
of the original autographs
• The AV1611 is in the universal language of
the last days which Greek and Hebrew are
NOT; Hebrew is spoken by approximately 1%
of the world’s population; New Testament
Koine Greek is a DEAD language, not even
spoken in Greece
• The following quotation may be of interest…
o “A university man met (John) Bunyan
on the road near Cambridge. Said he to
Bunyan, “How dare you preach, not
having the original Scriptures?” “Do you
have them – the copies written by the
apostles and prophets?” asked Bunyan.
“No,” replied the scholar. “But I have
what I believe to be a true copy of the
original.” “And I,” said Bunyan, “believe
the English Bible to be a true copy too.”
Your position seems to assume the KJV is always
right. This in effect means that any meaningful dis-
cussion of linguistic, textual and exegetical matters is
quite impossible
• The academic’s position is the same as mine,
except that he insists that SCHOLARSHIP is
always right and is capable of correcting the
AV1611; I maintain that the AV1611 is always
right and is quite able to correct the dogma of
fundamental scholarship
• The academic insists that “a knowledge of
what the original writers actually said” is nec-
essary to avoid error and that “all versions
must be subject to the original languages”
which should be constantly consulted; neither
assertion has any scriptural foundation
o It is the “Spirit of truth” (Jn. 16:13) who
guides the believer into “all truth,” not
the original autographs
The AV Defense Booklet Page 127
o A “knowledge of what the original writ-
ers actually said” cannot be gained un-
less one has “a true copy of the original”
because the “original” record (Jer.
36:18) does not exist
o There is no Scripture that limits such
knowledge, first hand, to Greek and
Hebrew linguists, transforming them
into a special privileged “priest class”
who are supposed to dictate to unedu-
cated initiates that constitute the rest of
the Body of Christ; the Bible shows that
the reverse is true (Lk. 10:21; Acts 4:13)
• Far from being impossible, a very large
amount of “meaningful discussion of linguistic,
textual and exegetical matters” may take place
when the AV1611 is upheld as the FINAL
authority in ALL matters of faith and practice;
such “discussion” is not only possible, it is
“profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16) and commanded by
God (Deut. 6:6,7; Col. 3:16); however, for it to
take place, one must…
o Believe the Scripture; Jn. 2:22
o Love the Scripture; Ps. 119:97,140
o Hear the Scripture; Lk. 11:28; Rom.
o Read the Scripture; Deut. 17:19; Neh.
8:8; Is. 34:16; Rev. 1:3
o Study the Scripture; Prov. 2:1-5; Acts
17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15
o Memorize the Scripture; Josh. 1:8; Ps.
119:9,11; Matt. 4:4,7,10
o Meditate upon the Scripture; Josh. 1:8;
Ps. 1:2,3; 119:15,23,48,78,97,99
o In order to obey the Scripture; Ezra
7:10; Jn. 14:21,23; Jam. 1:22; 1 Jn. 3:22
• By its own profession Academia can do none of
the things listed above because it does not
have “the God-breathed originals”
The KJV like every other version must be subject to
the original languages
The AV Defense Booklet Page 128
• This statement means that the Holy Bible
must be made subject to the demands of lin-
guistic scholarship, an assumption for which
there is no Scriptural basis whatsoever; I base
belief in the AV1611 as the final authority in
all matters of faith and conduct upon Psalm
• The English of the AV1611 defines the proper
definition of the Hebrew and Greek
• By contrast, academia is persistently vague
about WHERE it consults “the original lan-
guages” and about what the pure word of God
is TODAY and WHERE a copy can be ob-
tained. It cannot lay claim to any ONE book on
the face of this earth as being genuinely and
unequivocally THE WORD OF GOD and
hence the FINAL AUTHORITY in ALL mat-
ters of faith and practice. In short, it has NO
All Greek manuscripts are in essential agreement in
at least 95% of the NT text and in the remaining 5%
none of the variant readings pose any threat to the ba-
sic doctrines of the Bible.
• The figure of 95% refers to the manuscripts of
ANTIOCH, of which about 90% agree with the
Text of the AV1611
o The correct statement is 95% of all
Greek manuscripts belong to the Antio-
chian manuscript line; only 5% of all
Greek manuscripts belong to the Alex-
andrian manuscript line – the critic
misstated the facts!
• Vaticanus B, the most highly regarded manu-
script of the Alexandrian text, is only 50%
similar to the Received Text
• It is not for Greek scholars, saved or lost, to
dictate to Bible believers about whether or not
variant readings affect “basic doctrines”; the
Lord Jesus Christ said to the father of all Bible
critics (Gen. 3:1) that, “Man shall not live by
The AV Defense Booklet Page 129
bread alone, but by every word that pro-
ceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4)
o Jealous of every word, Bible believers
will not stand to lose even one of them
to “the fowls of the air” (Mk. 4:4),
whether scholars think it is “basic” or
The measure of agreement between the Received Text,
the Westcott-Hort text and the United Bible Societies
text is as much as 97%. The real issue for the transla-
tor is which of the variants for the 3% of disputed text
he should follow
• Consider the 97%-3% thesis as it applies to the
AV1611 and the NIV; the 3% makes all the
difference, it is “the jam in the sandwich”
o It means that 16 complete verses belong
to the New Testament (as in the Re-
ceived Text and AV1611) or otherwise
they don’t (as in the NIV)
o It means the 147 part verses missing
from the NIV should be missing or they
should not be missing
o It means that a certain 169 names of
our Lord God, retained in the AV1611,
are correct, or that they should be omit-
ted, as in the NIV
o It means that the words, “The Son of
Man is come to save that which was
lost” was either spoken by the Saviour
Himself, as recorded in the AV1611
(Matt. 18:11), or otherwise were not
spoken by Him, as is missing in the NIV
• A 97% salvation is no salvation, and a 97% Bi-
ble is not God’s Book
• Dr. Ruckman warns, “We are dealing with
committees who announce publicly that the
‘word of God’ is NOT the Bible, but some mes-
sage you are supposed to get THROUGH THE
The AV Defense Booklet Page 130
Even the most incompetent translation of the most
uncritical edition of the Hebrew or Greek cannot effec-
tively obscure the real message of the Bible or neutral-
ize its saving power
• Is the “real message of the Bible” the pure
word of God? If so, why not call it that? If not,
what is it and where is it FOR TODAY?
• Aleph contains heretical teachings that deny
the Deity of Christ or in some way detract
from it; it should be noted that the NIV New
Testament, which claims Aleph and B are the
“most reliable early manuscripts” retains most
of these heretical readings
• Name a revival stemming from a modern ver-
sion – so much for their “saving power”
The fact that most extant manuscripts attest the Byz-
antine (Antiochan) text type proves nothing; in assess-
ing, reading manuscripts are weighed not counted –
in other words quality is of far more importance than
• Pickering states, “’Witnesses are to be weighed
and not counted’ is an axiom to those who
work within Hort’s framework. The fallacies
are basic and need to be considered closely.
How are witnesses to be weighed? This
weighing has been done by Hort, etc. on the
basis of subjective considerations.”
• Burgon states, “In the very form of the maxim,
- ‘Not to be counted but to be weighed,’ – the
undeniable fact is overlooked that ‘number’ is
the most ordinary ingredient of weight and in-
deed, even in matters of human testimony, is
an element which cannot be cast away.”
• Pickering continues, “The great majority of
pastors speak confidently of the ‘best manu-
scrips,’ repeating uncritically what they were
taught. Upon inquiry, the enumeration of the
‘best’ often gets no further than codices B and
Aleph – even if the list is longer, these two
usually head it. Yet it is generally recognized
that this small handful of ‘best’ witnesses rep-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 131
resents but one area. When the textual critic
looks more closely at his oldest manuscript
materials, the paucity of his resources is more
fully realized. All the earliest witnesses, papy-
rus or parchment, come from Egypt alone.
Manuscripts produced in Egypt, ranging be-
tween the third and fifth centuries, provide
only a half-dozen extensive witnesses.”
• Burgon states, “taking the year 400 AD as an
arbitrary cut-off point, ‘antiquity’ would in-
clude over seventy fathers, Codices Aleph and
B, the early papyri, and the earliest versions.
By and large they (the fathers and the ver-
sions) disagree with Egypt.”
No two manuscripts in the Byzantine or Textus Recep-
tus agree perfectly. This tradition is not better off than
any other.
• Dr. Hills compares “the printed Textus Recep-
tus to the Traditional New Testament text
found in the majority of the Greek New Tes-
tament manuscripts”
o Hills states, “These two texts are virtu-
ally identical. Kirsopp Lake and his as-
sociates (1928) demonstrated this fact…
they came to the conclusion that in the
chapter of Mark ‘the most popular
text in the manuscripts of the tenth to
the fourteenth century’ differed from
the Textus Receptus only four times.
This small number of differences seems
almost negligible in that in this same
chapter Aleph, B, and D differ from the
Textus Receptus 69, 71, and 95 times
respectively… in this same chapter B
differs from Aleph 34 times and from D
102 times and… Aleph differs from D
100 times”
Inerrancy and infallibility are found only in the
original documents
The AV Defense Booklet Page 132
• Critics often cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as their proof
text; however, the context (verse 15) shows
that it is a reference to the Scriptures by which
Timothy was saved and which were taught
him by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim.
1:5) – these could hardly have been ‘the origi-
• The word “scripture” in the Bible is ALWAYS
12:10; Acts 8:32; 17:11; etc.) and NEVER
ONCE is referring to ‘original autographs;’
Christ read the Scriptures, the Bereans stud-
ied the Scriptures, the Ethiopian eunuch had
them open on his lap, and Christ rebuked peo-
ple for not reading them (Matt. 21:42)
• Paul ascribes FOREKNOWLEDGE and
SPEECH to copies of the Scripture (Rom. 9:17;
Gal. 3:8), since he never had an ORIGINAL of
Exodus 9:16 or Genesis 22:18 a day in his life
• If it is “scripture,” God gave it; if God gave it,
the method He used was by inspiration: HE
BREATHED ON IT – That is what put LIFE
into the Scriptures (see Gen. 2:7 and Eze. 37:1-
Not one article of faith or one moral precept depends
entirely for its support on a disputed reading
• The critic does not state what they do entirely
depend on, nor does he adduce even one verse
of Scripture in support of this supposed reas-
• The Lord Jesus Christ said “Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that
procedeeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt.
4:4); see also Luke 4:4, where the NIV omitted
the phrase “but by every word of God”
“Now let us divide off… Let those people who do not
believe the Bible and who are critical of this and that
part of it, go clear over to the other side. Let them
stand behind the devil’s guns… Give us the out-and-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 133
out opposition of infidelity rather than the work of
these hybrid theologians, these mongrel ecclesiastics,
these half-evoluted people who BELIEVE the Bible
and do NOT believe it. I TAKE UP THE KING
PERFECT BIBLE” Thomas DeWitt Talmage (1880)
Additional charges made by our scholarly gentleman
that the Holy Bible AV1611 has many defects are
listed below (in italics). The rebuttal by Alan O’Reilly
(author ‘O Biblios’ The Book) follows each accusation.
The discovery of many additional and very early
manuscripts since 1611, the rise of the study of Bibli-
cal archaeology, the development in comparative
Semitics and changes in the English language over
the centuries all provide urgent reasons for using 20
Century versions of the Bible. I believe the KJV trans-
lators would have approved of these modern transla-
• Wilkinson states: “It is an exaggerated idea,
much exploited by those who are attacking the
Received Text, that we of the present have
greater, as well as more valuable, sources of
information than had the translators of 1611.
It is true that thousands of manuscripts have
been brought to life since 1611, but it must be
emphasized that the great majority of these
are in substantial agreement with the Tradi-
tional Text underlying the Reformers’ Bibles
and the King James Version.”
• The readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were
very much before the scholars of the 1611
Authorized Version as represented IN THE
• For all practical purposes, the AV1611 trans-
lators had access to “all the knowledge which
has come to light since their day”; contrary to
our critic’s opinion, they would NOT “have ap-
proved of modern translations” because the
Bible they produced DOES NOT MATCH the
modern translations
The AV Defense Booklet Page 134
Readers are misled by the KJV by imagining two dif-
ferent words in the original underlie two different
English words when in fact they do not. A few exam-
ples are “creation and creature,” “soul and life,”
“Blessed and happy,” “serve and worship,” “covenant
and testament,” eternal and everlasting.” Examples of
different spellings of names include “Jeremiah, Jere-
mias, and Jeremie,” “Noah and Noe,” “Jonah, Jona,
and Jonas,” “Elijah and Elias,” “Joshua and Jesus,”
“Timothy and Timotheous.” This lack of uniformity
only creates perplexities and confuses many readers.
Modern versions of the Bible helpfully simplify the
matter by adopting one form throughout.
• Dr. Miles Smith who wrote the preface to the
AV1611 states:
o “Another thing we think good to ad-
monish thee of (gentle Reader) that we
have not tied ourselves to an uniformity
of phrasing, or to an identity of words,
as some peradventure would wish that
we had done, because they observe, that
some learned men somewhere, have
been as exact as they could that way.
Truly, that we might not vary from the
sense of that which we had translated
before, if the word signified the same
thing in both places (for there be some
words that be not of the same sense
everywhere) we were especially careful,
and made a conscience, according to our
duty. But, that we should express the
same notion in the particular word; as
for example, if we translate the Hebrew
or Greek word once by Purpose, never to
call it Intent; if one were Journeying,
never Traveling; if one were Think,
never Suppose; if one were Pain, never
Ache; if one were Joy, never Gladness,
etc. Thus to mince the matter, we
thought to savor more of curiosity than
wisdom, and that rather it would breed
The AV Defense Booklet Page 135
scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to
the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of
God become words and syllables? Why
should we be in bondage to them if we
may be free, use one precisely when we
may use another no less fit, as commo-
• Dr. Smith’s comments indicates that the
AV1611 translators:
o Did not tie themselves “to a uniformity
of phrasing”
o Recognized that some words were “not
of the same sense everywhere”
o Were “especially careful” not to “vary
from the sense” of the underlying Greek
and Hebrew word
o Were constrained to “bring profit to the
godly reader”
o Were fully aware that schoolboy ped-
antry would only “breed scorn in the
atheist” instead of encouraging him to
read the Book and get saved
• Our critic’s criticisms are therefore unfounded
because Dr. Smith and his fellow translators
were obviously fully aware of having to main-
tain the right sense in translation, whatever
English word they chose, whatever Greek or
Hebrew word they had to translate
• This criticism further points to the use of “84
English words to render one Hebrew word and
of 17 English words for one Greek word” –
aren’t the champions of “the Greek and the
Hebrew” continually reminding the poor, igno-
rant “KJV-onylists” about how the “feeble
English” can never attain the “depth of
meaning” of the “true Greek” and of how words
in the AV1611 were repeatedly mistranslated
and should have been translated differently?
• Dr. Ruckman comments, “It is objected that
the word ‘Jeremiah’ has been transliterated
three different ways in the AV1611 (Matt.
27:9; 16:14). This is ‘confusing to the reader.’ It
The AV Defense Booklet Page 136
didn’t confuse Moody, Torrey, Finney, Sunday,
Spurgeon, Scofield, Carey, Goforth, Living-
stone, DeHaan, Fuller, Ironside, Rice, or any-
one else who believed the Bible and put it into
practice. Whom did it ‘confuse?’ If the new bi-
bles are going to clear up these ‘inconsistent
practices,’ how is it that they have translated
the word ‘Alma’ (Hebrew) three different ways,
while spelling Jeremiah the same way every
time? Are we supposed to be so stupid as to
imagine that the word for ‘virgin’ (Alma), re-
ferring to the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, is of
LESS IMPORTANCE than the transliteration
of a proper name given to a prophet?”
• It could be argued that if the different spell-
ings reflect the changing nature of language
then the AV1611 is only following the proce-
dure which the modern versions all insist is
the reason for their existence
Your claim that modern renderings in some Acts pas-
sages deny the deity of Christ should also be applied
in consistency to the KJV in Matthew 12:18 since the
underlying Greek phrase “Pais Theou” is exactly the
same. The word “servant” is a clear reference to the
servant passages in Isaiah. The apostles had heard
the Lord many times especially during the later part
of his ministry identify himself with the suffering ser-
vant figure. They were merely following Him when
they used the word “servant.” “Pais Theou” means
“servant of God” and it is not to be confused with
“Huios Theou” which means “son of God.”
• Dr. Ruckman states, “The quotation (in
Matthew 12:18) turns out to be a description of
a silent first coming, as a suffering servant,
who will save not only Jews but Gentiles; but
where the quotation occurs (Is. 42:1-4), there is
no way to tell whether it is an individual (as in
Is. 41:8) representing Israel (Is. 45:4), or
whether it is the individual Messiah (Is. 49:6;
41:25) representing Jehovah (Is. 53). Again, we
see the subtlety and shrewdness of the Divine
The AV Defense Booklet Page 137
mind. The prophecies are so placed that they
can apply to Israel or to Jesus Christ, de-
pending upon what ISRAEL DOES WITH
is the mystery that baffled the prophets (1 Pet.
1:10-12). The modern-day Gentile expositor
misses the doctrine of the Second Coming now,
exactly as the Pharisee missed the first coming
then; he refuses to recognize the divisions
which set prophecy into dispensations.”
There are more than 300 words in the KJV which are
entirely obsolete or used in a sense substantially dif-
ferent from that which they now convey. It does the
KJV translators no honor and is indeed quite unfair
to them and to the truth which they understood to re-
tain these words which now convey meanings they did
not intend.
• This criticism is the standard party line as
found in the Preface to the 1946 edition of the
Revised Standard Version
• As Grady says, “The ‘archaic’ words of the
King James Bible have already been ‘updated’
more than 100 times in as many years for an
average of one modern version per year. Now,
who’s kidding whom? Can the English lan-
guage be changing that fast?”
• The TBS states, “Many modern versions tend
to replace the simple short words of the
Authorized Version with more difficult words,
and the New International Version does so in
hundreds of places.”
• G.W. Anderson states, “The Authorized Ver-
sion – following its predecessors, including
Tyndale – was written in the common lan-
guage of its time, although in a literary rather
than colloquial style. It was not written in ‘the
classical language of Shakespeare.’ The liter-
ary style used by the translators is what has
enabled the Authorized Version to stand the
test of time.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 138
• Any “archaic” words could be printed in the
margin without disturbing the text, and those
who desire to disturb the text always pervert
the text before they are through
• The AV1611 uses approximately 10,000 Eng-
lish words; the often cumbersome words and
phrases used in the NIV (more syllables in the
NIV) detract from ease of memorization and
o A side note, the printing of each verse
as a separate paragraph in the AV1611
enables the reader to locate a reference
much more easily than when the verse
numbers are scattered through a pas-
sage of prose as in the NIV
Our critic continues his attack on the Holy Bible by
inveighing against some of the principal men associ-
ated with it. Once again the critic’s comments (in
italics) are addressed by Alan O’Reilly.
Erasmus never left the Roman Catholic Church yet in
1881 Revised Version translators are accused of being
“Romanists” because some of their readings are akin
to the Vulgate
• The principle 1881 translators, Westcott and
Hort, are accused of being “Romanists” be-
cause they WERE Romanists, even if clandes-
tinely; their radical Greek New Testament in
the main, follows the Vatican and Sinaiticus
o Dr. Grady states that “Drs. Westcott
and Hort were a pair of unsaved liber-
als whose open Vatican sympathies cast
them as the consummate Jesuit plants”;
he then substantiates his conclusion
with the following 28 pages of his book
• Dr. Gipp cites Erasmus as follows, “This mon-
archy of the Roman pontiff is the pest of Chris-
tendom”; Dr. Gipp adds, “He berated the pa-
pacy, the priesthood and the over indulgences
The AV Defense Booklet Page 139
of the monks. He was offered a bishopric in
hopes that it would silence his criticism. He
rejected the bribe flat.”
• Dr. Ruckman states, “’The Index’ is the Coun-
cil of Trent’s list of forbidden books; no trans-
lation from the Textus Receptus has ever got-
ten off the list. The Fourth Rule of the Index
by this Council said that the Bible could only
be read with the permission of a Catholic
Bishop, and then only if it was a Bible put out
by Catholic AUTHORS. When the RV came
out – using the Catholic Greek text for the
ASV, NIV, and NASV – it was immediately
recommended by Roman Catholic officials. NO
translation from Erasmus into any language
was ever recommended by any Catholic official
ONE time in 400 years (1530-1930).”
• Concerning the gospel, Erasmus said, “Our
hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of
Christ”; of Jesus Christ he states, “He nailed
our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption
with his blood”; he boldly stated that no rites
of the Church were necessary for an individ-
ual’s salvation; “The way to enter Paradise,”
he stated, “is the way of the penitent thief, say
simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is
crucified and I to the world.”
• Dr. Hills states, “In 1535, he again returned to
Basil and died there the following year in the
midst of his Protestant friends, without rela-
tions of any sort, so far as known, with the
Roman Catholic Church”
Serious historians conceded that the real reason for
James I patronage of the AV1611 was not any great
love for the word of God but the king’s shrewdness in
seeing that a new translation would add to the glory
of his reign and enhance his fancied reputation as a
theologian. The KJV was the only glorious things
connected with his shifty and unworthy rule and his
ambiguous career. He was thoroughly despicable and
The AV Defense Booklet Page 140
in no way entitled to his name bound up all through
the ages with an enterprise so holy.
• It would appear that “the God of heaven” who
“removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (Dan.
2:19-21), thought differently – much to the
chagrin of “serious historians”
• Ralston makes it clear that much of the criti-
cism of James stems from two main sources.
One was “’M. Fontenay, an agent for Mary
Stuart who plotted for James’ throne’ and who
‘fostered much of the slanderous assault
against the king.’ The other was Anthony
Weldon, ‘who successfully blackened King
James through the pen portrait he first pub-
lished in 1650… Antonia Fraser writes, ‘In
fairness to James, (Weldon) should never be
quoted without the important rider that he
had been excluded from Court circles and had
in consequence, a pathological hatred of the
Stuarts. Weldon has had his revenge for the
slight injuries done to him.’”
• Ralston is frank about James’ failures in his
later years but gives the context (James died
in 1625, aged 66), “Due to disease and stroke,
he had gradually ceased to rule long before he
had ceased to reign. James had developed
symptoms of early senility and whose symp-
toms were growing worse. It may have been
this undiagnosed disease which accounts for
his peculiar and unorthodox behavior in later
years. Again, it could have been the results of
a backslidden and carnal life of a Christian
who lapsed into sin.”
• Ralston’s conclusion: “Do the critics of the Holy
Word of God believe they can discredit the pre-
served authoritative scriptures by destroying
the reputation of the man who helped bring it
to the people? I am of the conviction that this
indeed is the real cause of the slander against
• King James was regarded by those of his own
time as “The British Solomon.” He wanted the
The AV Defense Booklet Page 141
Holy Word of God to be in the hands of the
people, not chained to pulpits or hoarded in
the cellars to be read only by Greek scholars
It is rumored that King James was a homosexual
• Anthony Weldon had been excluded from the
Court; he swore vengeance and in 1650 (25
years after the death of James), Weldon wrote
a paper calling James a homosexual
o The report was largely ignored since
there were still enough people alive who
knew it wasn’t true; in fact, it lay dor-
mant for years until recently when it
was picked up by those who hoped that
vilifying King James would tarnish the
Bible that bears his name
• James charged his son Henry, “but especially
eschew (avoid habitually) to be effeminate in
your clothes, in perfuming, preening, or such
like… and make not a fool of yourself in dis-
guising or wearing long your hair or nails,
which are but excrements of nature”
• James also advised his heir, “there are some
horrible crimes that ye are bound in conscience
never to forgive: such as witchcraft, willful
murder, incest, and sodomy…”
• In speaking to his heir, he said concerning
marriage, “But the principle blessing that you
can get of good company will stand, in your
marrying of a godly and virtuous wife… being
flesh of your flesh and bone of your bone…
Marriage is the greatest earthly felicity…
without the blessing of God you cannot look for
a happy marriage.”
Total words in the AV1611… 790,704
Total words in the NIV… 726,606
Including addition and deletions, a difference of
64,098 words! In an NIV, for every 11.34 words in the
text there is one word missing. In addition, there are
The AV Defense Booklet Page 142
16 complete verses OMITTED in the NIV. Compare
the following verses between the AV1611 and the
NIV: Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44,46;
11:26; 15:28; Lk. 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37;
15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24.
The Bible the NIV translating apostates “messed
with” is a “discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Their motive and intent will
be revealed in the following places of Scripture:
• Where the words of God or the “word of God”
suddenly becomes important
• Where doctrinal revelation is given
• Where salvation by grace and grace only is in-
volved in the passage
• Where the Deity of Christ or the Virgin Birth
is involved in the passage
• Where the reviser doesn’t believe the verse or
can’t understand it
• Where the passage is aimed at the reviser’s
• Miscellaneous; where nothing important is at
stake, but the reviser simply wishes to get rid
of the AV1611 text
God’s word is not to be trifled with, especially when it
is dealing with the crucial subject of the Lord Jesus
Christ. Yet, in spite of its shameful attacks upon the
Person and work of Jesus, some not only prefer the
NIV, but also will vigorously defend it. It is a strange
philosophy indeed that persuades a Christian to be
more loyal to a book that dishonors the Lord than he
is to the Lord Himself.
The NIV is not alone in its perversion of Scripture.
What is nearly as incredible as this molestation of
Scripture is the willingness of many Christians today
to accept it without raising so much as an eyebrow. If
some can excuse everything from the inquisition of
the past to rosary beads in Christian book stores to-
day, they can excuse this as well.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 143
Some excuse the omission of words, statements, and
whole verses, by claiming that the reader can assume
what truths are missing, even in their absence. How-
ever, this could only be true if there were a higher
written authority than the Bible to turn to. How can
a truth be assumed if it is not in the very Book that
supplies our truth?
Others defend the inaccuracies in modern versions of
the Bible by appealing to “common ground” – the
many passages that do agree. Error should not be
condoned because it is in the company of so much
that is correct!
Some defend omissions in the modern versions by
pointing out that while a text might be missing from
one place in Scripture, it is sometimes found some-
where else in Scripture. To justify an omission be-
cause it can be found somewhere else does not an-
swer the question of why it was removed in the first
place. Instead, such sleight of hand reasoning openly
insults the declared infallibility of God’s holy word,
creates alibis for its corrupters, and instructs believ-
ers that they can live without all of God’s counsel. It
plainly lowers the Bible in status to just “another
book” that we can do with as we please. While
churches today have a high tolerance for blemished
Scripture, God does not (see Rev. 22:18,19; Prov.
A few practical reasons why words should never be
taken from the Bible…
• Some people never form the habit of searching
the Scriptures and often limit their awareness
of an entire truth to a single verse of Scripture.
Perhaps for this reason, a key teaching is often
repeated several times in the Bible. In this
way, even a casual reader is bound to happen
upon it once. Those important words, for ex-
ample in Matthew 9:13 that were omitted from
the NIV, the reader might NEVER discover in
The AV Defense Booklet Page 144
Luke 5:32 of the NIV, where they are not omit-
• An important truth gathers forces as it is re-
told over the pages of Scripture and becomes
less likely to be forgotten. Contrariwise, to re-
move it here and there accomplishes the oppo-
• God honors His word and through it, its read-
ers. It is a perfect Book. Consequently, any
deletion or word change (irrespective of the
THOUSANDS found in the NIV) damages the
whole and the Bible becomes less than perfect.
Its instructions to our lives then will become
less than perfect. A “little” leaven “leaveneth
the whole lump.”
One might ask, “Does it really matter if I can support
what I believe with the NIV?” It matters indeed since
someone else can refute what “you believe” with that
same translation. While one person can prove, for ex-
ample, the Deity of Jesus Christ by using the NIV,
someone else can disprove it with the same transla-
Genesis 22:8
AV1611 “God will provide himself a lamb”
NIV “God himself will provide the lamb”
The NIV eliminates the revelation in the typology
that the “lamb” was God Himself (Jn. 1:29).
Genesis 49:1
AV1611 “in the last days”
NIV “in days to come”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 145
All prophetic references to Israel in “the last days”
have been erased from the last will and testament of
dying Jacob. The cross references to Israel in Isaiah
2:2, Micah 4:1, and Daniel 2:28 are lost.
Exodus 3:14
In the AV1611, God gave Moses the proper commis-
sion by telling him basically to say, “I AM hath sent
me,” However, in the NIV, God tells Moses only half
a definition. Instead of “I AM because I AM” (the
meaning of the AV1611 text), the definition in the
NIV is “I am who I am.” Alright, who are you? You
are back to where you started. He would have told
Moses nothing by such a definition. In effect, He
would be saying, “Go tell them I am who I am.”
Exodus 12:3-5
AV1611 “a lamb,” “the lamb,” “your lamb”
NIV “a lamb,” “a whole lamb, “the animals”
The great inspirational truth about salvation has
been obliterated
• To be redeemed and spared from God’s wrath,
one must have “a” lamb
• But not just any lamb will do; one must receive
“the” Lamb
• But not even “the” Lamb of God can avail the
sinner unless he personally appropriates it for
himself; hence, “your lamb” narrows the appli-
cation of salvation to personal reception of a
personal Lamb
Who would be interested in getting rid of “your”
Lamb (Jn. 1:29)?
The AV Defense Booklet Page 146
Exodus 34:7
AV1611 “that will by no means clear the guilty”
NIV “does not leave the guilty unpunished”
The NIV erases the revelation as found in the
AV1611 on the difference between Old Testament
salvation and New Testament salvation. Old Testa-
ment saints were not “cleared,” neither were their
sins “taken away” (Heb. 10:4)
Numbers 33:52
AV1611 “pictures”
NIV “carved images”
You can keep your heathen “pictures” if you have an
NIV. There are millions of people in America watch-
ing “pictures” on television and looking at “pictures”
on the internet. Who would be interested in erasing a
warning in the Bible about “pictures?” This is an ex-
ample of the tiny changes that occur in the NIV to
prevent the reader from finding truth about his own
life or conduct.
Deuteronomy 32:14
AV1611 “pure blood of the grape”
NIV “foaming blood of the grape”
The reference point for Christ’s blood (“pure blood”)
as represented by unfermented wine is lost in the
NIV. A comparison in an AV1611 between
Deuteronomy 32:14 and 29:6 reveals the difference
between unfermented and fermented “wine.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 147
Psalm 9:17
AV1611 “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and
all the nations that forget God”
NIV “The wicked return to the grave, all the nations
that forget God”
“All is well, there is no hell.” Hell is NOT “cast into
the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14) in the NIV. Christ does
NOT have “the keys of hell and of death” (Rev. 1:18)
in the NIV. Neither Christ nor Jonah (Jonah 2:2)
ever saw hell in the NIV. In the NIV the word “hell”
by itself has disappeared out of fourteen books. The
NIV removed the word hell in 40 out of the 53 places
(75%) it is found in the AV1611.
Psalm 12:7
In reference to the “words of the LORD” (vs. 6), the
Bible says in verse 7…
AV1611 “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever”
NIV “O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us
from such people forever”
Upon finding a promise that God would preserve His
“words” (not “fundamentals,” “thoughts,” or “mes-
sage”), the NIV changes “them” (AV1611) to “us” and
then has to convert “this generation” (AV1611) to
“such people.”
To get rid of the great truth of the preservation of
God’s “words,” the NIV invents a passage. There is no
manuscript in existence that reads in the first person
plural (“us”). The Jews were certainly NOT “pro-
tect(ed)… from such people forever.” “Such people”
(Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, etc.) wiped out nearly
The AV Defense Booklet Page 148
one fourth of their race. The Jews will not be pro-
tected from “such people” in the Tribulation; only the
144,000 are protected.
Who would want you to be ignorant of the fact that
God promised He would preserve His words?
Psalm 22:30,31
AV1611 “A seed shall serve him,” “a people that
shall be born”
NIV “Posterity will serve him,” “a people yet unborn”
A “Posterity” will certainly not “serve him.” It is His
own “seed,” which He will beget by a new birth (vs.
31) that will “serve him.” This seed is not just “yet
unborn,” it is a “people that shall be born.” This was
the very reference that Nicodemus couldn’t find al-
though he was a “master of Israel.”
It was in the crucifixion Psalm that the coming new
birth was to be found. The prophecy of the new birth
which is by incorruptible “seed” (1 Pet. 1:23), is com-
pletely and totally obscured in the NIV text.
Psalm 138:2
AV1611 “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy
NIV “you have exalted above all things your name
and your word”
Psalm 148:4
AV1611 “waters that be above the heavens”
NIV “waters above the skies”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 149
The NIV translators flinch at the thought of literal
water above the solar system (Gen. 1:6-8; Job 37:18;
38:30; Rev. 4:6). To hide this truth the apostates have
written “water above the skies.” No such word was
found in the Hebrew.
Proverbs 16:3
AV1611 “Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy
thoughts shall be established.”
NIV “Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and
your plans will succeed.”
Isaiah 14:12a
AV1611 “How are thou fallen from heaven, O Luci-
fer, son of the morning!”
NIV “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning
star, son of the dawn!”
Modern versions have removed the name of Lucifer,
thereby eliminating the ONLY reference to him in
the entire Bible.
The ultimate blasphemy occurs when the “morning
star” takes “Lucifer’s” place in Isaiah 14. Jesus Christ
is the “morning star” and is identified as such in
Revelation 22:16 and 2 Peter 1:19. With this slight of
hand switch, Satan not only slyly slips out of the pic-
ture but lives up to his name “the accuser” (Rev.
12:10) by attempting to make Jesus Christ the sub-
ject of the diatribe in Isaiah 14. And the new versions
do not present “a different Christ?”
Daniel 8:25
The AV Defense Booklet Page 150
AV1611 “by peace shall destroy many”
NIV “When they feel secure, he will destroy many”
As the Antichrist prepares to take over the world
with “peace talks,” the NIV steps bravely forward to
cover up for him and denies that he will destroy
many “by peace.” The Bible says the Antichrist will
“come in peaceably” (Dan. 11:21) and will “enter
peaceably” (Dan. 11:24) – both of these references are
removed by the NIV.
Micah 5:2
AV1611 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though
thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out
of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler
in Israel; whose going forth have been from of old,
from everlasting.”
NIV “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are
small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come
for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ori-
gins are from of old, from ancient times.”
The words “from everlasting” in the AV1611 make
Christ eternally existent (without a beginning) while
the words “from ancient times” in the NIV merely
make Him very old – one whose origin we are left to
speculate on. Is it any wonder then why some finally
conclude, as do the Jehovah’s Witness, that Christ
was created?
While it is painful to evidence such recasting of the
truth, please consider carefully these facts: though
the authors of the NIV translated the Hebrew word
“olam” as “ancient times” in Micah 5:2, they trans-
lated the same Hebrew word “everlasting” when it
was used to describe God’s love (Ps. 103:17), God’s
praise (Ps. 106:48), God’s righteousness (Ps. 119:142),
God’s kingdom (Ps. 145:13), God’s salvation (Is.
The AV Defense Booklet Page 151
45:17), God’s kindness (Is. 54:8), God’s covenant (Is.
55:3), God’s light (Is. 60:19), God’s renown (Is. 63:12),
etc. – why not then God’ Son (Mic. 5:2)?
They also translated “olam” as “everlasting” when
describing such things as joy, disgrace, shame, con-
tempt, a possession, a sign, a name of God’s people,
etc. Strangely though, when the word was used to de-
scribe the name of our Redeemer in Isaiah 63:16,
they translated it this way, “Redeemer from of old is
your name.” The AV1611 reads, “redeemer; thy name
is from everlasting.”
Matthew 1:17; 2:4; 22:42; 24:5,23; Mark 12:35; Luke
4:41; 20:41; 23:35,39; 24:26,46; John 1:25; 7:26,27,31;
12:34; Acts 3:20; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:3; 18:28; 26:23
AV1611 “Christ”
NIV “the Christ”
By using the definite article (the) when referring to
Christ, mind sciences distinguish between Jesus the
man and the divine idea of Christ-realization attain-
able by men. Real references to Jesus as “the Christ”
are rare; however new versions literally paint their
pages with this pawn. This is a subtle promotion of
the (Anti)christ.
Matthew 1:25
AV1611 “…she… brought forth her firstborn son…”
NIV “…she gave birth to a son…”
The NIV reading can be used to uphold the Catholic
teaching of Mary as a perpetual virgin
Matthew 5:22
The AV Defense Booklet Page 152
AV1611 “whosoever is angry…without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment”
NIV “anyone who is angry… will be subject to judg-
Jesus Christ was angry (Jn. 2:13-17), but He had “a
cause.” Who wants to subject Him to judgment?
Matthew 6:13
AV1611 “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver
us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
NIV “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from the evil one.”
Matthew 8:2
AV1611 “And, behold, there came a leper and wor-
shipped him…”
NIV “A man with leprosy came and knelt before
In the four Gospels, eleven accounts are found of peo-
ple worshipping Jesus. The AV1611 faithfully gives
us all eleven, while the NIV only gives six. The NIV’s
wording of the other five accounts suggests some-
thing other than worship.
There is a vast difference between “worshipped” and
“knelt before.” One might kneel before a king but
they do not worship him.
It would appear that the authors of the NIV had all
kinds of difficulty translating the Greek word “pro-
skuneo” (“worship”) nearly half of the time it was ap-
plied to Jesus. Yet, they had no difficulty at all
The AV Defense Booklet Page 153
translating the same word “worship” when it was
used for worshipping a fellow servant (Rev. 19:10), an
angel (Rev. 22:8), false religion (Jn. 4:20,22), idols
(Acts 7:43), the image of the beast (Rev. 13:15; 16:2;
19:20), the beast (Rev. 13:4,8,12), the beast and the
image (Rev. 14:9,11; 20:4), devils and idols (Rev. 9:20)
and even “the dragon,” Satan (Rev. 13:4).
Matthew 9:13
AV1611 “…I am not come to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance.”
NIV “…I have not come to call the righteous, but sin-
If you were lost and wanted to become saved, which
of these two lines would benefit you the most? What
are the Scriptures saying here without the words “to
repentance?” This incredible omission is repeated in
Mark 2:17. While the words can be found in Luke
5:32 of the NIV, they appear in all three places in the
Matthew 16:20
AV1611 “Then charged he his disciples that they
should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”
NIV “Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone
that he was the Christ.”
This is certainly a pitiful omission since this is the
only place in the four Gospels where Christ called
Himself “Jesus.”
Matthew 17:21
The AV Defense Booklet Page 154
AV1611 “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by
prayer and fasting.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
Matthew 18:11
AV1611 “For the Son of man is come to save that
which was lost.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
Matthew 20:16
AV1611 “So the last shall be first, and the first last:
for many be called, but few chosen.”
NIV “So the last will be first, and the first will be
While the words are missing here in the NIV, some
point out that they can be found in Matthew 22:14.
They can be found in both places in the AV1611. This
startling statement has provoked countless saints to
fear God and become more mindful of living over-
coming lives. Was it not worth repeating? God felt
that it was!
Matthew 20:22
Jesus asked James and John, “Are ye able to drink of
the cup that I shall drink of…”
AV1611 “…and to be baptized with the baptism that
I am baptized with?...”
NIV (omitted)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 155
Matthew 23:14
AV1611 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypo-
crites! For ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pre-
tence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the
greater damnation.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
Matthew 24:36
In this verse we find Jesus referring to His Father in
the personal possessive…
AV1611 “…my Father…”
NIV “…the Father…”
Matthew 27:24
Pilate’s own testimony concerning Jesus was…
AV1611 “…I am innocent of the blood of this just
NIV “…I am innocent of this man’s blood…”
Mark 1:2
AV1611 “The prophets”
NIV “Isaiah the Prophet”
The NIV is incorrect because Isaiah did NOT write
the quotation in verse 2, Malachi did; Isaiah was
quoted in verse 3.
Mark 9:29
AV1611 “…This kind can come forth by nothing, but
by prayer and fasting.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 156
NIV “…This kind can come out only by prayer.”
What happened to fasting?
Mark 9:44
AV1611 “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
Mark 9:45
AV1611 “…into the fire that never shall be
NIV (omitted)
Mark 9:46
AV1611 “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
Mark 10:24
AV1611 “…Jesus answereth again, and saith unto
them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust
in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!”
NIV “…Jesus said again, Children, how hard it is to
enter the kingdom of God!”
Mark 11:26
The AV Defense Booklet Page 157
AV1611 “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your
Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
If the truth can be altered enough times in Scripture,
though no single instance might even be noticeable,
an accumulation of these is most definitely going to
have an effect. Therefore, while a single tarnished
Scripture might not impact the reader’s relationship
with Jesus, the large numbers of them that have
been scattered throughout the NIV have been skill-
fully designed to destroy it.
Mark 13:33
AV1611 “Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know
not when the time is.”
NIV “Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when
that time will come.”
What happened to prayer?
Mark 15:28
AV1611 “and the scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
Luke 2:33
AV1611 “And Joseph and his mother marveled at
those things which were spoken of him.”
NIV “The child’s father and mother marveled at what
was said about him.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 158
Replacing the word “Joseph” with the word “father”
in this verse injures the doctrine of the virgin birth.
Luke 2:43
AV1611 “…Joseph and his mother…”
NIV “…his parents…”
The word “parents” belongs in Luke 2:27,41 but not
in verse 43.
Luke 4:4
AV1611 “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is writ-
ten, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word of God.”
NIV “Jesus answered, It is written: Man does not live
on bread alone.”
Luke 6:48
Christ’s reason for why the house that could not be
shaken stood firm was…
AV1611 “…it was founded upon a rock.”
NIV “…it was well built.”
Luke 8:48
With great tenderness, Jesus said to the woman with
the issue of blood…
AV1611 “…be of good comfort: thy faith hath
made thee whole…”
NIV “…your faith has healed you…”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 159
Luke 9:55
Jesus told two of His disciples who mishandled Scrip-
AV1611 “…Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are
NIV (omitted)
Luke 9:56
AV1611 “For the Son of man is not come to de-
stroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they
went to another village”
NIV “and they went to another village.”
Luke 10:15
Jesus promised that Capernaum…
AV1611 “…shalt be thrust down to hell.”
NIV “…will go down to the depths.”
Luke 14:5
AV1611 “…Which of you shall have an ass or an ox
fallen into a pit…”
NIV “…If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into
a well…”
Since the “ass” and “ox” are somewhat equal to each
other, they are both useful to the illustration. If Jesus
began with the word “son,” He would have had all He
need to make His strongest possible point. The addi-
tional word “ox,” in this case, would not have fur-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 160
thered the illustration at all, but rather distracted
from it.
Luke 22:64
After Jesus’ arrest…
AV1611 “…they struck him on the face…”
NIV (omitted)
Luke 23:33
AV1611 “And when they were come to the place,
which is called Calvary, there they crucified him…”
NIV “When they came to the place called the Skull,
there they crucified him…”
Do you “believe in a hill called Mount Calvary?”…
you have no reason to if you have an NIV! It has re-
moved the only reference to Calvary in the Bible.
John 1:18
AV1611 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.”
NIV “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and
Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him
If Jesus is “God the One and Only” then who is the
God who “no one has ever seen?” The NIV translators
knew it was unpopular to use the Alexandrian ren-
dering “only begotten God” as found in the NWT and
NASV so they invented the reading “the One and
The AV Defense Booklet Page 161
John 1:27
AV1611 “He it is, who coming after me is preferred
before me…”
NIV “He is the one who comes after me…”
Each little expression such as “is preferred before
me,” like so many pieces in a puzzle, was designed to
make its own contribution to the completed picture of
Christ on the Bible page. Yet, they are systematically
left out wherever possible in the NIV.
John 3:13
AV1611 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of
man which is in heaven.”
NIV “No one has ever gone into heaven except the
one who came from heaven – the Son of Man.”
This is a regrettable omission since we have nothing
left in Scripture that reveals this unique and unex-
pected side of Christ’s omnipresence.
John 3:15
Jesus promised that those who believe in Him…
AV1611 “…should not perish…”
NIV (omitted)
John 3:16
AV1611 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 162
NIV “For God so loved the world that he gave his one
and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life.”
The law of first mention and the context of John
1:14,18 would lead anyone to note that the first use of
“begat” (Gen. 4:18) and “begotten” (Gen. 5:4; Jn. 1:14)
indicate it refers to flesh. The words “only begotten”
are a very powerful description of the incarnation
and the special relationship between God the Father
and God the Son.
The wretched NIV reading cannot be correct accord-
ing to Job 1:6, Luke 3:38, John 1:12, 2 Corinthians
6:18, Galatians 3:26, and 1 John 3:1-3 which show
that Jesus Christ is NOT God’s “one and only son.”
John 4:24
AV1611 “God is a Spirit”
NIV “God is spirit”
The Devil is “spirit” (Eph. 2:2). Angels are “spirit”
(Heb. 1:14). Devils are “spirit” (1 Tim. 4:1). God is “a”
Spirit, in distinction from other spirits. God is not to
be equated with angels, devils, and SATAN.
John 6:47
AV1611 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that be-
lieveth on me hath everlasting life.”
NIV “I tell you the truth, he who believes has ever-
lasting life.”
Clearly, the key words in this text are “on me.” In
fact, without those words the verse tells us virtually
nothing. It is vague and wide open to misinterpreta-
tion. Why then are they missing in the NIV, when
The AV Defense Booklet Page 163
not only this text but also our entire faith is built
upon them? Their removal not only closed the door to
Jesus alone being the object of all faith, but also
opened the door to many other possibilities. Might
not a non-Christian, for example, point sinners to
some other means of salvation and use Jesus’ words
here to do it?
John 6:69
Listen to Peter’s outstanding confession of faith…
AV1611 “And we believe and are sure that thou art
that Christ, the Son of the living God.”
NIV “We believe and know that you are the Holy One
of God.”
While many people or objects are called “holy” in the
Bible: Jerusalem, ground, a mount, the law, hands, a
kiss, apostles, prophets, angels, etc. only One could
ever be called “that Christ, the Son of the living God.”
John 8:9
AV1611 “…they which heard it, being convicted by
their own conscience, went out…”
NIV “…those who heard began to go away…”
John 14:2
AV1611 “In my Father’s house are many man-
NIV “In my Father’s house are many rooms…”
John 17:5
The AV Defense Booklet Page 164
AV1611 “…O Father, glorify thou me with thine own
NIV “…Father, glorify me in your presence…”
Clearly, these two readings stand worlds apart. We,
ourselves, will one day be glorified “in” God’s pres-
ence; but only Jesus could ever be glorified “with”
God Himself
Acts 1:3
AV1611 “many infallible proofs”
NIV “many convincing proofs”
Acts 2:27
As it concerned Christ’s death, Peter said while
quoting the Psalmist…
AV1611 “…thou will not leave my soul in hell…”
NIV “…you will not abandon me to the grave…”
Acts 3:13
AV1611 “…the God of our fathers, hath glorified his
Son Jesus…”
NIV “…the God of our fathers, has glorified his ser-
vant Jesus…”
Acts 3:26
AV1611 “…God, having raised up his Son Jesus…”
NIV “…God raised up his servant…”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 165
Here they adopt the poorer choice of words again.
And they even hide His identity further by daring to
strike out the word “Jesus” from the text as well.
The raising up of Christ from the dead is connected
with Christ’s SONSHIP, not His servitude. The word
“servant” is out of place in the context of the verse.
Acts 8:37
AV1611 “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.”
NIV (whole verse omitted)
This verse contains the only recorded account in
Scripture (after the cross) of a sinner’s actual confes-
sion of faith in Christ.
Acts 9:5,6
AV1611 “…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…”
NIV “…I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he re-
plied. Now get up and go into the city…”
Observe how the splendid dialogue between Jesus
and Paul on the Damascus road is hacked up and
condensed in the NIV. Keep in mind that this was
Paul’s very first believing experience.
Acts 16:7
AV1611 “but the Spirit suffered them not”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 166
NIV “the Spirit of Jesus”
The Bible uses the term “Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9; 1
Pet. 1:11), “Spirit of his Son” (Gal. 4:6) and “Spirit of
Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19) specifically in the context of
the indwelling presence of the Lord in the believer.
This is NOT how “Spirit of Jesus” is used in Acts 16:7
in the NIV.
The AV1611 does not use the term “spirit of Jesus”
ANYWHERE. The name “Jesus” was bestowed upon
Him at his birth by Joseph at the behest of the angel
of the Lord and is therefore strongly associated with
his humanity (Matt. 1:21). It is surely inappropriate
to detach the name “Jesus” from his humanity – even
though it is SUPER humanity (Acts 9:3-8) – and give
it a spiritual association only. Moreover, Jesus, as a
man (1 Thes. 5:23) has a spirit (Lk. 2:40; 10:21; 23:46;
Jn. 11:33; 13:21). It is wrong to suggest that His
spirit has somehow become detached from Him, as
the NIV addition implies.
Acts 23:9
AV1611 “…let us not fight against God.”
NIV (omitted)
Romans 1:16
AV1611 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of
NIV “I am not ashamed of the gospel…”
Romans 3:25
AV1611 “for the remission of sins that are past”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 167
NIV “he had left the sins committed beforehand un-
The NIV translators forgot that when they perverted
Exodus 34:7 to match their theory on Old Testament
salvation, they had said “he does not leave the guilty
unpunished.” Now the apostate translators crash into
Romans, dealing with the sins of Exodus 34, and say
“he had left the sins committed beforehand unpun-
ished.” A gross contradiction between Exodus 34:7
and Romans 3:25 in the NIV!
There was nothing in Romans 3:25 about anyone
punishing or not punishing sins. The verse had to do
with the finished, completed blood atonement of Je-
sus Christ which was the “redemption (vs. 24) of the
transgressions which were under the first testament”
(Heb. 9:15). God did not “forbear” to punish Cain,
Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. His “forbearance”
(AV1611) was REMITTING sins without
REDEEMING them (Heb. 9:15).
Romans 6:23
AV1611 “through Jesus Christ”
NIV “in Christ Jesus”
Eternal life is not simply “in” Jesus Christ. He IS
Eternal Life (1 Jn. 1:2). Anyone who receives Jesus
Christ receives eternal life THROUGH Him because
He indwells whoever receives Him by an act of faith.
Romans 8:28
AV1611 “all things work together for good”
NIV “in all things God works for the good”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 168
The test of faith is whether ALL THINGS can be re-
ceived as the agents for good. Nevertheless, in the
Bible “all things” are used to encourage rejoicing IN
THE LORD (Hab. 3:17,18; Phil. 4:4), to strengthen
faith (Ps. 112:7; 1 Pet. 1:6,7), to develop character
(Job 23:10), to deepen intimacy with the Lord (Job
42:5,6), and to reveal more of one’s real self (Job 42:5;
2 Chron. 32:24-26,31). Note in the last reference, God
is not “working” at all; He simply lets events take
their course, for Hezekiah’s admonition (see Is. 39:5-
Furthermore, the NIV reading implies that God may
not always be able to control circumstances but must
work in spite of them. This of course is not so (Is.
Romans 13:9
AV1611 “Thou shalt not bear false witness”
NIV (omitted)
Romans 14:10-12
AV1611 “…for we shall all stand before the judgment
seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue
shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall
give account of himself to God.”
NIV “…For we will all stand before God’s judgment
seat. It is written: As surely as I live, says the Lord,
every knee will bow before me; every tongue will con-
fess to God. So then, each of us will give an account of
himself to God.”
So “God,” who we will give an account to in verse 11
and 12, is clearly “Christ” who sits on the judgment
seat of verse 10 in the AV1611. By replacing the
The AV Defense Booklet Page 169
words “judgment seat of Christ” (AV1611) with
“God’s judgment seat” (NIV), the NIV translators
closed the door on this quiet yet valuable proof text of
Christ’s Deity. They also obscured the doctrine of the
Judgment Seat of Christ.
1 Corinthians 5:7
AV1611 “…Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:”
NIV “…Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacri-
1 Corinthians 10:28
AV1611 “…for the earth is the Lord’s, and the full-
ness thereof:”
NIV (omitted)
Galatians 4:7
AV1611 “…thou art no more a servant, but a son; and
if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”
NIV “…you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since
you are a son, God has made you also an heir.”
Just two words are left out, “through Christ.” But
where would redemption be without them?
Ephesians 3:9
AV1611 “…which from the beginning of the world
hath been hid in God, who created all things by Je-
sus Christ:”
NIV “…which for ages past was kept hidden in God,
who created all things.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 170
Ephesians 3:14
AV1611 “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Fa-
ther of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
NIV “For this reason I kneel before the Father,”
Ephesians 4:6
AV1611 “One God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.”
NIV “one God and Father of all, who is over all and
through all and in all.”
Look at the single word that was removed in this
verse. Notice too, how its absence lends credibility to
the heresy that advocates that all men are saved re-
gardless of their relationship with Jesus. Since an
entire doctrine can be structured on the foundation of
a single word, the removal of that word can, as well,
cause the entire doctrine to collapse. The removal of
the word “you” that has the purpose here of specify-
ing that only the saints are being addressed, does as
much damage to the truth as it would to remove the
word “again” from “Ye must be born again” in John
How easily an unsaved person, aware of Ephesians
4:6 in the NIV, could embarrass the Christian wit-
ness by showing him in his NIV that salvation
through Jesus is not necessary at all – since everyone
has fellowship with God already.
Ephesians 5:27
AV1611 “spot”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 171
NIV “stain”
The “spot” is eradicated in the NIV to lose the cross
reference to Christ in 1 Peter 1:19, all the references
to the lost in the Tribulation (Jude 23; 2 Pet. 2:13)
and the main disease in the Tribulation, which will
be leprosy (Lev. 13; Rev. 16:2).
Philippians 2:5,6
AV1611 “…Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
NIV “…Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be
Plainly, Christ professes equality with God when He
is on earth (Jn. 1:18; 3:13; 5:22; 6:46; 8:58; 9:38); and
even plainer, all of His enemies thought he was a
God-robber (Jn. 10:33) – they crucified Him between
two thieves.
Colossians 1:14
AV1611 “In whom we have redemption through his
blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
NIV “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness
of sins.”
The blood atonement of Christ is one of the rock-
bottom fundamentals of the faith. It is a completed
redemption, not just the forgiveness of sin. Yes, the
blood of Christ accomplishes both operations, but
they are not the same. Redemption is the payment (of
Christ’s blood) made to buy the sinner back from the
wrath of God (Rom. 3:24).
The AV Defense Booklet Page 172
Colossians 3:6
AV1611 “…the wrath of God cometh on the chil-
dren of disobedience:”
NIV “…the wrath of God is coming.”
1 Thessalonians 5:22
AV1611 “Abstain from all appearances of evil”
NIV “Avoid every kind of evil”
You can have the appearance of evil as long as you
avoid the evil itself.
1 Timothy 3:16
AV1611 “And without controversy great is the mys-
tery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, jus-
tified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
NIV “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is
great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the
Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the
nations, was believe on in the world, was taken up in
Jesus is “God” in the AV1611, but who “He” is in the
NIV is ambiguous.
1 Timothy 6:5
AV1611 “supposing that gain is godliness”
NIV “who think that godliness is a means to financial
The AV Defense Booklet Page 173
It is all right to think that “gain is godliness” – mis-
take material blessings to be a proof you are right
with God – as long as you don’t think that “godliness
is a means to financial gain.” The word “financial”
does not occur in one single Greek manuscript or pa-
pyri on the face of this earth. It was inserted to jus-
tify the inversion of the text from the truth
1 Timothy 6:10
AV1611 “the love of money is the root of all evil”
NIV “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”
The modern alteration is not surprising because like
all modern versions, the NIV is bound by Copyright.
Gail Riplinger states “At the root of all the rhetoric
about the need for new versions lies the true cause –
covetousness. The KJV is the only version not bound
by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a roy-
alty because God is the author. However, ‘God is not
the author of confusion’ (1 Cor. 14:33) or of ‘commer-
cial ventures.’ The later term was used to describe
the ASV (NASB, Living Bible), RV (RSV), and ‘New’
Greek Text by Philip Schaff the chairman of their
American Committee. Is it any wonder new version
editors twist or water down verses which warn of
seeking wealth?”
1 Timothy 6:20
AV1611 “science falsely so called”
NIV “what is falsely called knowledge”
2 Timothy 2:15
The AV Defense Booklet Page 174
AV1611 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth”
NIV “Do your best to present yourself to God as one
approved, a workman who does not need to be
ashamed and who correctly handles the word of
No one has to “study” the word of truth in the NIV
nor is one told the key to studying – “rightly divid-
Hebrews 7:21
AV1611 “…Thou are a priest for ever after the or-
der of Melchisedec:”
NIV “…You are a priest forever.”
While the omitted words do appear elsewhere in the
NIV, they are supposed to appear here as well. When
the NIV is not defusing a truth, it will labor to put
less emphasis upon it.
1 Peter 2:3
AV1611 “if so be”
NIV “now that”
The question is, HAD all of Peter’s readers “tasted
that the Lord is gracious”? Verse 2:1 indicates that
perhaps some of them had NOT. Peter was therefore
right to encourage his readers, tactfully, to make sure
that they HAD been “born again… by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1:23), to en-
sure that they could grow in graciousness them-
selves, especially in their dealings with one another.
One of the practical aspects of a pastorate is in al-
lowing for the fact that not everyone in the congrega-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 175
tion may be born again. Paul makes the same allow-
ances in 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 2 Corinthians 13:5.
The NIV misses the practicality of the verse.
1 Peter 4:1
AV1611 “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for
us in the flesh…”
NIV “Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body…”
Observe how we are left out of the redemptive plan
by eliminating the words “for us”
1 Peter 5:2
AV1611 “Feed the flock of God which is among you”
NIV: “Be shepherds of God’s flock”
This exhortation matches perfectly the Lord’s prom-
ise in Jeremiah 3:15. Note that in the NIV, the pas-
tors only “lead” and do NOT “feed.” Note that the
Lord is INDIGNANT when the sheep are NOT fed
(Eze. 34:2).
2 Peter 2:17
AV1611 “…to whom the midst of darkness is re-
served for ever.”
NIV “…Blackest darkness is reserved for them.”
2 Peter 3:10
Peter prophesied: “the earth… and the works that
are therein…”
AV1611 “…shall be burned up.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 176
NIV “…will be laid bare.”
1 John 5:7,8
AV1611 “For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one. And there are
three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and
the water and the blood: and these three agree in
NIV “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the
water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
This verse in the AV1611 not only substantiates
Christ’s Deity, but also it provides the strongest
Scriptural evidence of the Trinity.
1 John 5:13
AV1611 “…and that ye may believe on the name of
the Son of God.”
NIV (omitted)
Revelation 1:5b
AV1611 “Unto him that loved us, and washed us
from our sins in his own blood.”
NIV (omitted)
Revelation 11:17
AV1611 “Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God
Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come…”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 177
NIV “saying: We give thanks to you, Lord God Al-
mighty, the One who is and who was…”
Revelation 21:24
Concerning New Jerusalem…
AV1611 “And the nations of them which are saved
shall walk in the light of it…”
NIV “The nations will walk by its light…”
Alterations which concern salvation
Gail Riplinger has some penetrating comments on
the NIV:
“sounding like the scribes in the syna-
gogue ‘who laughed him to scorn’ (Mk.
5:40), Calvin Linton, NIV Committee
member refers to those who disagree
with the alterations in the new versions
as ‘uninitiated’ and ‘amusingly unin-
Hort and the new version editors who
profess to having been saved at bap-
tism, have a spokesman today in Alan
Schreck, author of Catholic and Chris-
tian. Schreck states, ‘Evangelical Prot-
estants will sometimes ask a Catholic
acquaintance, ‘Have you been saved?’…
The question seems to suggest that a
person’s salvation is a once-and-for-all
event that happens in a single moment,
rather than a process… I believe that a
Catholic can adequately answer the
question. The Catholic can say that, ‘I
have been saved (Catholic baptism); I
am being saved (works, obedience, per-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 178
The new versions echo Schreck saying,
‘have been saved’ (Eph. 2:8) and ‘are
being saved’ (1 Cor. 1:18). In both these
verses the KJV says ‘are saved,’ which
clearly describes the once-for-all-event
that occurs when Jesus Christ is re-
ceived as Saviour. One can only ask, are
the new versions Catholic or Christian?
Notice how the new versions present
the process theology of the New Age and
apostate Christianity where initiation
commences an incessant course con-
veying one to salvation.
NIV Verse AV1611
were being saved Acts 2:47
should be saved
are turning to God Acts 15:19
are turned
are being saved 1 Cor. 1:18
are saved
are being saved 2 Cor. 2:15
are saved
are perishing2 Cor. 4:3 are
is being renewed Col. 3:10
is renewed
is passing 1 John 2:8 is past
Dean Burgon, noted Greek scholar,
comments on the ‘are being saved’ and
‘have been saved’ rendition of the Greek
verbs. ‘The schoolboy method of transla-
tion is therein exhibited in constant op-
eration throughout. We are never per-
mitted to believe that we are in the
company of scholars… the idiomatic
rendering of a Greek author into Eng-
lish is a higher achievement by far…
Examples of their inconsistency reduces
the whole matter to a question of
Taste… The vast number of cases in
The AV Defense Booklet Page 179
THEIR OWN RULE shows that it could
not be followed without changing ele-
ments of the original… They virtually
admit that they have been all along
unjustly forcing on an independent lan-
guage an alien yoke.’
Foster of the NIV and NKJV commit-
tees agrees (with Burgon) admitting,
‘This in itself results in an unnatural
straining of the tenses of the English.’
However the doctrinal bend of the
translator tends toward a progressive
kind of salvation and this is reflected in
their versions.”
Edwin Palmer, the coordinator of all the
work on the NIV states, “This (his NIV)
shows the great error that is so preva-
lent today in some orthodox Protestant
circles, namely that regeneration de-
pends on faith… and that in order to be
born again man must first accept Jesus
as his Saviour.”
At the very root of churches problems today lay these
modern translations of the Bible. When so many
verses are altered, questioned, or removed all to-
gether nothing from then on in the reader’s mind is
certain. Not only does the whole Bible become sus-
pect but also all that its teachings were supposed to
reinforce in his life are of less value to him now or
shattered one by one.
First: His faith, that “cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God,” has no sure anchor. The effect
(faith) cannot exceed the cause (God’s word). Will not
a defective Bible produce a defective faith?
Second: His obedience is compromised. A “thou shalt”
or a “thou shalt not” loses both clarity and force on
such an uncertain page. A nagging sin that might
The AV Defense Booklet Page 180
have been checked by a sure word from God is al-
lowed to become more demanding than what forbids
Third: His worship and adoration is hindered. Since
his love for God is based upon his estimation of God,
here is where irreparable damage is done. Flawless
Scriptures make Him a faultless God, while flawed
Scriptures make Him an imperfect God. All of which
offers the believer less to esteem, less to be awed by,
less to love.
Fourth: His security is threatened. If God could not
keep His word forever, as He promised to do, how will
He keep the believer forever?
A summary of the reasons a Christian should believe
the AV1611 is the pure, inerrant word of God and
superior to all other English translations.
• Because God promised to preserve His word
pure for every generation, and the Authorized
Version has more godly fruits and virtues than
any other Bible, thus indicating it is His pure
• Because its English text is based on the Textus
Receptus which essentially represents the
majority of Greek texts
• Because its Greek text (and translations from
it) is stained with the blood of countless Bible
believing Christians who gave their life to pro-
tect it
• Because its Greek text was directly responsi-
ble for the Protestant Reformation
• Because of the time of its publication (1611)
before the great movements of unbelief swept
the world
• Because of the accuracy, vitality, and expres-
siveness of its language
• Because of the ability, character, and integrity
of its translators
The AV Defense Booklet Page 181
• Because of its internal consistency and hon-
esty concerning its italics, the apocrypha, and
its different editions
• Because it lacks a commercial copyright
• Because of its remarkable endurance through
the centuries against constant attacks and
criticism from Christians and non-Christians
• Because of the inconsistent and emotional ar-
guments of its critics and their refusal to be-
lieve any Bible in any language is inerrant
• Because it is the Bible God used by choice to
start every great revival since its publication
• Because of the preeminent place it gives to the
Lord Jesus Christ; it exalts Him at every op-
• Because it expresses every Christian doctrine
(especially the fundamentals) more often or
more clearly than any modern version
• Because God ‘authorized’ it to be the standard
English Bible in the eyes of the public through
most of the last four centuries
• Because no one has proven ONE error in it yet
“I build on no authority, ancient or modern, but the
Scripture. I want to know one thing – the way to
Heaven: how to land on that happy shore. God Him-
self hath condescended to teach the way. He hath
written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any
price, give me that book of God.” John Wesley
“…for thou hast magnified thy word above all
thy name.” Psalm 138:2b
KEY POINT: God has magnified His written word
above the name of the Living Word (Phil. 2:9-11). The
written word has such high priority because it is the
central communication link between God and man. It
is the means of God revealing Himself to man and the
final authority upon which man can judge all things.
Since God has magnified His words above His own
name, no mere human should even think about pass-
The AV Defense Booklet Page 182
ing judgment on them or on God’s ability to preserve
The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself. Not mere
information concerning Himself, but HIMSELF. God
is the God of truth (Deut. 32:4; Jn. 14:6). God is the
Supreme Reality on which all other realities depend.
God reveals Himself objectively to all men in other
ways, (e.g. in nature, in history, in preaching of the
Gospel), but in the Scriptures alone God’s revelation
of Himself is found unobscured. The AV1611 is
unique in respect to the preeminent place it gives to
the Lord Jesus Christ; all modern translations de-
tract from the Person and Deity of the Lord Jesus
The Bible makes high claims to Divine inspiration,
inerrancy, preservation, and authority; and if it is
true that the Sovereign God of the universe has con-
descended to reveal Himself supernaturally in His
Book, even as He has revealed Himself naturally in
the material universe, then man, even in a world
ruined by sin, has a firm foundation on which to build
for time and eternity. It is an unhappy hour when
humanity lightly esteems the Bible, for there God re-
veals Himself more than through the material uni-
verse. A man is no better than his word; if one fails to
command confidence, so does the other.
That the Sovereign God of creation has done this in
the Holy Scriptures is acknowledged by many ear-
nest Christians, but a question arises which demands
a clear answer: “Which Bible do you mean?” A multi-
plicity of differing Bible versions are in circulation
today, resulting in a state of bewildering confusion.
Some versions omit words, verses, phrases, and even
chapter portions which are well known to be included
in a number of ancient manuscripts. In some of these
new versions words and phrases have been added
which have no corresponding basic expression in
authentic copies of the Hebrew and the Greek.
Among these you will not find the Bible which God
The AV Defense Booklet Page 183
gave when “holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Do the modern versions reveal God as He would have
them to? Which Bible is God’s revelation of Himself?
The modern versions remove references to worship of
God, they are unclear on who appeared in the flesh in
1 Timothy 3:16, in them Christ was not eternal in
Micah 5:2, they attack the virgin birth and His Deity,
they remove references to the blood, they strip Christ
of His sinlessness in Matthew 5:22 by removing the
qualifying “without a cause”, etc. (The NIV condemns
all anger, and in so doing would condemn Christ or
rather would have Christ contradicting Himself.) To
allow “some” leaven (false doctrine) in the written
word is to allow “some” leaven (sin) in the living
Word. To eliminate, diminish, or question the Scrip-
ture is to jeopardize man’s central communication
link with his God.
The “god of this world” directs his attack first on the
character and Person of the Son of God, the Lord Je-
sus Christ, the Incarnate Word, and then on the in-
tegrity and accuracy of the written word of God, the
God has given believers a final authority upon which
to build their faith – His word. In many important
matters everyone recognizes the need for an author-
ity – a supreme “court of appeal” higher than which
no one can go. The supporters of modern versions do
NOT have a final authority other than their opinions.
It is the evolutionist mentality that exalts man’s in-
telligence as the final authority. When one is con-
fronted with dozens of conflicting “authorities” what
is left to make a choice between them except one’s
own opinion?
When we defend the AV1611 we do not place it on a
level with other English Bible versions and then try
to find out which version has the fewest mistakes.
The AV1611 must be regarded as correct unless it
The AV Defense Booklet Page 184
can be conclusively shown to be otherwise. Those that
assail must be required to prove their point.
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as sil-
ver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation for
ever.” Psalm 12:6,7
KEY POINT: The words of the Lord are pure, iner-
rant and perfectly preserved by God and available to
us to hold in our hands and cherish in our heart in
the English language of the AV1611.
When the Psalmist said “thou shalt keep them, O
LORD, thou shalt preserve them…” (Ps. 12:7), he is
referring to the “pure words” in verse 6. These “pure
words” are the “words of the LORD.”
God has sworn to preserve His word – see Deut. 8:3;
Ps. 119:89,152; Is. 30:8; 40:6-8; 59:21; Matt. 4:4;
5:17,18; 24:35; Jn. 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25, etc. God did
not have to guarantee that all the manuscripts copied
through the years had to be perfect, only that His
word would be preserved in some manner in pure
Should man look forward to still other manuscript
findings such as the Dead Sea scrolls found in a cave,
or the Codex Sinaiticus found in a wastebasket or the
Codex Vaticanus found in the Pope’s library? Is the
written word of God still undiscovered and waiting to
be dug up by some excavation team led by a modern
day Joseph Smith? And when the excavation team
digs it up, and (“because it is closer to the originals”)
readily accepted by the “scholars” who then tell the
Christian what it says, is the Christian then to
change his belief and conform to the “new” and “re-
vised” dug up edition of the Bible?
The AV Defense Booklet Page 185
Three simple questions reveal whether or not a per-
son believes God is capable of preserving His words
• Do you believe the King James Version is the
pure, inerrant word of God and absolute final
authority for believers?
• If no, does your final authority exist on earth
today in pure, inerrant, tangible form in any
o Remember the “original autographs”
are NOT in existence
o Remember there is no such thing as
“THE Greek” – there are MANY Greek
texts (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Nes-
tle, Griesbach, Tischendorf, Hort, etc.)
• If yes, what and where is it? If no, why not?
Scholars and preachers reveal their infidelity when
they make the conditional statement, “We believe
that the Bible as originally written is the infallible
word of God.” This conditional statement shows they
are obsessed with something God abandoned nearly
2,000 years ago – the original autographs. In fulfill-
ment of their predicted end time propensity for a
“form of godliness,” these apostate fundamentalists
engage in clever double-talk. While they don’t believe
in a preserved Bible, they often deceitfully employ
language that gives the impression they believe “the
very book they hold in their hands is the inspired, in-
errant, infallible, word of God.” For the record, not a
one of them believes it. How can they if inspiration is
limited to autographs?
It is interesting to note that these idolized original
autographs never were compiled to make a complete
Bible. The original autographs of the Old Testament
were never in a single volume with the original auto-
graphs of the New Testament. The autographs of
Moses, David, Jeremiah, etc., had vanished from the
earth long before Paul, Peter, John, and other New
Testament writers sat down to write. Of course, the
original autographs were Scripture but since they all
The AV Defense Booklet Page 186
dissolved into dust centuries ago what kind of Bible
do we have today? Do we have the pure and inerrant
words of God available to us today?
The faulty hypothesis of double inspiration (i.e. the
translators had to be inspired) is rendered unneces-
sary because of infallible preservation. If God’s
breath rested on the very originals He intended to
preserve, wouldn’t common sense dictate that the fi-
nal ancestor would also have to retain inspiration?
What happened to the words that Jesus referred to in
Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 9:26; 21:33; John
6:63; 8:47; 12:47,48; 14:23; 15:7? Was God not able to
“keep them?”
The publishers of the NASV did not believe the ASV
to have been the preserved word of God:
“Perhaps the most weighty impetus for
this undertaking can be attributed to a
disturbing awareness that the Ameri-
can Standard Version of 1901 was fast
disappearing from the scene. As a gen-
eration ‘which knew not Joseph’ was
born, even so a generation unac-
quainted with this great and important
work has come into being. Recognizing
a responsibility to posterity, the Lock-
man Foundation felt an urgency to res-
cue this noble achievement from an
inevitable demise, to preserve it as
a heritage for coming generations,
and to do so in such a form as the de-
mands of passing time dictate.”
Since when is the true word of God ever in danger of
an “inevitable demise?”
Concerning the words being purified “seven times”
(Ps. 12:6), it is interesting to observe that the AV1611
is the SEVENTH major English translation.
• Wyclif’s Bible (1382)
The AV Defense Booklet Page 187
• Coverdale’s Bible (1535, using Tyndale’s New
Testament from 1525)
• Matthew’s Bible (1537)
• The Great Bible (1539)
• The Geneva Bible (1560)
• The Bishop’s Bible (1568)
• The King James Bible (1611)
Through each of these noble works up to the King
James Bible of 1611 the text of the English Bible
went through a period of purifying. Although Tyn-
dale’s New Testament was a magnificent work, the
English Bible was not yet pure. Others set out to im-
prove it by revising Tyndale’s work.
When the King James translators, in their “Preface,”
write about “making a good translation better,” they
are never talking about making translations based
upon the same Alexandrian manuscripts used by the
Roman Catholic Church “better” i.e. the RV, NASV,
NIV, etc. They are referring to Tyndale’s New Tes-
tament, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, etc.
Why didn’t God use the first English translation?
Why did it take seven major translations? Those
questions can be asked about a lot of things we learn
of in the Bible. Why didn’t God create everything in a
day? Why did He use one week for creation? God’s
reply to such questioning might be, “For my thoughts
are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the LORD.”
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written,
That man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word of God.” Luke 4:4
KEY POINT: Man is to live by EVERY word of God.
Not thoughts. Not concepts. Every word of God! When
a modern version like the NIV has over 64,000 less
words than the AV1611, the believer with the NIV
The AV Defense Booklet Page 188
cannot obey this Scriptural command to live by
EVERY word of God!
Every single word, tense, and phrase in the Bible is
structured to convey PRECISE meaning. Things that
are different are NOT the same. In this world, when
man communicates with his fellow man, lawyers
draw up contracts which use precise word meanings.
Legislatures draft laws and regulations on the same
principles, as do diplomats who must convey their
nation’s positions with concisely worded documents
that effectively communicate across language and
cultural differences. The use of a particular word,
which conveys a particular nuance of meaning, can
speak volumes. Words are parsed closely by the re-
cipients for determination of intent and subtly of
meaning. Should we not therefore apply the same
principle and understanding in respecting and inter-
preting what God has to say to man in all matters?
Of course!
Sincere proponents of modern versions claim that
their ‘bible’ just expresses the “idea” that God is try-
ing to convey in different words than other versions
express the same “idea.” They insist that the mean-
ing is the same in both versions. This is a great error
(see Jer. 23:31)!
• There is a difference between the meaning of
the WORDS “Joseph” (AV1611) and “father”
• There is a difference between the meaning of
the WORDS “are saved” (AV1611) and “are
being saved” (NIV)
• There is a difference between the meaning of
the WORDS “hell” (AV1611) and “grave” (NIV)
• There is a difference between the meaning of
the WORDS “worship” (AV1611) and “kneel”
• There is a difference between the meaning of
the WORDS “mansions” (AV1611) and “rooms”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 189
• There is a difference between the meaning of
the WORDS “infallible” (AV1611) and “con-
vincing” (NIV)
Modern versions are founded on a naturalistic New
Testament textual criticism which ignores or denies
the special, providential preservation of the holy
Scriptures. Hence if you use these modern versions,
you never can be sure that you have the true New
Testament text. Even worse, you cannot be sure that
the original New Testament Scriptures were infalli-
bly inspired. For if God has not preserved these
Scriptures down through the ages by His special
providence, why would He have infallibly inspired
them in the first place? How can you be sure that you
have the true New Testament text?
Since those that use modern versions do not have a
final authority and EVERY WORD that God wants
them to have, their preachers usually provide devo-
tional sermonettes. They reveal the “authority” of
their OPINION when they say things like, “a better
translation would be…”, “it’s unfortunate the King
James translates it as…”, “the ‘original’ Greek
says…” How can a minister preach with conviction
“thus saith the Lord,” when the very ‘bible’ he uses
keeps reminding him that he cannot be sure God said
it. After all, who really wants a preacher to preach
with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mk. 1:22)?
When it becomes apparent to the Christian that his
‘bible’ is often the product of opinion, he must natu-
rally conclude that he is entitled to his own opinion.
Who says he cannot have “his religion” his way.
Should we be surprised then to see such rife disre-
gard for Biblical standards in churches today, i.e.
worldly music, social drinking, depraved morals, etc.
In the absence of a sure Bible who can insist upon a
sure Biblical standard?
To find what the Scriptures say about these matters
one does not have to go more than three chapters into
The AV Defense Booklet Page 190
the book of Genesis. It is not by accident the subject
of God’s word and how it is treated by different indi-
viduals is found at the very beginning of the Scrip-
tures. God wants man to learn before he reads in
them any farther that there are forces at work who
question His word and attempt to corrupt it. The
practice of corrupting Scripture, and subsequently
God’s people, goes all the way back to the Garden of
Eden. Although Adam and Eve did not have much of
God’s word, what little they had Satan went after.
His first words to Eve were, “Yea, hath God said?”
Once Eve was sufficiently shaken by the question
posed and began to doubt God’s word, Satan’s second
step was to outright deny God’s word. Though God
had warned, concerning the forbidden tree, “in the
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,”
Satan contradicted Him by saying, “Ye shall not
surely die.” Satan’s questioning led Eve to
SUBTRACT from God’s word (Gen. 3:2 – “freely” is
subtracted when quoting 2:16), and it also led her to
ADD to His word (Gen. 3:3 – “neither shall ye touch
Satan’s strategy has not changed. He begins by de-
stroying faith in the word of God and, once this is ac-
complished, replaces it with his own.
In looking back at the Fall, we can see that neither
Adam nor Eve accepted the entire word of God. They
clung to what was pleasant and permissible, “Of
every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” Yet,
they rejected the prohibition, “of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.”
How different was the case of Jesus (the last Adam, 1
Cor. 15:45), who was not in a garden paradise when
He encountered the enemy but in the wilderness. We
find Him declaring to Satan, who also tempted Him
with food, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by
EVERY word of God.”
The AV Defense Booklet Page 191
“O Biblios” The Book, Alan O’Reilly
Gipp’s Understandable History of the Bible, Third
Edition, Dr. Sam Gipp
The Answer Book, Dr. Sam Gipp
Final Authority, Dr. William Grady
If the Foundations Be Destroyed: What does the New
International Version of the Bible have against Je-
sus?, Chick Salliby
Biblical Scholarship, Dr. Peter Ruckman
Which Bible?, David Otis Fuller
Believing Bible Study, Dr. Edward Hills
The NIV: An “In Depth” Documentation of Apostasy,
Dr. Peter Ruckman
A Tale of Three Cities, Dr. David Reagan
Which Translation Should You Trust?, Timothy Mor-
The Bible Translations Test, James H. Son
The Christ-Honoring Commentary on the Book of
Revelation, James Knox
The Bible Believer’s Commentary on the Book of Reve-
lation, Dr. Peter Ruckman
“The Bible – we don’t need to rewrite it, we need to re-
read it!” Lester Roloff