Change 8 Verses and get a Gay Bible

They’ll do anything to justify their sin. This is a King James Version bible with 8 verses edited: specifically: Gen. 19:5, Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, Rom. 1:26, Rom. 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 and Jude 1:7.

The editors of the Queen James Bible took a KJV and took the liberty to add a few interpretive changes to justify themselves…

More here…

This is what the Proverbs and Revelation mean when they say:

Proverbs 30:6  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This altogether different from other versions’ choices of words  because this is a denial of the totality of Scripture’s authority by their own admission:

“Leviticus is outdated as a moral code, but we still picked it as our most important book to address in our edits, as most anti-LGBT religious activists cite Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as proof-positive that homosexuality is a sin, even worse, a sin punishable by death.”

Unfortunately, this kind of thing is fodder for the KJVO crowd to use as proof of what all the other versions are also doing. Most other versions are translated and produced by those who do believe in Scripture’s authority.  Those that are not, are rightly suspect.


Happy 400th Anniversary KJV – A History

For the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible, I will be posting a series of articles on the history of the KJV that was originally written by a good friend of mine, Jon Moffitt who is a seminary student at The Masters Seminary in Sun Valley Ca. He wrote this paper last year for an introduction to Bible class. So, none of these writings are original with me, but he gave me permission to post them for the benefit of our readers.


The focus behind this paper is a historical study to present the facts concerning the birth of the King James Bible. Many of the details contained in this overview have been often overlooked and not seen as important. Understanding the history of English bibles in general will help answer many questions and misconceptions concerning Bible versions. The primary focus will be uncovering the facts in relation to the development and production of the King James Bible.

A History of English Bibles from Tyndale to the Rheims–Douay

Tyndale Bible (1525). William Tyndale was a very gifted linguist who was fluent in seven different languages. Tyndale began his work of translating the NT into English during a time when the Roman Catholic Church forbade any translation into the vernacular (common language). Tyndale was the first to translate the entire NT from the Greek into English (although he did consult the Latin Vulgate and Luther’s German translation).[i] John Wycliffe did produce the first English translation in 1380, however it was not from the Greek and Hebrew but derived from the Latin Vulgate. We owe much credit to Mr. Tyndale for his outstanding work. The majority of his work would be used in future English translations. These are some of the beloved phrases that came from Tyndale’s translation: Be not weary in well doing; Am I my brother’s keeper? The salt of the earth; The signs of the times; A law unto themselves; The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak; Fight the good fight; With God all things are possible.

Tyndale also brought some new words into the English language to better maintain the theological implication behind the original language. Some of the more important words were Passover, intercession, scapegoat, and atonement.[ii] Tyndale was murdered before he could finish translating the OT, making it only to 2 Chronicles.[iii]

Coverdale’s Bible (1535). An assistant to Tyndale was a man named Miles Coverdale. In comparison to Tyndale, he did not know any of the original Greek and Hebrew languages; therefore he relied heavily on translations of the OT into Dutch, Latin, and Luther’s German translation.[iv] This Bible would be in the same line as Wycliffe’s Bible because it was a translation of a translation. The major difference between the two is that Wycliffe’s OT was incomplete. Coverdale was also the first to place the Apocryphal books at the end of the OT separating them from the canonical books demonstrating a distinction between inspired and non-inspired books.[v] The order in which we have our Bibles today can also be attributed to the Coverdale Bible.[vi] This was the first English Bible approved by the crown (King Henry VIII) to be published, ironically, one year after Tyndale was burned at the stake for publishing his NT.[vii]

Matthew’s Bible (1537). The translation of this Bible is attributed to the name Thomas Matthew, to hide the identity of the real translator, John Rogers (who also was an assistant to Tyndale).[viii] This is the second Bible licensed by King Henry VIII that was placed in circulation. Roger combined the best of both Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s work, and to assist with interpretation and doctrinal clarity adding notes in the margin.[ix] The Matthew’s Bible was also the first to separate the books into chapters and paragraphs (but not into verses).[x] John Roger was also the first martyr under the reign of Catholic Queen Mary (known as bloody Mary).[xi]

The Great Bible (1539). The name of this Bible comes from its size (16 ½ inches by 11 inches).[xii] Miles Coverdale was commissioned once more by King Henry VIII to produce another translation into English. This new Bible was to be placed in every church in England. As Coverdale revised the Matthew’s Bible, he again was acting more as editor than translator from the original languages. In this Bible, Coverdale used most of Tyndale’s work for the OT from Genesis to 2 Chronicles; and from Ezra to Malachi, he used the Matthew’s Bible (a revision of Coverdale’s first Bible). For the NT he not only used Tyndale’s translation, but also portions from his first Bible, and the Matthew’s Bible.[xiii] Coverdale left out many of the notes that were added for clarity in the margins of the Matthew’s Bible, and the alternative readings were left out as well.

The Geneva Bible (1560). The name of this Bible comes from the location it was translated, Geneva Switzerland. In 1553 King Edward died and was succeeded by Mary Tudor (blood Mary). She was a Roman Catholic queen who put a stop to any translation work, and began killing Protestants, the first being John Rogers.[xiv] Because of this persecution, hundreds of Christians fled to Germany and Switzerland seeking refuge. Coverdale also left and settled in Geneva. During this time many of the Puritan refugees in Geneva were skilled scholars. Godly men like Theodore Beza, who was considered to be one of the greatest scholars of his time; William Whittingham, the general editor of the Geneva Bible (also brother-in-law of John Calvin); William Cole from Cambridge; and Anthony Gilby who was a very skilled Hebrew scholar who oversaw the translation of the OT. These men saw a need to make a new translation rather than a revision of an old one (as the previous translations were revisions of other translations), utilizing the latest textual evidence available to them.[xv] Not only was this a fresh translation (the Hebrew Bible had never been completely translated into English up to this point)[xvi], but the Geneva Bible also contributed many other new facets:

(1) The presence of marginal notes that provided commentary on the biblical text;

(2) a smaller size, making it more affordable than its predecessors and giving it a mass appeal as opposed merely to official church sanction; (3) printing in easier-to-read roman typeface rather than block gothic lettering; (4) italicizing of words not in the original text but needed to make sense in English; (5) dividing the text into verses as well as chapters.[xvii]

The Bishop’s Bible (1568). The Geneva Bible was never accepted as a legitimate translation by the Anglican Church or Queen Elizabeth. It was mostly hated because the Puritans who translated it were very Protestant in their choice of words, and the commentary notes added in the margins taught reformed theology that often opposed Anglican doctrine.[xviii] Because the Great Bible did not hold up to the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the archbishop of Canterbury (Matthew Parker) initiated a new translation. The translation was to be a revision of the Great Bible and all improvements upon the translation would only be implemented if it varied from the Greek and Hebrew. Parker only allowed Bishops or those who would eventually become one work on this translation.  This decision resulted in the Bible’s name. The quality of the revision was very poor because of the lack of accountability over the translators. In the new Bishop’s Bible not much was changed in the OT and Apocryphal books from the Great Bible, but in some sections of the NT there was much freedom taken by many of the bishops leading to erroneous translations.[xix]

The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582–1610). This translation was also in response to the Geneva Bible’s popularity, but this time it was coming from the Roman Catholic Church. The popularity of the Geneva Bible along with its Protestant marginal notes caused many Catholics to leave their faith and join the reformers. To battle against this, William Allen who had left England during the reign of Elizabeth I (a Protestant Queen), published a NT translation from the Latin Vulgate in 1582 in Rheims, and later the OT in Douay in 1509–10. Roman Catholic doctrine is clearly seen in many passages of this bible, and the marginal notes are clearly focused on presenting this bible as a catechism for Catholics.[xx]

[i] A. C. Partridge, English Biblical Translation (London: Deutsch, 1973), 38.

[ii] Ibid, 40.

[iii] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 299.

[iv] T. Harwood Pattison, The History of the English Bible (Philadelphia: American Baptist, 1894), 135.

[v] James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds., From the mind of God to the mind of man: A Layman’s Guide to How We Got our Bible (Greenville: Ambassador-Emerald, 1999), 115.

[vi] Bruce Metzger, The Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 61.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Williams and Shaylor, 117.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Leland Ryken, Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 43.

[xi] Williams and Shaylor, 117.

[xii] Wegner, 296.

[xiii] Ibid, 299.

[xiv] Williams and Shaylor, 119.

[xv] Ibid, 121.

[xvi] Wegner, 301.

[xvii] Ryken, 44.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Metzger, 66.

[xx] Wegner, 304–5.

Was a Freemason the Chief Editor of the KJV?

When reading about the Freemasons and their influence in the founding of America, I came across a very interesting piece of information that the KJV Only conspiracy theorists would love to be true about another version of the Bible, but unfortunately, it may be true of their own beloved, perfect version:

“The headpiece of page 41 of Bacon’s Great Insaturation also contains light-dark scrolls…they are also shown in the 1650 edition of Bacon’s New Atlantis….Similar colophones suggest that other important works of Bacon’s time were assisted by Bacon’s secret society. The Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611), includes light-dark scrolls and the ‘A’-type emblem, and it is claimed that Bacon was its chief editor.” 

 –  Nicholas Hagger, The Secret Founding of America. Watkins Publishing, London England 2007, p. 91

So, is it true that Sir Francis Bacon, who was the originator of English Freemasonry, was the King’s chief editor for the publication of the KJV? This book also claims that the intentions of King James was to solidify the English language by sending his Bible to all English colonies to strengthen his kingdom and the pursuit of establishing the New Atlantis or as we know it today, the New World Order.

Here’s a website that has more in depth detail about the Masonic symbols that found their way into the first edition of the 1611 KJV. Those who like to assign cult connections with the NIV, Westcott and Hort’s Greek text and other conspiracies that seem to lend weight to the alleged corruption of other versions tend to overlook the skeletons in their own closet.  

Let’s just face it, the preservation, transmission, translation and publication of the Bible in nearly all versions from the LXX to as lately as the HCSB and ESV have all had dirty hands involved in the work that God has sovereignly used to preserve His Word in the multiplicity of manuscripts and translations that we have today. To try to claim that the KJV is the only one that is un-spotted from such people is delusional and wishful thinking.

Autographa & Apographa: John Owen on Inspiration and Preservation

This is a repost of Dr. Paul Henebury’s recent post on his blog. Dr. Henebury is the President of Veritas School of Theology.


The greatest British theologian of the 17th Century was, in the opinion of many, John Owen.  Owen made distinctive contributions in a number of theological loci.  His book on the mutual relationship within the Trinity and our communion with each of the Divine Persons is still the best work on the subject.[1] Likewise, his manifesto for congregational-independency[2] offers some of the best arguments for Pastor-led congregational form of church government, and his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ[3] is considered the book on the Reformed view of particular redemption.  Owen’s teaching on the subject of the inspiration of the Bible is also most instructive, especially in view of what has been and is being taught in some evangelical seminaries and books.

The Importance of Divine Inspiration

Owen’s views on the crucial matter of the relationship of the Bible as we have it and the autographs are worth pondering.  He, like all solid evangelicals, rests the authority of the Bibles we have, not upon some inner impression of its validity, but upon its original theopneustic character.  In his, The Divine Original of the Scripture he asserted, “That the whole authority of the scripture in itself depends solely on its divine original, is confessed by all who acknowledge its authority.”[4] Thus the autographs were from God and delivered to men.  We possess “the words of truth from God Himself.”[5]

Inspiration he defined as “an indwelling and organizing power in the chosen penmen.” [6] Thus, “they invented not words themselves…but only expressed the words they received.”[7] Indeed, “the word that came unto them was a book which they took in and gave out without any alteration of one tittle or syllable (Ezek. ii 8-10, iii 3; Rev. x 9-11).”[8] As Owen writes in his great work on the Holy Spirit:

He did not speak in them or by them, and leave it unto their natural faculties, their minds, or memories, to understand and remember the things spoken by him, and so declare them to others; but he himself acted their faculties, making use of them to express his words, not their own conceptions.[9]

It is because of its divine provenance that the Scripture gains “the power and to require obedience, in the name of God.”[10] The Scriptures “being what they are, they declare whose they are.”[11] Even so, being as the Bible is the Word of God, every man is bound to believe it.[12]

All this notwithstanding, Owen refuses to ground his doctrine of Scripture solely on the internal testimony of the Spirit.  As he says in his The Reason of Faith, “If anyone…shall now ask us wherefore we believe the Scripture to be the word of God; we do not answer, ‘It is because the Holy Spirit hath enlightened our minds, wrought faith in us, and enabled us to believe it.’”[13] Such a declaration may at first seem to be a deviation from the tradition inherited from the Reformation.  But Owen demonstrates that there has to be an external reason for the credibility of our faith in Scripture as the Word of God.[14] Divine revelation must have the character of truth through and through, and it is this character which the Spirit causes us recognize through faith.[15]

The Role of Apographa

Where John Owen, together with many of his contemporaries, differed from modern expressions of inspiration was in the close connection he saw between the Scriptures as originally given and the Scriptures as we now have them.  For example, he wrote:

Sacred Scripture claims this name for itself.  It has its origin from God…[s]o that what God once said to the Church through the medium of Prophets, Apostles, and other inspired writers was still spoken directly by God, and that not only in the primary sense to those whom He delegated this task of reducing His revealed will to written form, but also, no less so in a secondary sense, He speaks to us now in His written word…, as in days past He spoke through the mouths of His holy prophets.[16]

In contrast to the way inspiration and (if at all) preservation is taught nowadays, men like Owen saw a real continuity between the autographs and what were often termed the “apographs,” or copies of the originals.  “It is true”, Owen said, “we have not the Autographa …but the apographa or “copies” which we have contain every iota that was in them.[17]

As we have already inferred, in saying this Owen was not alone.  Francis Turretin of the Genevan Academy also held this view:

By original texts, we do not mean the autographs…, which certainly do not now exist.  We mean their “apographs” which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”[18]

Did this show a pre-Enlightenment naiveté?  Not at all.  Owen was well aware that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available in his day contained variant readings, transpositions, corrections, and other glosses.  But he saw the supervening hand of God in transmission of the texts.  For example, he wrote, “For the first transcribers of the original copies, and those who… have done the like work from them…[i]t is known, it is granted, that failings have been amongst them, and that various lections are from thence risen.”[19]

It is of interest to note that Owen’s recent translator contrasts the view of the Puritan with that of BB Warfield, especially in the areas of the extent of the understanding of inerrancy and the identity of the Text.  Stephen Westcott says that,

Owen saw inerrant as not meaning just that all “between the boards of the Bible” was inspired and without error…, but rather that inerrant necessarily meant plenary inspiration, and plenary inspiration that the Bible lacks nothing, and is thus a full and perfect rule and guide for all of life –not just for “religion”, and he saw inspiration as involving three essential factors: content inspiration, verbal inspiration, and divine preservation.[20]

Summarizing Owen’s View

From the above quotations the following three points can be drawn:

  1. The Divine authority of the Bible rests in itself.  It is self-attesting:

“That God, who is prima Veritas, ‘the first and sovereign Truth,’…should write a book, or at least immediately indite it, commanding us to receive it as his under the penalty of his eternal displeasure, and yet that book not make a sufficient discovery of itself to be his, to be from him, is past all belief.”[21]

  1. This authority rested in the first instance in Scripture’s inherent status as God-given, and not in the inner testimony of the Spirit to His Word.
  1. Although He allowed the human authors to remain individual personalities, the Holy Spirit nevertheless “acted their faculties” in order to produce His words in written form.  Owen taught that the nature of the Spirit presupposed this kind of inspiration,[22] even if, strictly speaking, “It is the graphe that is theopneustos.”[23]
  1. Although we no longer possess the original manuscripts of the Bible, the apographa or copies do communicate to us what the Holy Spirit said in the autographs.[24] Owen, unlike some Evangelicals today, held to a strong doctrine of Preservation.[25]

This assertion gives the lie to the thesis of people like Sandeen and Rogers and McKim[26] who have claimed that the belief that Scripture’s authority extends to all aspects of life is due to the influence of the Enlightenment. [27] But it also reminds us that God has not just set His Word in the world and then left it up to frail men to preserve it unsupervised.  In a very real sense the Bible through which God actively communicates today is foremost His Word, not our attempt to reproduce it.

[1] John Owen, On Communion with God, Works II, (London: Banner of Truth, 1966).

[2] Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, Works XVI, (London: Banner of Truth, 1968).

[3] The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Works X, (London: Banner of Truth, 1968).

[4] The Divine Original of the Scripture, Works XVI, (London: Banner of Truth, 1968), 297.

[5] Ibid., 305

[6] A Defense of Sacred Scripture.  Appended to his Biblical Theology, (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1994), 789.

[7] Divine Original, 305

[8] Divine Original, 299.

[9] A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit.  Works III, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 132-133.

[10] Divine Original, 308

[11] Ibid., 311

[12] Ibid., 335

[13] The Reason of Faith, Works IV, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 60

[14] Ibid., 61-69

[15] Ibid., 68

[16] Defense, 788. (cf. also Works XVI, 357).

[17] Divine Original, 300-301.

[18] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), 1.106.

[19] John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture. Works XVI, 355.

[20] Stephen Westcott, “Editors Introduction,” – John Owen, Defense, 772-773.

[21] Cf. also, Works XVI, 317-318, and, 335.  Calvin said, “We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate.” – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.7.5. (1.72).

[22] Owen, A Discourse Concerning The Holy Spirit, Works III, 131.

[23] Divine Original, 300.

[24] Likewise, see the opinion of William Whitaker recorded by John Woodbridge in his rebuttal of Rogers and McKim in Douglas Moo (ed.), Biblical Authority and Conservative Perspectives, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 46.

[25] See Owen, Divine Original of the Scripture, 354-355.

[26] See also the attacks on men like Carl F.H. Henry by the likes of Donald Bloesch.

[27] We are aware of the fact that men like Owen, Voetius, Turretin, and Thomas Boston believed that the Masoretic punctuation marks were divinely inspired.  They were mistaken.  But this does not mean that they were wrong in the matter before us. Furthermore, it may not be out of place to add that in the debate about the Majority Text versus the minority Critical Text.  For what it is worth, Stephen Westcott believes that Owen, were he alive, would side with the MT.  “For Owen, the Reformation, and the Puritans [to even put it in those terms] …would be to settle the dispute!” – “Editor’s Introduction,” to John Owen, A Defense of Sacred Scripture, 773.

Associations and Versions

I’ve noticed that different expressions of Christianity usually have one or more of a particular kind of  Bible version associated with it. For example, if you belong to a church that doesn’t really value Expository preaching and your church is really into the seeker sensitive movement; you’re most likely going to find the use of the NLT, NIV, TNIV and the Message. It’s a reflection of your lack of commitment to the supreme authority and sufficiency of scripture because these translations are not faithful to the original text.  (BTW, I’m not saying that all people who use one of those Bibles are not committed to the authority and sufficiency of scripture…so take a pill.) Anyway, my point is, they are dynamic equivalent or paraphrase versions that work just fine, when you’re not really interested in exegetical study or preaching. They work great for felt needs, topical or stand up comedian style of preaching that is so common in weak evangelical churches.

Then you have evangelical churches that are more committed to exposition and have a higher view of scripture. They generally use versions like the NASB, NKJV and now the ESV. These ministries will be the kind I’m most helped by – Grace to You, Ligonier, 9 Marks, In Touch, etc…

Most recently it seems that the ESV is quickly becoming the Calvinist Bible of choice.  Especially the ESV Study Bible which is edited by Reformed Anglicans  and Presbyterians.  If a church is using the ESV as their pulpit text, most likely they’re Reformed or lean that way.

Then you’ve got the churches who use only the KJV. Who are they? Independent Fundamental Baptists for the most part, but that’s not all: Holiness Pentecostals, Oneness Pentecostals, 7th Day Adventists, Harold Camping followers, Mormons and several other weird cults! Wow what an association. Almost all the extreme fringe who deny a pure gospel or proclaim another gospel are using the KJV besides the IFB’s. So, as an IFB’er who is not KJVO, but preaches from the KJV, I am really ashamed of the rest of the company whom my version of the Bible seems to be associated with these days.

The dilemma that the KJVO Fundamentalist has put himself in, is that his conviction about the KJV has now caused him to compromise his own convictions about separation from evil associations. If a kind of music, worship style or anything else connected with church life had those kinds of damning associations, they would preach against it and avoid it, but they can’t do that with the KJV, they’re forced to be in the same association with these people even though there is no cooperation. Fundamentalists like to lump everyone who is not like them into a big group and call them “new evangelicals” even though some of whom they would lump into that group wouldn’t associate or cooperate with others they put in that group. For the sake of argument only, wouldn’t it be fair to lump IFB’s who are KJVO into the one big group of cults also by their own rules of separation and association?

Bible Version Differences, Problems and Solutions

  1. Trivial Omissions

One of the most common accusations leveled against the newer versions are the omissions of titles to Jesus being Lord or Christ in many verses. David Sorenson in his book “Touch not the Unclean Thing” says that the NASB deletes 178 references to Jesus by name or by title being Lord or Christ. He admits that the NASB doesn’t destroy the doctrine of the Lordship of Christ, but that this translation greatly dilutes it and weakens it. One of these examples is absolutely biased and laughable when you see the difference:

Romans 14:6KJV He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Romans 14:6 NASB He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, 1does so for the Lord, for he agives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

The KJV says Lord 4X and the NASB says it 3X…do we smell a conspiracy? If the NASB was trying to rid the Bible of The Lordship of Christ, they forgot the other three references! Anyway, there are other verses that are more obvious where there are omissions of these titles for example:

2 Corinthians 4:10 KJV Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

2 Corinthians 4:10 NASB always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.

Both versions are word for word formal equivalent translations, so they both are accurately reflecting the underlying text. The NASB follows the NA27 and the KJV follows Beza’s TR. So, among the translational differences between these formal equivalent translations, the main issue is the Greek text. So, is there a reason why the NA27 has fewer title references that can be easily explained? I believe so.

Why would the newer Bibles not include these passages or titles that are not found in the majority or TR? There is a theory that makes sense, although it may not be totally provable since none of us were there. In some cases, it’s obvious that a verse has been either repeated or imported from another place in the text.  In Mark 9:44 and 46 the phrase “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched” has possibly been inserted into later manuscripts in both places, repeating the very same phrase found later in verse 48.  It is impossible to say that someone was purposefully trying to hide or change anything. Most of the time these differences are found in the footnotes, which a conspirator would hardly try to include. This borrowing language from one part of scripture added to another place is usually for the harmonization of a passage when a scribe would copy a page. So prevalent is the occurrence of parallel influence that it is unnecessary to examine each and every example. Instead, we can look at a few that are often cited as examples of corrupting the text and you’ll see that they are not a corruption, but rather that the TR may have had some scribal insertions from other parts of scripture.

KJV                                           Other Version                             Borrowed Verse

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matthew 1:25 NASB 1but kept her a virgin until she agave birth to a Son; and bhe called His name Jesus. Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Matthew 8:29 ESV And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Mark 1:24 24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. Matthew 20:16 NJB Thus the last will be first, and the first, last.’ Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

The fact is, each of these  (and there are many others) where the newer version is lacking a phrase, the text that is found in the KJV, the same material can be found elsewhere in the gospels in the newer versions. Sometimes these kinds of omissions also occur on verses where there is a doctrinal difference made. For example:

Colossians 1:14 KJV 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 1:14 NASB 14 ain whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

There are a number of parallels between Colossians and Ephesians so there is also a harmonization between the two that may have been done with texts like this by scribes that wrote some of the foundational texts of the majority Byzantine MSS.  As you can see, the blood is not left out of the NASB in Ephesians: Ephesians 2:13 But now in aChrist Jesus you who bformerly were cfar off 1have cbeen brought near 2dby the blood of Christ.

Again, the charge of conspiracy doesn’t hold up. Could it be said that the NASB is weaker? It could, but if you are a Bible student who diligently studies, you will not miss this doctrine in the NASB or any other good formal equivalent translation.

Then there are differences that are not due to parallel influence. They are due to a difference in the MSS due to the scribal errors, or copying a MSS that they had with a different word:

Matthew 16:20 KJV Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Matthew 16:20 NASB Then He 1warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was 2bthe Christ.

How can these possibly be explained? At times the “expansion of piety” led scribes to insert a name in such a way as to create a problem.  This verse provides us with such an instance.  After the great confession of faith by Peter, the Lord tells him to keep his identity a secret for a while. It would be very well known that the Christ is Jesus. Those being spoken to would not have had a problem understanding, and neither should we. The pronoun “he” directly refers to the one speaking – obviously, Jesus.

Again, these omissions are in the original text that is being translated from and the reason for their omissions are really not known for sure by anyone. Could it have been a conspiracy to take away from the Word of God?  Possibly, but unlikely since there are so many other references to Christ’s Lordship, deity, and so forth.

If someone wants to insist that the modern versions are corrupted for leaving out these titles and references to Jesus, then that same standard must be used against the KJV. For example:

John 6:47 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 6:47 NIV I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

The KJVO Advocate will be quick to point out that the NIV has omitted the words “on me” which do not appear in the older MSS and it could be argued that believing in general isn’t sufficient for salvation… right?  Believe on who? Santa Clause, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy? DA Waite says: “This is one of the clearest theological errors in these new versions. To make salvation only a matter of believing rather than solely, as Christ said in this verse “believing on me” is truly another gospel. If you were trying to lead someone to the Lord with an NIV or NASB, you could lead them to any of the world religions. This is a serious theological perversion! This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology.”[1]

This kind of outrageous statements are made to strike fear into your heart about another version, but it shows his incredible bias because just a few verses earlier, the NIV reads:

John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

If the NIV was purposely trying to pervert the gospel, they forgot to delete “in me and in him” in these verses. I think people like DA Waite are so blatantly biased, that they will purposefully ignore these verses to push the KJVO hype and scare undiscerning Christians who read their books full of conspiracy theory and vitriolic anger.

If you really want to say that the other texts and versions are perversions because of these kinds of differences, then that same standard that Waite puts on the NIV will also condemn the KJV. Here’s what I mean:

Mark 9:23 KJV Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Romans 1:16 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Believeth in what or who? It doesn’t tell us specifically, but the context answers the question for you in the KJV just like it does in the other problem verses concerning the other versions.   In fact, there are some places, where the NIV, NASB, ESV and others might look stronger in doctrine than the KJV if this argument is to be taken to its full logical conclusions:

KJV                                                                             Other Versions

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, Romans 8:34 ESV Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died –
1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Timothy 1:17 NIV 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: 1 John 4:3 NASB and every spirit that adoes not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the bantichrist,
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13 NASB looking for the blessed hope and the aappearing of the glory of 1bour great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1 NKJV Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2. Weightier Omissions and differences

Are there any omissions that would cause a real theological problem? I have found a few that I think could possibly be a real dilemma:

Matthew 5:21-22 KJV Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:22 ESV, NASB, But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother1 will be liable to judgment; whoever insults2 his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell3 of fire.

In the newer versions, “without a cause” is missing in the older MSS and so the teaching, if isolated, becomes a blanket prohibition against anger and that there is no cause or reason for anger that is justifiable. As we know, the Bible is full of places where the anger of the Lord was kindled. So, we know that no all anger is sinful – such as the Lord’s righteous indignation. So, this passage makes it unclear about that and could possibly cause confusion if a person is not knowledgeable about how to study the scriptures deeper to find out more about the subject. “Without a cause” is really a disclaimer or a “qualifying” clause that makes the teaching more clear. Some may argue that the words were not in the originals, but they really don’t know that either. So, to be safe I would go with the KJV and NKJV reading. The same kind of argument can be said about passages concerning baptism: if Acts 2:38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If this verse was the only one in the Bible dealing with salvation, I would have to say that baptism is essential for justification, but based on other teaching, we should realize that it is not saying that. The same goes for the anger verse. If you read the rest of scripture, you’d come to understand the difference between sinful anger and righteous anger.

Here’s another problem verse that gets a lot of attention by those advocating a KJVO position:

John 7:8 KJV Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

John 7:8 NASB Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because aMy time has not yet fully come.”

The difference here is one word that apparently makes Jesus look like a liar in the NASB. He says he’s not going to the feast yet in the KJV, but in the NASB, he just says that he’s not going, which appears that he’s not going at all. Then in verse 10, John 7:10 NASB 10 But when His abrothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.

There is a perfectly understandable explanation of this without involving Jesus in dishonesty: By not going up to the feast, Jesus is referring to the public procession to Jerusalem that would have involved thousands of people. The “not going” could be interpreted “not going openly, or not going yet” because he states that his time has not yet come. Even though this may be a good explanation for the omission of the word, it still makes more sense that the word be there and is a safer reading in the KJV if Jesus is referring to not going to the feast at all. But what if Jesus is saying I’m not going at all in the way his half brothers are telling him to go: openly, as Messiah, which is what they meant? Then you have the context fixing the problem of the word “yet” not being there, if in fact it is supposed to be missing in the originals.  Here’s what I mean:

In some early manuscripts, the word yet does not appear in John 7:8, so some translations read, “I am not going up to this feast.” Some people will say that a copyist probably added the word yet to verse 8 to bring it in harmony with verse 10 and prevent the appearance that Jesus lied and that the original text would not have included the word yet.

In verse 8, Jesus says, “I’m not going” in response to his brothers’ invitation to accompany them and to make a big production of Himself at the feast. It was a little premature to come on the clouds in glory.  In His second coming, Jesus will re-institute the feast of tabernacles according to the book of Revelation. So by saying that I’m not going to this feast, He could have meant I’m not going like you all are telling me – openly, in glory – to this feast.

In verse 9, It says that Jesus in fact did not go. He did not accompany them, and He did not go as a public figure, as they wanted. In verse 10, it says “However, after his brothers had left for the feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.”

So it seems to me that even if the word yet is a well-intended scribal emendation, it is what Jesus meant and what John intended to represent Jesus as meaning. The brothers say, “Jesus, you ought to go and make a public spectacle of yourself, to show everyone who you really are.” John adds, in an aside to the reader, that they were really trying to call Jesus’ bluff, they didn’t really believe in Him. Jesus says, “No, it isn’t time for me to do that, so under those conditions, I’m not going.” Since Jesus wanted to go incognito, He couldn’t go with people who intended to make a big deal out of Him. And so in fact He didn’t go with them. But after they left, it was possible for Him to go secretly, so He did.

Imagine if someone drove up in a dilapidated old car and said, “Are you going to church? Why don’t you ride with me?” You look at the jalopy and you remember that the driver is a speedster with a bad driving record, so you say, “No way! I’m not going.” They drive off, and then you take the bus. You didn’t lie when you said “I’m not going.” It was an elliptical statement that included the context of the situation. It could be that a scribe inserted the word “yet” as a way to clarify what Jesus meant (scribal revisionism) much like translators do today when they think they know how the reading should go. Could it be that someone added to God’s word in this case? Maybe, but either way, the Bible vindicates itself.

Another one that is commonly pointed out as an error in the newer versions is concerning the deity of Christ in regard to who His father is:

Luke 2:33 KJV And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33 ESV And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

This is the case of a textual variant in the original MSS, and the older ones say “father” while the Byzantine primarily says “Joseph”. This shouldn’t be a problem because the in all translations they make it clear that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost – Matthew 1:20 NASB But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “aJoseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for 1the Child who has been 2conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

If that doesn’t satisfy you, then you need to again, use this argument against your own KJV and level the same heretical charge against it in Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

So, as we have seen from a number of passages from various other versions, the differences that seem to be of enormous consequence are really rather trivial in relation to theology. They don’t change anything. Of course, like I said last week, there are other versions that do have a political agenda in their choice of words in the translation and I am not interested in defending or vindicating them. We can see from these popular versions: the NIV, ESV, NKJV and NASB that concerning the doctrine of God, they are certainly not guilty of being perverted.

3. The KJV and NKJV

Before we finish, I wan to address the New King James Version which is also rejected by the KJVO advocates for various spurious reasons. I often read and study from a NKJV and recommend the MacArthur Study Bible which is also available in the NKJV. One of the most staunch KJVO advocates, Dr. David Sorenson wrote a book a few years ago called “Touch Not the Unclean Thing” where he refers to the other versions and MSS as unclean and apostate. We have already seen that although some apostates may have had their hands involved in the textual criticism and translation of the newer texts and newer versions, they still hold together as the inspired Word of God – howbeit in some cases – perhaps incomplete.

David Sorenson critiques the NKJV and tries to discredit for various reasons. Some of the reasons would be these:

  1. The more precise KJV language uses pronouns such as the “thee’s, thou’s and  ye’s,” are all substituted for the more general word “you”.  This, he claims, makes it weaker. Well, the truth is – nobody talks that way anymore, and the increasing number of people who are in our country speaking English as a second language have a hard time understanding these kinds of words as well as other archaic.
  2. The footnotes refer back to the Older Alexandrian MSS when there is a textual variant. According to Sorenson, these MSS are “apostate” and he thinks that the NKJV undermines the true readings of the originals. However, if you are aware of the text issues and you have learned the history of how we got our Bible, these footnotes should not alarm you.
  3. Inconsistency in capitalizing the prounouns referring to God. This feature is not found in any other version that I can find, but because they may have missed a few, Sorenson uses this to discredit the NKJV’s reliability. EG Psalm 89:27 Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.
  4. The changing of the word “miracle” to “sign” which only appears four times in the book of John only. He tries to accuse the NKJV of downplaying the supernatural, but the truth is, Jesus’ miracles in John are considered signs as John himself calls them in 20:30. They were just trying to be consistent in translation with John’s use of miracles.
  5. Weakness in translation concerning Christ as Creator.

John 1:3 NKJV All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

1 Corinthians 8:6 NKJV yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

This again, is a spurious argument. The Greek word “dia” is literally means “through, by or by means of”. This does nothing to undercut Christ’s deity or His being the Creator.   If this is all that he can come up with to discredit the NKJV as a weak or faulty translation, then you should be encouraged to use one, because these arguments show either his ignorance or blatant bias.

In closing, let me read from the preface to the reader from the translators of the KJV written in 1611 which is probably not in most of your Bibles anymore, but is very important that we understand what they had in mind when they translated it:

“Many men’s mouths have been opened a good while (and are yet to be stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather persuals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity, of the employment?  Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, etc…We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had had the oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended, and to complain, yet that we had none….Was their translation good before? My do they now mend it? Was it not good?  Why then was it obtruded to the people?…Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God….We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travelled before us in this kind…we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.

-An Answer to the imputations of our adversaries-

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest (poorest) translation of the bible in English set forth by men of our profession containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God as the kings speech which he uttered in parlament, being translated in French, Dutch, and Latin is still the king’s speech….Truly dear Christian reader, 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 principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

Some, perhaps would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken.  But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point….it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment (less theological weight) that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence and if we will resolve to resolve upon modesty with St. Augstine: ‘it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.’ There are many words in the scriptures which be never found there but once, so that we cannot be uphlpen by conference places…Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily (absolutely or positively)? For as it is a fault to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. So diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs be good, yea is necessary as we are persuaded.

Another thing to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing (what Sorenson gripes about concerning the NKJV), or to the identifying of words…

We commend thee to God and to the Spirit of grace….he removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening the wits that we may understand His word.”

May we learn and take the good advice of the KJV translators. Amen.

[1] Defending the KJV, DA Waite, p.158

I have More Respect for the KJVOx than the KJVO

I have more respect for the double inspiration KJVO Xtremists than I do your run-of-the-mill KJV Onlyist. Why? Because they’re the only ones with the guts to take their lunacy to it’s fullest logical conclusion. In this post, I just found out that a KJVO Bible college has just made it public that they will not be teaching Greek in preparing men for ministry because their preserved KJV Bible for the English speaking people makes Greek obsolete. This is the official statement of Grace Baptist College in Gaylord Michigan.

Other colleges such as West Coast Baptist College which states to believe that the KJV is also the perfect preserved version for English people as well as the entire Sword of the Lord constituency won’t go that far, but it’s the next necessary step to take if you are going to take a “perfectly-preserved-English-version” position. How could it be ‘perfectly translated’ unless it was a work of inspiration by the Holy Spirit to ensure it to be perfect? Has man done anything other than the original manuscripts as perfectly?  Nobody in their right mind would dare presume that. Yet these KJVOXtremists take it that far and the other KJVOnlyists don’t have the guts to take that next logically necessary step into utter lunacy. They’ve got more conviction about their error than those who they think are going liberal, like Hyles Anderson College (I have to laugh). Well, at least they’re being consistent. Consistently showing how intellectually bankrupt they are without any pretense.