3. INFANT BAPTISM EITHER STATES OR IMPLIES THAT SALVATION OR SPIRITUAL BLESSING CAN BE IMPARTED THROUGH RITUAL, OR THROUGH THE FAITH OF ANOTHER. Contrast Ps. 49:7-8. The Bible says all blessings of salvation are received through personal faith in Jesus Christ (Ac. 15:8-11; 16:30-31; Ep. 2:8-10; 2 Th. 3:13-14; 2 Ti. 3:15). We receive eternal life by personal faith (Jn. 3:16). We become children of God by personal faith (Jn. 1:12). We receive justification and peace with God through personal faith (Ro. 5:1). We receive the Holy Spirit by personal faith (Ep. 1:12-14).

4. INFANT BAPTISM IMPLIES THAT THE CHURCH CAN IMPART SALVATION AND BLESSING TO WHOMSOEVER IT PLEASES, REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S WILL OR FAITH. Contrast Ac. 8:36-37.

5. INFANT BAPTISM RESULTS IN FALSE SECURITY. Multitudes of people baptized as infants grow up thinking they are ready for Heaven even though they have never been born again through personal faith in Christ. They are trusting in their infant baptism and in their church membership. Such are deceived by the teaching of their own churches.

6. INFANT BAPTISM RESULTS IN CHURCHES BEING PEOPLED BY UNREGENERATE MEMBERS. In some churches the infant becomes a member immediately at the time of the baptismal ceremony. In others, the infant is not yet considered a full member, but is admitted as a member in later years without having to show evidence of regeneration. Either way, infant baptism results in those churches being filled with members who are not truly saved. This, of course, destroys the church, and is a chief cause for the spiritual deadness of most Protestant denominations.

7. THERE IS NO PARTIAL SALVATION TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE. Infant baptism either truly saves, or it does not save at all. Yet most denominations practicing infant baptism believe it results in partial salvation for the infant and that it must later add works such as the catechism, mass, and confession to be fully saved. The following Bible passages show that when a person is saved, he is fully, eternally saved. The same passages reveal that this salvation is not through an infant baptism, but a personal, repentant faith in Jesus Christ (2 Co. 5:17; Tit. 3:5-7; Ep. 1:3-7; Ro. 5:1-2; Col. 1:12-14; 1 Jn. 5:12-13).

8. INFANT BAPTISM CAUSES THE OFFICIATING MINISTER TO DECLARE FALSEHOODS. He declares a falsehood when he says, "I baptize you," because he is not baptizing but sprinkling. He declares a falsehood when he says, "This child is regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ's church" (Anglican Book of Common Prayer). Infants are neither born again nor true church members. He declares a falsehood by saying, "It has pleased God to regenerate this infant with His Holy Spirit; to receive him for His own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His holy church." None of these things can be true for an infant and none of these things are imparted by baptism (Hiscox, Practices for Baptist Churches).

What are we to do for our children?

1. Christians can rejoice that their children are sanctified by the parents' relationship with Christ (1 Co. 7:14). Though we might not know everything this involves, we do know that (a) the passage is not speaking of sanctification by a baptismal ritual. Nothing is said here or in any other N.T. passage regarding the necessity of baptizing infants before they can partake of this family sanctification. (b) Children are eternally safe if they die in early childhood. The case of the death of David's son illustrates this. After the child's death, David said he would one day go to be with him (2 Sa. 12:22-23). This shows David's assurance that the baby was safe with God. If this was true for the children of O.T. saints, surely it is true for the N.T. believer. (c) At a certain point in the child's life he becomes personally responsible before God for his relationship with Jesus Christ. The Bible does not say at what age or point this occurs, but Jesus encouraged children to come to Him (Lk. 18:16), and Timothy was taught the Scriptures as a child with the goal that he come to salvation (2 Ti. 3:15).

2. The parents must dedicate themselves to train the child in the way of Christ. It is not really the dedication of infants that is essential; it is the dedication of parents. Parents are wasting their time if they go through a public ceremony of dedicating their child to God, but fail thereafter to discipline and instruct him in the right way. Let us do both! Let us offer our newborn children to God and plead His best blessing upon their lives, and let us carefully train them for His holy service. [See Anglican, Baptism - Immersion, Church, Gospel, Grace, Lord's Supper, Roman Catholic Church.]

BEAST. In the O.T. there are primarily two Hebrew words translated "beast" in the KJV: (1) chay (Ge. 1:24,25,30; 2:19-20; 3:1; 8:19; 9:2; 37:20), and (2) behemah (Ge. 6:7; 7:2; 34:23; Ex. 8:17). Chay emphasizes the living, moving, breathing aspect of an animal. It is also translated "alive," "running," and "springing." Behemah emphasizes the brute aspect to an animal, the fact that they do not have an eternal, living soul like man does. It is from a Hebrew root meaning "mute."

In the N.T. there are three Greek words translated "beast" in the KJV. (1) Ktenos refers to a domesticated animal (Lk. 10:34). (2) Therion refers to a wild, dangerous animal (Ac. 28:4-5). The Antichrist is described with this term (Re. 11:7; 13:1-18; 14:9,11; 15:2; 16:2,10,13; 17:3-17; 19:19-20; 20:4,10). (3) Zoon refers to a living creature in general, not necessarily an animal, and describes some of the angelic beings of Revelation (Re. 4:7; 6:3,5,7).

Bible lessons about animals:

Animals and people are different creations: The first thing to note from Scripture is that animals and mankind are two different creations. Man is not a higher animal. Evolution is a lie. Man was created distinctly in the image of God (Ge. 1:24-28). Animals were not made in the image of God. Animals do not have a living soul. They are not eternal beings; man is (Ge. 2:7). Man is infinitely higher than and different from the animal kingdom. The Lord Jesus Christ referred to this fact in Lk. 12:5-7. "But I forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows." There are two important truths in this passage about animals and man. First, we see that God does care for animals; he does not forget even the tiny sparrow. Second, though, we see that man is infinitely greater in value than the animals because man has an eternal soul. Man will be held accountable for his actions. Without a Savior, sinful man will spend eternity in Hell.

Animals were made for man's pleasure: We see further that the Bible says animals were made for man's pleasure and use. Man was not made for the world; the world was made for man. Even the stars of the universe were made for man (Ps. 8:4-8). The Psalmist sees the animal kingdom under man's feet. This does not mean that man has a right to be cruel toward animals; it means man has a divine right to rule over the creation and to use it for his purposes and needs. The Bible enjoins kindness even toward the dumb creatures of this world (Pr. 12:10).

Animals are for man's food: From the time of Noah until today God has ordained that man eat animal flesh (Ge. 9:3). The nation Israel ate meat. The Lord Jesus Christ ate meat. The Passover meal was lamb (Ex. 12:5-10), and Christ ate the Passover. What about Christians? The Apostle Peter was certainly a Christian, and in a vision from God he was commanded to eat meat (Ac. 10:10-13). The vision was to impress Peter that Gentile believers were not unclean, but the fact remains that God commanded Peter to eat of the various meats. God would not have done that if He abhorred meat eating.

The vision in Ac. 10 also shows that God has removed the O.T. dietary restrictions. Some would have us believe that restrictions against pork and other meats were for medical purposes. That's not the case. Those restrictions were for the purpose of making Israel separate from the nations and for teaching her the difference between holy and unholy. God has removed all such dietary restrictions. In fact, the Bible warns against those who would promote vegetarianism. In 1 Ti. 4:1-5 we read of those who "command to abstain from meats," and we are told that this is a doctrine of devils! The Bible clearly says that God created animals to be eaten. It is not cruel to kill an animal in hunting or fishing, and to eat it. It is not cruel to slaughter animals for food. That is one of the reasons God made animals. Christians are free to eat meats or not to eat meats. This is the teaching of Ro. 14:2-3,6. Away with those dietary laws which purport to be Christian. If a Christian wants to eat a certain kind of food--only vegetables, for example--that is fine. If he wants to avoid something such as sugar or pork, fine. Let him eat what he feels God would have him eat, and what he feels will best benefit him. But let that one be careful that he not make his own conscience a law for others. The N.T. forbids dietary laws for religious purposes.

Animals illustrate man's salvation: Animals were used by God to illustrate salvation to the human race. In the Garden of Eden, when the man and woman had sinned, God made "coats of skins, and clothed them" (Ge. 3:21). Where did God get those coats of skins? From innocent animals that died that man might have a covering for his sinful condition. And note that it was God who provided the covering. God must provide salvation. Man cannot earn it himself. Salvation is a gift of grace, "not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ep. 2:9). From Eden until Calvary, the blood of animals was shed to illustrate salvation. Man is a fallen sinner who must have salvation from sin's penalty of death and Hell, and that salvation was purchased by Jesus Christ on the Cross. There He shed His blood and died for payment for man's sin. Those who trust Him receive eternal life. This is the Gospel which was preached so eloquently by the animal sacrifices. "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29). That is what John the Baptist said of Christ. The Bible enjoins us to Look and Live. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Ac. 16:31). Man is the crown of creation, but he is fallen and cannot be what God intended him to be until he is born again through the blood of Christ. [For the "Beast" of Re. 13:1 see Antichrist.]

BESOM. A broom. Besom is used symbolically for the sweeping judgments of an army (Is. 14:23).

BIBLE. The Christian Scriptures. The word "Bible" is from the Greek word biblios, which means a book. The Bible is divided into two major sections--the Old and the New Testaments. "Testament" means covenant or agreement. The O.T. describes man's creation and fall and contains the record of God's preparations for and prophecies of the coming of the Savior, Jesus Christ. The N.T. contains the accounts of Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection, return to Heaven, and the teachings of Christ's followers, as well as prophecies of the future.

The Bible's Two Testaments Contrasted (Chart)

The Bible's author. (1) The Bible has about 40 human authors, who wrote during a period spanning 1,600 years. (2) The Bible has one divine Author--God. The Bible makes this claim (2 Ti. 3:16; 2 Pe. 1:20-21). Many evidences support this claim: The unity of the Bible; the indestructibility of the Bible; the harmony of the Bible; the universal appeal of the Bible; the perennial value of the Bible; the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible; and the findings of archaeology concerning the Bible; etc.; all demonstrate the Bible to be of divine origin.

How did the Bible come to us? (1) Inspiration--the divinely-guided writing of the original manuscripts (2 Ti. 3:16; 2 Pe. 1:21). (2) Preservation--the providential keeping of the original text from loss and alteration (Ps. 12:6-7; 100:5; 119:152,160; Is. 40:8; 59:21; Mt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pe. 1:25). (3) Recognition--the acknowledgment by God's people of the original manuscripts as being divinely inspired. (4) Collection--the gathering of the original manuscripts into a Canon called The Holy Scriptures. [See Canon, Inspiration, Preservation.]

The divisions of the Bible. The Bible was divided into chapters by Stephen Langton in the 13th century, and into verses in the 15th and 16th centuries. The first Bible to be printed in the modern chapter-verse format was Stephanus' Latin Bible of 1555. The first English Bible to incorporate these divisions was the popular Geneva English Bible of 1557 which was a forerunner of the 1611 King James Bible. The King James Bible contains 66 books--39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. There are 31,173 verses, 774,746 words, and 3,566,480 letters in the entire Bible. The longest chapter is Psalm 119. The shortest is Psalm 117. The longest verse is Esther 8:9; the shortest, John 11:35. The middle verse in Scripture is Psalm 118:8--"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." The Bible: God's perfect Word. 2 Ti. 3:13-17 contains a synopsis of what the Bible claims about itself as to its perfect inspiration: (1) The Bible is set apart from all other books (v. 15). Here the Scriptures are called holy. This means set apart, different. The Bible cannot in any way be compared with other books. It is holy. (2) The Bible came from God (v. 16). This verse says that the Scriptures are God-breathed. Though the Bible was written by men, it came from God. (3) The Bible came from God in its entirety (v. 16). "All scripture is given by God..." (4) The Bible came from God in its smallest detail (v. 15). The word for Scripture in this verse is gramma. This means a letter, bespeaking the fact that even the smallest details of the Bible are from God and are perfect. (5) The Bible has an all-encompassing theme: Salvation in Jesus Christ (v. 15). The Bible is not just a body of unrelated religious writings on various subjects. It is one Book which was planned and given by God for the purpose of teaching man the way of salvation in Jesus Christ (Lk. 24:44-45; Jn. 1:45; 5:39; Ep. 3:11). (6) The Bible can protect Christians from error (vv. 13-15). If the Bible contains myths, mistakes, and untrue claims, it certainly is not a book which can give protection from false teachings! (7) The Bible is able to make Christians complete and mature (v. 17).

The Bible's authority. (1) The Scriptures are to be received as God's Word (1 Th. 2:13; Jam. 1:21). (2) The Scriptures are not to be added to or subtracted from (Re. 22:18-19). (3) The Scriptures are the absolute standard of truth. All beliefs are to be tested by the Bible (Is. 8:20; Je. 8:9; Ps. 119:104,128,142). (4) The Scriptures must be obeyed above human tradition (Mk. 7:9-13). (5) The Scriptures are magnified above God's name (Ps. 138:2). (6) The Scriptures cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35). This refers to the power and authority and absolute truth of the Bible. Everything it says, even the most seemingly obscure statements, is absolutely true and binding.

The Bible's sufficiency (2 Ti. 3:15-17) (1) It is sufficient for salvation, (2) for protection from error, (3) for teaching, (4) for Christian living, (5) for Christian maturity. [See Perfect.]

The Bible's inspiration. It is plenarily (meaning full, complete) inspired--the Bible is from God completely in all its parts. This includes the O.T. (2 Ti. 3:16); the Gospels (He. 2:3; also compare 1 Ti. 5:18 with Mt. 10:10); and the Apostolic writings (1 Co. 2:7-13; 1 Pe. 1:12; 2 Pe. 3:1-2,15-16). It is verbally inspired--the Bible's words, not just its ideas, came from God (1 Co. 2:13; Mt. 5:17-18). The Bible is not a record of man's search for God. Just the opposite; it is the record of God's search for man (Ge. 3:8- 10; Lk. 19:10; Jn. 6:44). Man, apart from grace, runs from God (Jn. 3:19-20; Ro. 1:28; 3:11; 10:21). Man, in himself, cannot find God or understand the things of God (1 Co. 2:6-12). [See Inspiration.]

The books of the Bible classified. The O.T. books: Historical (Genesis to Esther). Poetical (Job to Song of Solomon). Prophetical (Isaiah to Malachi). The N.T. books: Historical (Matthew to Acts). Doctrinal (Romans to Jude). Prophetical (Revelation).

The Bible's central figure. Jesus Christ (Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 1:45; 5:39; He. 10:7). The Old Testament--Christ will come. The Gospels--Christ is here. The Book of Acts--Christ has come. The Epistles--Christ came for these reasons. The Book of Revelation--Christ is coming again.

The Bible's theme. The main theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ and salvation through Him. This is proven by key statements (1 Pe. 1:10,11; Ep. 1:10; 3:11; Jn. 1:45; 5:39; Lk. 24:44,45; He. 10:7). This is proven by Christ's genealogy which is woven throughout the O.T. This is proven by the prophetic theme woven into the O.T. (the Seed--Ge. 3:15; the Star of Jacob--Nu. 24:17; the Prophet--De. 18:15; the Redeemer--Job 19:25; the Messiah--Is. 53; Ps. 16:10; 110:1; Mi. 5:2). This is proven by the O.T. types of Christ. [See Generation, Jesus Christ, Types.]

The Bible's character. Eternal and indestructible (Ps. 12:7; 111:7-8; 119:152,160; Is. 40:8). Pure (Ps. 12:6; 119:140). Perfect (Ps. 19:7; Jam. 1:25). Life (Jn.6:63). Truth (Jn. 17:17; Ps. 119:142,160). Spirit (Jn. 6:63). Righteous (Ps. 119:172). Very faithful (Ps. 119:138). Magnified above God's name (Ps. 138:2). Prosperous (Is. 55:10-11; Je. 23:29). Living and powerful (He. 4:12). Good (He. 6:5). Incorruptible (1 Pe. 1:23). Sincere (1 Pe. 2:2). Tried (2 Sa. 22:31). Food (Job 23:12). Invaluable (Ps. 19:10). Sure (Ps. 93:5).

Symbols for the Bible. Light (Ps. 43:3; 2 Pe. 1:19). Hammer (Je. 23:29). Fire (Je. 23:29). Sword (He. 4:12; Ep. 6:17). Lamp (Ps. 119:105). Water (Ep. 5:26). Honey (Eze. 3:3). Seed (Lk. 8:11; 1 Pe. 1:23). Mirror (Jam. 1:23-25). Milk (1 Pe. 2:2).

Power of the Bible. (1) By it we are born again (Jam. 1:18; 1 Pe. 1:23). (2) By it we grow (1 Pe. 2:2). (3) By it our souls are saved (Jam. 1:21). (4) By it we are made wise unto salvation (2 Ti. 3:15). (5) By it we are cleansed (Jn. 15:3). (6) By it we are sanctified (Jn. 17:17). (7) By it we are built up (Ac. 20:32). (8) By it we are defended against spiritual wickedness (Ep. 6:17). (9) By it we are washed (Ep. 5:25-26). (10) By it we are kept from the paths of the destroyer (Ps. 17:4). (11) By it our path through life is lighted up (Ps. 119:105). (12) By it we are made to rejoice (Je. 15:16). (13) By it we are warned (Ps. 19:11). (14) By it obstacles are removed and scattered (Je. 23:29). (15) By it the secrets of hearts are revealed (He. 4:12). (16) By it the seed is scattered that must result in a harvest of weal or woe (Lk. 8:11). (17) By it an all-sufficient and only rule of faith and practice is provided (Lk. 16:31). (18) By it every blessing that comes from the hand of our Father is made sacred (1 Ti. 4:5). (19) By it unbelievers are to be judged (Jn. 12:48). This is a mere glance at some of the things the Word of God is able to do. When we consider our relation to it and our dependence upon it at every step through life and into eternity, it is amazing that men, professing to be its friends, can rise up and propose to catalogue its errors (F.H. Brookes).

The names of the Bible. (1) It is called the word of God because God is its author (Ac. 13:5). (2) It is called the word of the Lord because Jehovah Jesus is its subject (Ac. 13:48). (3) It is called the word of Christ because it sets forth the anointed One in His person and offices (Col. 3:16). (4) It is called the oracles of God because it is the word which God spoke (Ac. 3:2). (5) It is called the word of faith because it is to be believed (Ro. 10:8). (6) It is called the word of truth because it is truth without admixture of error (Ep. 1:13). (7) It is called the word of life because it imparts life to the believer (Ph. 2:16). (8) It is called the word of grace because it makes known God's unmerited kindness to the lost (Ac. 14:3). (9) It is called the word to be preached because nothing apart from it, nothing beyond it, nothing short of it is to be proclaimed (2 Ti. 4:1-2). (10) It is called the word of reconciliation because it tells of a God reconciled and reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Co. 5:19). (11) It is called the word of salvation because it shows the way and the only way by which men are saved (Ac. 13:26). (12) It is called the word of righteousness because therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith (He. 5:13). (13) It is called the faithful word because it is credible and unchangeable (Tit. 1:9). (14) It is called the word of prophecy because it alone shines through the gloom and reveals what lies in the future (2 Pe. 1:19).

No wonder the Apostle writes: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Th. 2:13).

"Can it be that such a word is the work of men and a partaker of their ignorance and errors? No! It is as far above them, both in thought and expression, as the heavens are higher than the earth. For thousands of years God's Word has been read and studied, prayed over and wept over. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of volumes have been constructed out of it--and today, it remains as fresh and unexhausted and inexhaustible as ever. Unlike any book in the world, the more it is searched, the more profound becomes its meaning. There is literally no end of its new disclosures of truth to those who descend into the depths of the riches both of its wisdom and knowledge. However well any one of us may know the Bible's most familiar passage, there is more for us to learn from that one passage than has been discovered thus far by all the scholars" (F.H. Brookes).

How to use the Bible. Believe it (He. 11:6). Read it (De. 17:18- 19; Re. 1:2). Desire it (1 Pe. 2:2). Meditate upon it (Ps. 1:2; Jos. 1:8). Hear it (Re. 1:2). Memorize it (Job 22:22; Ps. 119:11). Obey it (Ps. 119:4; Jam. 1:22-24). Receive it (Jam. 1:21). Teach it (De. 6:7-8). Preach it (2 Ti. 4:2). Sing it (Col. 3:16; Ps. 119:54). Speak it (Ps. 119:46,172). Love it (Ps. 119:127).

How to study the Bible. Through the Spirit of God (1 Co. 2:12-16; Jn. 2:27). Obediently (Jam. 1:22-27; Ps. 119:133; Lk. 11:28; Ro. 6:17; 1 Pe. 2:1-2). Believingly (He. 3:1- 2). Prayerfully (Ps. 119:33-40). Daily (Ac. 17:11; Pr. 8:33-34). Humbly (Jam. 1:21; Je. 13:15). Reverently (Ps. 119:120,161; Is. 66:2). Persistently (Jn. 8:31-32; Jam. 1:25). Thoroughly (Ac. 20:27; 2 Ti. 3:16-17). Sincerely (2 Co. 2:17). Confessing sin (Pr. 28:9). Hungrily (Ps. 119:131). Zealously (Pr. 2:1-5; 8:34; Ps. 119:147,148). Earnestly (He. 2:1-3). (A portion of the previous outline is from Old Testament Survey by Roy Gingrich.)

The Bible's proof. In the final analysis, a man must accept that the Bible is the Word of God by faith, for "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" (He. 11:6). At the same time, Bible faith is not a blind leap into the dark. It is confidence in a believable Record that God has given, for "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Ro. 10:17). The writers of the Bible explain to us that they were not delivering cunningly devised fables, but an inspired record based on "many infallible proofs" (Ac. 1:3; 2 Pe. 1:16). Following are some of the objective, time-proven reasons why we can have complete confidence in the Bible:

(1) The confidence and sincerity of the Bible's authors prove that it is the Word of God. The Bible testifies that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pe. 1:21), and an examination of the lives of the Bible's writers rings true to this tesimony. These were all serious men. They came from all walks of life. They were men of good reputation and sound mind. Many of them were viciously persecuted and killed for the testimony they held. They were not enriched by the prophecies they gave. Far from it; many were impoverished. The author of the first five books of the Bible chose to live a life of terrific hardship and struggle in the service of God as opposed to the millionaire's life he could have lived as the son of Pharoah. Many Bible writers made similar choices. Their motivation certainly was not covetousness and worldly advantage. These were not perfect men, but they were holy men. They all claimed that God had put His hand upon them to speak His Word. The lives they lived, and the testimonies they held, and the deaths they died give mighty evidence that they were telling the truth.

(2) Fulfilled prophecy proves the Bible to be the Word of God. There are hundreds of prophecies which were given in O.T. times and which were fulfilled (compare 1 Ki. 13:2 with 2 Ki. 23:15,16; 1 Ki. 13:22 with 2 Ki. 23:17,18; Jos. 6:26 with 1 Ki. 16:34; 1 Ki. 21:19 with 1 Ki. 22:38; 1 Ki. 21:23 with 2 Ki. 9:36; De. 28:36-67 with Lamentations). All these prophecies were fulfilled exactly and in detail. The prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ alone demonstrate infallible proof of the inspiration of the Bible in which they are recorded. Hundreds of years before Christ was born the details of His life were already recorded in Scripture. His birth, miracles, rejection, mock trial, crucifixion, burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection, and ascension were pre-written in the Bible. No other religious book contains such prophecies. [See Allegorical, Jesus Christ, Prophecy, Tyre, Zidon.]

(3) The unity of the Bible proves that it is the Word of God. The 66 books were written by 40 authors over a period of 1,600 years. There was no possibility of collusion. The writers came from every walk of life. Yet the Bible presents one consistent doctrine and message from beginning to end. Each part fits into the whole like a hand in a well-made glove. There is no other book in all the realm of human literature to compare with this miracle.

(4) The Bible's power to change lives proves that it is the Word of God. An endless line of men and women from every time and culture could stand and testify of the power of the Bible to convert from sin and to give new spiritual life. Scoffers have become believers; thieves have become honest, upstanding citizens; belligerent men have become kind and gentle; the immoral have become virtuous; the slothful have become diligent--all through the power of this Book.

(5) The Bible's lively quality proves that it is the Word of God. It has a living quality that puts it in a category all its own. It is indeed "holy," set apart from all other books. It has the feel of divine Scripture. There is an old saying, "The Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible." The Bible is unquestionably a unique Book. It has a living, spiritual quality which is absolutely unique. Men have an attitude toward the Bible that is different from their attitude toward any other book.

(6) The Bible's universal appeal proves that it is the Word of God. Though written from the standpoint of ancient, middle eastern culture, the Bible speaks intimately and with perfect relevance to people in every part of the globe.

(7) The Bible's accuracy proves that it is the Word of God. Though countless enemies have tried to disprove the Bible and to find out its errors, it stands undaunted today. Some of the best minds of the centuries have attested to its accuracy. William F. Albright, one of the most respected scholars of Oriental studies, testified, "The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to `harmonize' religion and science, or to `prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself."

(8) The Bible's truthfulness proves that it is the Word of God. The Bible is simply true. Everything it says is true. When one reads the Bible and compares it with what can be observed in the world, it fits reality exactly. Its explanation of how the world came to be exactly fits the existing state of things. Its explanation of man's fall and history perfectly match the condition of things.

(9) The Bible's invitations prove it is the Word of God. The Bible invites the hearer to partake of its spiritual realities and thus prove for oneself its genuineness: "O taste and see that the Lord is good" (Ps. 34:8); "come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden" (Mt. 11:28); "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Re. 22:17); "ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters ... come ye, buy and eat" (Is. 55:1); "look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Is. 45:22). The Bible promises that "he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself..." (1 Jn. 5:10). God will prove Himself to the sincere seeker.

A testimony to the Bible's perfection. "This volume is the writing of the living God: each letter was penned with an Almighty finger; each word in it dropped from the everlasting lips; each sentence was dictated by the Holy Spirit. Albeit, that Moses was employed to write his histories with his fiery pen, God guided that pen. It may be that David touched his harp and let sweet Psalms of melody drop from his fingers, but God moved his hands over the living strings of his golden harp. It may be that Solomon sang canticles of love, or gave forth words of consummate wisdom, but God directed his lips and made the preacher eloquent. If I follow the thundering Nahum, when his horses plough the waters, or Habakkuk, when he sees the tents of Cushan in affliction; if I read Malachi, when the earth is burning like an oven; if I turn to the smooth page of John, who tells of love, or the rugged, fiery chapters of Peter, who speaks of fire devouring God's enemies; if I turn to Jude, who launches forth anathemas upon the foes of God--everywhere I find God speaking. It is God's voice, not man's; the words are God's words, the words of the Eternal, the Invisible, the Almighty, the Jehovah of this earth" (Charles Haddon Spurgeon). [See Bible Versions, Chapter, Inspiration, Isaiah, King James Bible, Masoretic Text, Preservation, Prophecy, Red Sea, Revelation, Star, Tyre, Verses, Westcott-Hort, Zidon.]

BIBLE VERSIONS. Nothing is more important in the Christian life and church than the Bible. And since we do not have the original writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and since very few of us are fluent in Hebrew and Greek, we are dependent upon translations. Of these, one biographer of the King James translators said, "For while a good translation is the best commentary on the original Scriptures, the originals themselves are the best commentary on the translation" (Alexander McClure, Translators Revived, p. 65). The following information about Bible versions should be understood by every Christian. While I hesitated about putting such a lengthy article in this Encyclopedia, I believe it is crucial. If a man is not confident in the words of his Bible, what benefit is a Bible dictionary which explains those words?

Be cautious

I would urge our readers to be wary, because there are many lies promoted as truth on the side of the critical text. The detractors charge the KJV defenders with carelessness and error. Admittedly, there has been some carelessness on our side, but I have found many outright lies on the critical text side. I was somewhat amazed by this when I first began my studies into the subject, but it is a fact, and I have since learned that this has been the case from the beginning of the textual criticism phenomenon.

As a case in point, we quote Dr. Alex Roberts, a Presbyterian scholar who defended the Westcott-Hort Text in the late 1800s. Regarding the word "God" in 1 Ti. 3:16 which is removed from the modern texts, Dr. Roberts writes to defend the marginal note in the ERV which states: "The word GOD, in place of He who, rests on NO sufficient ancient evidence." Roberts claims, "NOT ONE of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. NONE of the very ancient versions support it. NO uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception of A ... far more evidence can be produced in support of `who'" (Revision Revised, p. 98).

The learned John Burgon (whose qualifications we will note further into these studies), Roberts' contemporary, produced seven pages of textual witness which ABSOLUTELY and without question puts the lie to Dr. Roberts' pontifications. Burgon notes that the word Theos (God) "is the reading of ALL the uncial copies extant but two ... of ALL the cursives but one. The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Theos has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the 4th or 5th century of our era" (Ibid., p. 101). Burgon then cites 24 very ancient Fathers who quoted GOD in 1 Ti. 3:16, and concludes, "Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied industry of 150 years [of critical textual theorizing] has succeeded in eliciting is as follows..." He then lists a mere six doubtful quotations of early church Fathers which might support the critical reading.

Do you see what I am saying? Was Dr. Roberts ignorant of the textual facts Burgon produces, or was he lying? He was one of the men who produced the English Revised Version, and one would think that he would have been acquainted with the facts. Only the Lord knows the man's heart, but the effect is the same.

When one is searching out issues pertaining to the Bible, he must never lose sight of the FACT that there is a Devil, and that this Devil has been actively resisting the pure Word of God from the beginning. He is the adversary of God and of God's Truth. We do not make these studies in a climate of spiritual neutrality. It was Dr. Devil in the Garden of Eden who first hissed, "Hath God said?" and instructed Eve in twisting, adding to, denying, and changing the words of God.

We say, then, be careful, and be wise. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Th. 5:21). We must follow the pattern of the Bereans who "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Ac. 17:11).

David Otis Fuller

Before we delve into the fascinating study at hand I want to do one more thing: I want to pay tribute to Dr. David Otis Fuller (1903-1988). Many have villified his name, but I praise God for the man. It was in his edited works that I first read many of the following facts--and these ARE facts. Dr. Fuller edited Which Bible? (1970), True or False? (1973) and Counterfeit or Genuine? (1975)--all of which present in no uncertain terms the position that the Textus Receptus is the pure, holy, preserved Word of God. Dr. Fuller obtained his Bachelor of Arts at Wheaton College, majoring in English literature. He obtained the Master of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary, studying under men such as Robert Dick Wilson who was a master of 45 ancient languages and could repeat from memory a Hebrew translation of the entire N.T. without missing a single syllable. Dallas Theological Seminary awarded Fuller the Doctor of Divinity degree. He pastored the Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for 40 years. While there he founded the Grand Rapids Baptist Institute which later became the Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College. Fuller co-founded the Children's Bible Hour radio program in 1942 and for 33 years was its chairman. The Children's Bible Hour is on nearly 600 radio stations. For 52 years Fuller was on the board of the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism; he was a trustee of Wheaton College for 40 years. Fuller's published books totaled fifteen to twenty. Fuller's 350-page Which Bible?, first published in 1970, has gone through more than a dozen printings, and more than than 100,000 copies have been distributed of this title, together with the two others he edited on the subject. Countless Christians today who have confidence in their Bibles and who have been delivered from the fog of critical textual theorizing have David Otis Fuller to thank.

The problem of the modern versions

THE PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION. The following is from Jack Moorman's Modern Bibles--the Dark Secret, published in 1992 by the Fundamental Evangelistic Association. Moorman was a missionary to South Africa for many years; today he works in England. He has written many books in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. His book Forever Settled is used as a textbook in some Bible colleges.

Would it make a difference if you knew that the N.T. of your modern Bible did not have First and Second Peter? Yet if the total number of missing words were added up, this is how much shorter the modern translations are than the King James Version. Is it a cause for concern if the names of Christ are missing 175 times, or if the word `hell' is not found in the O.T., or if key doctrinal passages have been diminished? And, the biggest shock of all--is it possible that the most basic and blatant of all early heresies concerning the Person of Christ has been given a `new lease on life' through the modern Versions? Many have gone over to the new Bibles without realizing that much, much more is involved than the question of modern English. The entire fabric has been affected! The underlying text is substantially different. The philosophy and methodology of the translators is in marked contrast to that of the Authorized Version (Moorman, pp. 1,2).

THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORITY. Another chief problem with the modern versions is the weakening of the authority of the Scriptures. Dr. Charles Turner, director of Baptist Bible Translators Institute in Bowie, Texas, notes this problem:

Someone has wisely said, `A man who owns only one watch knows what time it is, but a man who has two watches is never quite sure.' In a similar way this is the problem with the many different translations of the N.T. Because there are many translations of the Scriptures, all claiming to be God's Word, people are not sure `what time it is.' That is to say, people are not sure which translation is truly God's Word.

In the past there was one translation in the English language that was the Bible. It was the King James Version. ... When we wanted to know what God had said, we went to our King James Version and read there the words of God. But now there are many `Bibles,' all claiming to be God's Word. ...

The authoriity of God's Word in the English language is being eroded by these many translations. When there are many translations, all claiming to be God's Word, who decides whether this translation or that translation is the words of God? The answer is, You do. You choose which one you believe to be the words of God. ... God's Word is no longer the authority over you. You have, by reason of the picking and choosing of translations, become the authority over God's Word! When there are two authorities, there is no authority at all. ... The result is the deplorable state of modern man in which `every man is doing that which is right in his own eyes.' Where there is more than one authority, there is no authority at all. ... More than one authority in the home is a house divided against itself. More than one authority in the government is anarchy. More than one authority in the churches is division and chaos (Turner, Why the King James Version: The Preservation of the Word of God Through the Faithful Churches, pp. 1-3).

We continue from Moorman's consideration of the problem of the modern versions:

From 1611 until recently there was really only one Bible in the English-speaking world. The AV became the Standard in that empire upon which the sun never set, and in that language which is the primary vehicle of international discourse. It penetrated the world's continents and brought multitudes to saving faith in Christ. It became the impetus of the great missionary movements. Through it men and women heard the call to world evangelization. It was the source of the greatest revivals since the days of the Apostles. Street preachers, colporteurs, church planters, Sunday School teachers, and tract distributors took the King James Bible into teeming cities and across country lanes. It was the high water mark in the history of the Gospel's spread.

Sadly, though, we all have a tendency to put aside the good and substitute something of lesser quality. And so, during the last century the call for a revised Bible began to be heard. For the most part--at least in the beginning--the call did not come from fervent Bible believers, but rather from those who were leaning toward theological liberalism. These were men who often felt comfortable with German rationalism, Darwin, and the back-to-Rome movement.

The first major revision was published in 1881. After the initial excitement there was little public support. The same response greeted the American (ASV) edition in 1901. Others followed: Weymouth, Williams, Moffat, Beck, Goodspeed, Twentieth Century, but still with little impact. Then in 1952 came the Revised Standard Version, produced with the backing of the liberal National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The pace now quickened; public acceptance began to rise. Others followed: The New English, Amplified, Berkeley, Phillips, Wuest, Living, New American, Good News, Jerusalem, New International, New King James. Each came with the promise that it was based on the earliest manuscripts and the latest scholarship, and that God's Word would now be more easily understood.

Taking up this last point, it is interesting to see the names given to a number of twentieth century versions--The Authentic New Testament, the N.T. in Plain English, the N.T. in Basic English, the Simplified N.T. in Plain English for Today's Reader, Inspired Letters of the N.T. in Clearest English! And then a number of the revisions have been revised: The New Revised Standard Version, the New Berkeley Version, The New Jerusalem Bible. There have been at least seventy modern Bibles published this century (Moorman, Ibid.).

The process of Bible preservation

Dr. Turner describes the simple process God has used in the preservation of the Scriptures:

2 Pe. 3:15-16, `...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; 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.' In these verses Peter clearly says that the words of Paul were equated with `the other scriptures.' Peter believed the words of Paul to be the inspired Word of God. Peter wrote this in a time when there were those who did `wrest' the Scriptures. ... This clearly shows that the early churches were on the look out for those who would pervert their Scriptures. The early churches were aware of this problem and took great care to avoid the twisting of their Scriptures by false teachers. ...

That these Scriptures were passed from one church to another is clearly indicated in Col. 4:16 which reads, `And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.' This verse shows that there was a sharing of copies of the Word of God from church to church. Because such a prominent leader as Peter considered the words of Paul as Scripture and said that he knew about those who would wrest them, is it not likely that the churches would take great care to watch over these Scriptures? This is obviously the case because the early churches, led by the Holy Spirit, rightly concluded that the words of Paul were the inspired Word of God. They took every precaution to watch over these Scriptures by comparing them with copies made for other churches. Even though false teachers deliberately changed the text in an effort to support their false teachings, it was always a simple matter to correct a text and bring it back to the original reading. The churches had only to check with several other churches and find out what the other church copies said. By doing this, the churches found out which reading agreed with the majority of the other church copies. The reading which agreed with the copies possessed by the other churches was accepted as valid. By this means the text was preserved in its original form.

Naturally, when the first Greek New Testament was printed, the readings which varied with the majority of the other texts were disallowed and the readings which were in the majority of the texts was accepted. By this simple, but completely accurate method, the Holy Spirit watched over the Word of God. The Holy Spirit used the churches, who were faithful custodians of the Holy Scriptures they revered, to keep the Word of God from being polluted by evil men (Turner, pp. 6,7).

As with most matters, there are exceptions to the rule of the majority reading determining the original text, but in general this is clearly the method God has used in preservation. The importance of the previous overview will become plain to the reader as we proceed with our subject.

History of the Greek New Testament

The most significant differences between the modern versions and the KJV derive from the fact that the new versions are based upon a different Greek text. The following history of the changes which have been made in the Greek text is from the Trinitarian Bible Society publication The Divine Original:

For many centuries before the Reformation, Greek scholarship was virtually non-existent in Western Europe. In 1453 Constantinople, the ancient capital of the eastern part of the Empire and the center of the Eastern Orthodox Church, fell to the Moslem invaders. One far-reaching result of this calamity was that Christian scholars with a knowledge of Greek, and with Greek copies of the Holy Scriptures in their possession, fled to Western Europe where their influence gave a new impetus to the study of the Greek language. It has been said that "Greece rose from the grave with the New Testament in her hand."

Among the next generation of Greek scholars was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who prepared an edition of the Greek N.T. from five manuscripts in repute at that time. [Editor: While Erasmus used only a few manuscripts for his work, he had knowledge of a considerable number of Greek texts and ancient versions, including the Vatican codex. See Erasmus.] This edition was printed in 1516 and was followed by four later editions. At Alcala (Complutum) University in 1502 Cardinal Ximenes gathered manuscripts and men under the direction of Stunica, who published the Complutensian Polyglot in 1522 ... Robert Stephens, relying largely upon Erasmus and Stunica, and with at least fifteen manuscripts at his disposal, produced editions of the Greek text in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. In 1552 he withdrew to Geneva and joined the Protestant cause. Theodore Beza produced nine editions of the Greek between 1565 and 1604. These followed Stephens fairly closely, although Beza had some ancient manuscripts not available to Stephens. The Elzevir editions printed at Leyden had much in common with those of Stephens and Beza. The Elzevir edition announced itself as the "Textus Receptus" (TR) and since that time Stephens' 1550 edition has been known as the "Received Text" in England, while the Elzevir edition of 1633 has had this title on the Continent.

Other names for the Received Text. The TR is called the Traditional Text, referring to the fact that it was the text commonly used by N.T. believers through the centuries and also to contrast it with the critical text of the modern era. The TR is called the Byzantine Text because it is the text represented in manuscripts from throughout the ancient Greek-speaking world. Byzantine points to the city of Byzanitum, which was taken in possession of by Constantine the Great in 330 A.D. The name was changed to Constantinople.

The Protestant versions in England and on the Continent in the 16th and 17th centuries were based on these editions of the Greek text. These early printed Greek editions, while themselves based on comparatively few manuscripts, have nevertheless proved to be representative of the Greek text embraced many centuries earlier throughout the Greek [world].

The English versions of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews (or Rogers), the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Authorized Version were all based upon this company of Greek documents, in which was preserved the Greek text generally received throughout the Greek churches since the Apostolic age.

The King James Version

At the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 the Puritan leader Reynolds made the suggestion--which was first opposed and then adopted by the Conference with enthusiastic approval of King James I--that there should be a new translation of the Holy Scriptures in English, to replace the different versions then in common use. Fifty-four men, including High Churchmen and Puritans, the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars of the age, formed six companies to undertake the task. Using their Greek sources and the best commentaries of European scholars, and referring to Bibles in Spanish, Italian, French and German, they expressed the sense of the Greek in clear, vigorous and idiomatic English. This Bible won its battles against the prejudices and criticism which greeted its first appearance and became the Bible of the English-speaking world.

The KJV was published in 1611 after almost four years of intensive revision. We must also understand that the King James Bible is not the product merely of that learned company of men in the early 1600s, but is the fruit of roughly 100 years of translation and revision hammered out by godly men in the fires of persecution, beginning with the labors of William Tyndale. This process is unique in the history of Bible translation.

In giving a biography of the King James translators circa 1860, Alexander McClure makes this observation: "...that all the colleges of Great Britain and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking [of Bible translation]. ... this blessed book [the KJV] is so far complete and exact, that the unlearned reader, being of ordinary intelligence, may enjoy the delightful assurance, that, if he study it in faith and prayer, and give himself up to its teachings, he shall not be confounded or misled as to any matter essential to his salvation and his spiritual good. It will as safely guide him into all the things needful for faith and practice, as would the original Scriptures, if he could read them, or if they could speak to him as erst they spake to the Hebrew in Jerusalem, or to the Greek in Corinth" (McClure, Translators Revived, pp. 64-65).

The English of the King James Bible

It is also crucial to understand that the English of the King James Bible is not merely that of the 17th century. It is not the language of Shakespeare, but the language of the Hebrew and Greek. "Bishop Lightfoot affirmed that this version was the storehouse of the highest truth and the purest well of our native English. `Indeed,' he wrote, `we may take courage from the fact that the language of our English Bible is not the language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its grand simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and often affected diction of the literature of the time'" (The Divine Original).

Of the English language used in the KJV, George Marsh, in a lecture of 1870, notes: "It was an assemblage of the best forms of expression applicable to the communication of religious truth that then existed, or had existed, in any and all the successive stages through which England had passed in its entire history. ... Even now [in 1870, the language of the King James Bible is] scarcely further removed from the current phraseology of life and books than it was two hundred years since. The subsequent movement of the English speech has not been in a right line of recession from the Scriptural dialect. It has been rather a curve of revolution around it" (Edwin Bissell, The Historic Origin of the Bible, 1873, p. 353).

When the Harvard University Press published The Literary Guide to the Bible in 1987, they selected the KJV for the literary analysis of each of the Bible books. "...our reasons for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most English readers associate with the literary qualities of the Bible, and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages" (Theodore Letis, Foreword to Tindale's Triumph, John Rogers' Monument:

The New Testament of the Matthew's Bible 1537, 1989, p. ii).

We must keep this in mind when we hear the complaining about the "old antiquated King James English." The King James Bible is written in beautiful and precise English fitted perfectly to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and it is not difficult to learn the few antiquated terms necessary to read it with understanding. If one is not willing to give diligent study to the Bible, he will not understand it no matter which translation he uses. And if your Bible reads like the morning newspaper, dear friend, you don't have the Word of God, because the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures do not read as simply and as contemporarily as the morning newspaper! While some portions of the Greek N.T., portions of John's Gospel, for example, are so simple a child could understand them, other portions are very complex.

In overall reading level, the KJV, is within the reach of anyone with an average education. It is written on an 8th to 10th grade level. This has been proven from computer analysis made by Dr. Donald Waite, of whom we will speak more particularly further on in our report. He ran several books of the KJV through the Right Writer program and found that Genesis 1, Exodus 1, and Romans 8 are on the 8th grade level; Romans 1 and Jude are on the 10th grade level; and Romans 3:1-23 is on the 6th grade level. We note, further, that while Shakespeare used a vocabulary of roughly 37,000 English words, the King James Bible employs only 8,000 (John Wesley Sawyer, The Newe Testament by William Tindale, p. 10, quoting BBC TV, "The Story of English," copyright 1986).

Dr. Waite says, "I know hundreds of people whose intelligence and educational levels have not reached as high as some of these yet these people do understand it. How do you figure that out? Remember 1 Co. 2:14 which states, `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.' This verse is still true, regardless of which translation is used" (Defending the King James Bible, pp. 50,51).

Dr. Waite continues: "Some people say they like a particular version because they say it's more readable. Now, readability is one thing, but does the readability conform to what's in the original Greek and Hebrew language? You can have a lot of readability, but if it doesn't match up with what God has said, it's of no profit. In the King James Bible, the words match what God has said. You may say it's difficult to read, but study it out. It's hard in the Hebrew and Greek and, perhaps, even in the English in the King James Bible. But to change it around just to make it simple, or interpreting it, instead of translating it, is wrong. You've got lots of interpretation, but we don't want that in a translation. We want exactly what God said in the Hebrew and Greek brought over into English" (Ibid., pp. 241,242).

The following is taken from the instruction manual of the Online Bible version 5.0--

We have now had enough experience to determine which translation is most suitable for computer word and phrase searching. If one were to rank the NIV, the NKJV and the AV on this point:

- The AV is the best

- The NKJV is good

- The NIV is fair to good

Much to our surprise the vocabulary has increased, not decreased, with modern translations. Hence the greater inconsistency in the translation, and the greater difficulty in finding what you need through a word search. It seems consistency and readability is quite difficult to achieve using modern English. The table on this page shows the results. Vocabulary of the versions compared. (Table)

His Majesty, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, addressed the problem when he said: "Ours is an age of miraculous writing machines but not of miraculous writing. Our banalities are no improvement on the past; merely an insult to it and a source of confusion in the present. In the case of a cherished religious writing we should leave well alone, especially when it is better than well: when it is great. Otherwise we leave ourselves open to the terrible accusation once levelled by the true master of the banal, Samuel Goldwyn: `You've improved it worse'."

The Received Text goes to the ends of the earth

As we have seen, the King James Bible and its immediate predecessors were based upon the Received Text. In fact, practically all non-Catholic Bible translation and printing work from the 1500s until the late 1800s was based upon the Received Text. Hundreds of translations were produced from the TR during these centuries, including the Swedish Uppsala (1514), German Luther (1534), Swedish (1541), Danish Christian III (1550), Spanish de Reyna (1569), Icelandic (1584), Slovenian (1584), Irish (1685), French Geneva (1588), Welsh (1588), Hungarian (1590), Dutch Statenvertaling (1637), Italian Diodati (1641), Finnish (1642), Syriac (1645), Armenian (1666), Romanian (1688), Latvian (1689), Lithuanian (1735), Estonian (1739), Georgian (1743), Portuguese (1751), Gaelic (1801), Serbo-Croatian (1804), Albanian (1827), Slovak (1832), Norwegian (1834), Armenian (1853), Russian (1865), Yiddish (1821), Turkish (1827), Bulgarian (1864).

Godly missionaries from Europe, Britian, and America carried the Received Text to the ends of the earth by translating it into the languages of the people. Beginning with John Eliot, who produced the Bible in the Pequot language in 1663, missionaries were busy translating the Scriptures into the languages of the North American Indians. These included Mohawk (1787), Eskimo (1810), Delaware (1818), Seneca (1829), Cherokee (1829), Ojibway (1833), Dakota (1839), Ottawa (1841), Shawnee (1842), Pottawotomi (1844), Abenaqui (1844), Nez Perce (1845), Choctaw (1848), Yupik (1848), Micmac (1853), Plains Cree (1861), and Muskogee (1886).

Dutch Protestant missionaries translated the TR into the Malay language in 1734. In the 1800s translations came fast and furious. Henry Martin translated the TR into Persian and Arabic; Adoniram Judson, into Burmese (1835); Robert Morrison, into Chinese (1822); William Carey and his co-workers translated the TR into Bengali (1809), Oriya (1815), Marathi (1821), Kashmiri (1821), Nepali (1821), Sanskrit (1822), Gujarati (1823), Panjabi (1826), Bihari (1826), Kannada (1831), Assamese (1833), Hindi (1835), Urdu (1843), Telugu (1854) and 35 other languages of India.

Other missionaries during this period produced Received Text Bibles and Bible portions in Bullom of Sierra Leone (1816), Saraiki of Pakistan (1819), Faroe of the Faroe Islands (1823), Sranan of Suriname (1829), Javanese of Indonesia (1829), Aymara of Bolivia (1829), Malay of Indonesia (1835), Manchu of China (1835), Malagasy of Madagascar (1835), Mandinka of Gambia (1837), Hawaiian (1838), Mongolian (1840), Karaite of the Crimea Mountains (1842), Azerbaijani of of the U.S.S.R. (1842), Subu of Cameroon (1843), Mon of Burma (1843), Maltese (1847), Udmurt of the U.S.R. (1847), Garifuna of Belize-Nicaragua (1847), Ossete of the U.S.S.R. (1848), Bube of Equatorial Guinea (1849), Arawak of Guyana (1850), Maori of the Cook Islands (1851), Tontemboan of Indonesia (1852), Somoan (1855), Sesotho of Africa (1855), Setswana of South Africa (1857), Basque of Spain (1857), Hausa of Nigeria (1857), Nama of Africa (1866), Maori of New Zealand (1858), Dayak of Indonesia (1858), Isixhosa of South Africa (1859), Karan of Burma (1860), Nubian of Egypt (1860), Igbo of Nigeria (1860), Efik and Yoruba of Nigeria (1862), Tibetan (1862), Ga of Ghana (1866), Tongan of Africa (1862), Twi of Ghana (1863), Isizulu of Africa (1865), Niuean of Tonga (1866), Dehu of New Caledonia (1868), Benga of Africa (1871), Ewe of Africa (1877), Batak of Indonesia (1878), Thai (1883). (The previous information on Bible versions is largely derived from Scriptures of the World, United Bible Societies, 1988, and The Bible in America, 1936.)

We would emphasize the fact that this is only a partial listing. Though we cannot give the exact particulars of the textual basis for all of these translations, we do know from correspondence with Bible Society leaders and missionaries, and from our personal study of manifold sources, including examination of several of the translations referred to above (Slovak, Czech, Carey Nepali, Judson Burmese, and German Luther, Russian, Spanish), that the vast majority of these were Received Text Scriptures. Some were translated from the English Authorized Version; some, from the Greek Received Text; some, from European Received Text versions such as Spanish and German.

When we say these were Received Text Bibles, we mean they included the words and verses disputed by the modern text. They contained "God" in 1 Ti. 3:16. They contained Mt. 17:21 and Mk. 9:44,46 and Mk. 16:9-20 and Jn. 7:53--8:11 and Ac. 8:37--and the dozens of other verses which are omitted or questioned in the new Bibles.

Please note, too, that in many cases the early Received Text versions in these languages have fallen into disuse and have been replaced in the 20th century with W-H versions.

From 1804 to 1907 the British and Foreign Bible Society alone had printed 203,931,768 Bibles, Testaments and portions of Scripture, and with few exceptions these were derived either from the KJV, the TR, or from one of the European versions based on the TR (Lion's History of Christianity, p. 558). From 1816 to 1903 the American Bible Society had distributed 72,670,783 volumes and portions of Scripture, while the Canstein Bible Institute issued more than 7,000,000 copies (Edwin Rice, Our Sixty-six Sacred Books, p. 192). By the end of the 19th century, the Bible or portions thereof had been produced in almost 900 languages (P. Marion Simms, The Bible in America, p. 177).

To this figure must be added the Scriptures printed by the other Bible Societies (Scotland, Germany, Canada, etc.); by missionary organizations and societies (such as the Religious Tract Society, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; the American Sunday-school Union, and the American Tract Society); by denominational and other large publishing firms in Great Britain, America, and Europe; by mission presses in other lands; by independent groups and individuals. The Trinitarian Bible Society, for example, has published TR-based translations since 1831.

The American Sunday-School Union reported that "the total circulation of the Scriptures during the 19th century ran into the hundreds of millions of copies ... the total will exceed 520,000,000 copies of the Word of God scattered abroad for the healing of the nations" (Rice, p. 191).

All of these Scriptures were basically the same text and the same kind of versions. Most differences were differences having to with the difficulties of translation, not with the underlying text. The two largest Bible societies, the British and the American, published English Scriptures exclusively in the King James Version and Greek texts exclusively in the Received Text until the early 20th century.

Some would counter that the Bible in versions based on the critical text have also gone to the ends of the earth in this century. That, though, is not the point. The point is that a certain kind of Bible, the Received Text Bible, went to the ends of the earth during the greatest period of world revival and missionary activity history has witnessed. Along come the critical textual editors of the late 19th century claiming that the Received Text is corrupted and insufficient, that the truly pure text has only recently been recovered from its hiding place. We say this is impossible in light of God's promises to preserve the pure text of Scripture.

To put this succinctly: To reject the Received Text, as the critical textual editors and modern translators have done, is to reject the Text which was recognized through the centuries as the Word of God by the N.T. saints, and which was exalted by God as THE Bible during the greatest era of revival and missionary activity since the first century.

A different Greek text is exalted in an hour of apostasy

As the 19th century progressed, voices critical of the Received Text and the King James Version increased in intensity. In Europe and Britain, German rationalism, Darwinian evolutionary thought, and other heretical philosophies began to spread through most major denominations. The doctrine of the perfect inspiration of the Bible was being questioned and contested widely. Many professors and church leaders felt that the Bible was filled with errors, myths, and inaccuracies; that instead of giving the record of God's infallible revelation to man, it contained the imperfect account of the evolution of man's religious thinking. These influences were joined in the Church of England by powerful Roman Catholic sympathies called the Tractarian or Oxford movement. The waning of the tremendous move of spiritual revival which had swept the world since the Protestant Reformation was evident on every hand. It is within this unhealthy spiritual climate that the philosophy of modern textual criticism developed.

Whereas the Reformation Bibles had been born in a climate of spiritual revival and faith, the modern Bibles were born in a climate of apostasy and unbelief.

Chief among the Greek editors who produced new texts which differed from the Received Text in the 1800s were Griesbach, Hug, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort. These are the fathers of modern textual criticism.

J.J. Griesbach (1745-1812) was a Professor of the New Testament with a passion for textual criticism. It is important to note that Griesbach, "influenced from his undergraduate days by the rising tide of Rationalism sweeping over his country, was a foe of orthodox Christianity" (D.A. Thompson, The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark, p. 40). He abandoned the Received Text and constructed a new text which contained many of the novelties later popularized by Westcott and Hort. Griesbach held the amazing view that "Among the several readings of one place, that must deservedly be regarded as suspect, which more than the others manifestly favors the dogmas of the orthodox" (Scrivener, quoted by D.A. Thompson, p. 40). In other words, according to this principle, if there is a reading in the Textus Receptus which plainly and strongly implies or teaches the Essential Deity of Christ, or some other foundation doctrine of the Faith, and a variant in some old manuscripts which lessens that emphasis, or by omission does away with it altogether, then the latter is to take precedence of the former (Ibid.). This, my friends, is topsy-turvy thinking! The 1796 edition of Griesbach's Greek text removed the ending to Mark 16 (vv. 9-20), based on reports that the Vaticanus manuscript, which he considered the oldest and best, did not contain these verses. Griesbach had not seen the Vaticanus, but had received reports as to the fact that Mark 16:9-20 was omitted in this codex.

J.L. Hug (1765-1846) "in 1808 advanced the theory that in the 2nd century the N.T. text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all the extant N.T. texts were merely editorial revisions of this corrupted text" (Hills, p. 65). This unbelieving theory totally contradicts God's promise of the preservation of Scripture.

Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), who has been described as a German rationist (Turner, p. 7), produced editions of the N.T. in Berlin, Germany, in 1842 and 1850. He was a professor of Classical and German Philology in Berlin. He "began to apply to the N.T. Greek text the same rules that he had used in editing texts of the Greek classics, which had been radically altered over the years. ... Lachmann had set up a series of several presuppositions and rules which he used for arriving at the original text of the Greek classics ... He now began with these same presuppositions and rules to correct the N.T. which he also presupposed was hopelessly corrupted. He had made a glaring mistake. The loving and reverent care given to the copying and preservation of the Scriptures by faithful churches was not matched by a similar process in the copying of the Greek classics" (Turner, pp. 7,8). Lachmann discarded the readings of the Received Text in favor of what he considered the oldest and best text represented in the Vatican and a few other similarly corrupt manuscripts. Burgon notes that "Lachmann's text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two, sometimes on only one" (Revision Revised, p. 21). In his scholarly arrogance, Lachmann was willing to overthrow centuries of godly discernment purified in the fires of persecution in favor of modern novelties.

Samuel Tregelles (1813-1875) accepted Lachmann's views. Tregelles said, "To Lachmann must be conceded this, that he led the way in casting aside the so-called Textus Receptus, and boldly placing the N.T. wholly and entirely on the basis of actual authority" (Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1886, p. 22). Lachmann's supposed "actual authority" was the Vatican manuscript which had lain in disuse for centuries in the pope's castle, and a few other similarly disreputable manuscripts.

Constantin Tischendorf (1815-1874) was a German textual editor who traveled extensively in search of ancient documents. He was instrumental in bringing to light the two manuscripts most influential in modern Bible translation work--Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Codex Sinaiticus. "In the year 1844, whilst travelling under the patronage of Frederick Augustus King of Saxony, in quest of manuscripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai. Here observing some old-looking documents in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty-three vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. He was allowed to take these: but in the desire of saving the other parts of the manuscript of which he heard, he explained their value to the monks, who being now enlightened would only allow him to copy one page, and refused to sell him the rest. On his return he published in 1846 what he had succeeded in getting under the name `Codex Frederico-Augustanus,' inscribed to his benefactor" (Miller, p. 24).

The complete Sinai manuscript contained portions of the O.T. and the Apocrypha, the complete N.T., as well as the spurious Epistle of Barnabas, and a fragment of the spurious Shepherd of Hermas. On that first visit Tischendorf was not allowed to take the full manuscript, but he returned to the monastery in 1853 and again in 1856. On the final night of the latter visit, he was shown the desired codex, and he sat up all night copying a portion of it. What portion did he lose a night's sleep to copy, you may ask? Amazingly, and indicative of the man's spiritual condition, we believe, it was the extra-canonical Epistle of Barnabas! Of this Epistle, 19th century textual scholar Friedrich Bleek said, "[It] is probably spurious, and its contents are paltry and frivolous, so that it is quite unworthy to be placed side by side with the N.T. writings"! Gaining a sympathetic hearing with the Superior Abbot over the monastery, Tischendorf managed to have the manuscript brought to Cairo, where he was allowed to copy it that same year. After considerable political and religious wrangling and the promise of a sum of money and honors for the monastic order, Tischendorf was allowed to take the manuscript to St. Petersburg in Russia in 1862. Soon thereafter, in Leipzig, Germany, he produced 300 copies in four volumes.

Tischendorf was so enamored with the Sinai manuscript that he altered the eighth edition of his Greek text (1869-72) in 3,369 instances, largely in compliance with the Sinaitic.

Note that this manuscript, which has so powerfully influenced the men who developed modern textual critical theories, was discovered in a waste basket in an Orthodox monastery. Even the benighted monks dwelling in this demonically oppressed place counted it only worthy of burning! Dr. James Qurollo observes, "I don't know which of them had the truer evaluation of its worth--Tischendorf, who wanted to buy it, or the monks, who were getting ready to burn it!"

The pure Word of God, my friends, has not been preserved in an obscure Orthodox monastery or on the dusty shelf of the pope's library, but in the Bibles and manuscripts which have been valued and used by the common believers through the centuries. [See Preservation.]

The corruptions of the Codex Sinaiticus: It is important to note that the Sinaiticus shows plain evidence of corruption. Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published in 1864 "A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus," testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character--brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the Ms., many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."

The frightfully unholy condition of the St. Catherine monastery: It is appropriate to give a description of the monastery which housed the Codex Sinaiticus. The following was written by Dr. R.L. Hymers:

I became convinced of the superiority of the Textus Receptus during a tour of the Sinai Peninsula in the summer of 1987. My wife and I were part of an expedition which climbed Mount Sinai. After descending, we toured St. Catherine's Monastery, which is located at the foot of the mountain. I was struck by the queer and even satanic characteristics of this monastery. The skulls of monks from across the centuries are heaped in a large room. This heap of skulls is seven or eight feet high. The skeleton of one of the monks is chained to a door adjacent to this mound of skulls, left there as an ageless guard. Within the sanctuary at the monastery itself, ostrich eggs hang from the ceiling, lamps dimly illuminate the gloomy atmosphere, and strange drawings and unscriptural paintings decorate the entire edifice.

We were guided through this eerie church to the place where the Sinaiticus scroll had been kept by these monks across the centuries, until it was discovered by Tischendorf, taken to Germany, and ultimately sold to Great Britain. As I stood in front of the case where the Sinaiticus scroll had been kept prior to its being stolen by Tischendorf, I had the distinct impression that nothing in the way of spiritual light could come from this place.

This impression led me to reexamine the facts concerning the Westcott and Hort text, and to come to the conclusion that their use of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus scrolls as a basis for the new Greek text was spurious. I have come to the conclusion that the Westcott and Hort text is a mutilation, and that the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus, which are the basis of the King James Bible, are far superior. Therefore, I strongly defend the King James Bible as the most reliable translation of the Scriptures in the English language today.

Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf was also instrumental in bringing to light the Vaticanus manuscript. The details of this endeavor are almost as fascinating as those of his search for the Sinaiticus:

As its name shows, [the Vaticanus] is in the Great Vatican Library at Rome, which has been its home since some date before 1481. ... For some reason which does not clearly appear [but not difficult to understand by those who know Rome's perverted spirit, Editor], the authorities of the Vatican Library put continual obstacles in the way of all who wished to study it in detail. A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it, as proof of its [supposed] superiority to the received Greek text. [Editor: Erasmus subsequently rejected these readings.] ... Napolean carried the manuscript off as a prize of victory to Paris, where it remained till 1815, when the many treasures of which he had despoiled the libraries of the Continent were returned to their respective owners. ... In 1843 Tischendorf, after waiting for several months, was allowed to see it for six hours. ... In 1845 the great English scholar Tregelles was allowed indeed to see it but not to copy a word. His pockets were searched before he might open it, and all writing materials were taken away. Two clerics stood beside him and snatched away the volume if he looked too long at any passage! ... In 1866 Tischendorf once more applied for permission to edit the MS., but with difficulty obtained leave to examine it for the purpose of collating difficult passages. ... Renewed entreaty procured him six days' longer study, making in all fourteen days of three hours each; and by making the very most of his time Tischendorf was able in 1867 to publish the most perfect edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared. An improved Roman edition appeared in 1868-81... (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, New York: Harper & Brothers, 4th ed., 1939, pp. 138-139).

The attitude Rome displayed toward those who sought to examine the Vatican manuscript is indicative of Rome's historical attitude toward the Word of God. While the Baptists and the Reformers were diligently bringing the Scriptures to light "so the plough-man could understand it," Rome was just as diligently trying to keep God's Word from the common man. This is a historical fact, friends.

John William Burgon (1813-1888) was a brilliant 19th century textual editor and linguist. He published over 50 works plus numerous articles contributed to periodicals. He contributed considerably to Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Burgon traveled widely in search of textual facts. He personally examined the Vaticanus manuscript in 1860 while in Rome, and in 1862 he visited St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai to examine the contents of this library. He made several tours of European libraries, and collated more than one hundred and fifty Greek manuscripts. His research into the writings of ancient "Church Fathers" is without peer. Housed in the British Museum, it consists of sixteen thick manuscript volumes and contains 86,489 quotations.

Though the Anglican Burgon was a contemporary with Westcott and Hort, he plainly rejected the German rationalism and Roman Catholic movements with which these editors sympathized. Edward Hills notes, "Burgon's days at Oxford were in the period when the tractarian controversy was flaming. The assault upon the Scriptures as the inerrant Word of God aroused him to study in the textual field. He was a deep and laborious student, and a fierce competitor" (Hills, "The Magnificent Burgon," Which Bible?, p. 86). Burgon, who never married and dedicated himself exclusively to research, testified that the motive of his labor was the defense of the Bible. Speaking of himself "a neighbor" in the Preface to Revision Revised, he writes: "I trust there is nothing unreasonable in the suggestion that one who has not done this [referring to giving oneself undividedly to textual studies] should be very circumspect when he sits in judgment on a neighbour of his who, for very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the whole of his time; has freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, even necessary rest, to this one object, has made it his one business to acquire such an independent mastery of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle successfully for the imperilled letter of God's Word" (p. xvii). Such a noble consecration of one's life cannot be slighted. Of the Vaticanus, Burgon had this to say:

The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] is not a question of opinion but of fact. ... In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vaticanus) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. ... they are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant ... [exhibiting] the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with" (True Or False? pp. 77-78).

The unholy atmosphere of the Vatican. We have noted the strange demonic atmosphere of St. Catherine's monastery which housed Codex Sinaiticus. The home of Codex Vaticanus is not less unholy. The editor of this volume toured the Vatican in 1992 and was astounded at how pagan the place is. It reminded me of the many temples we toured during our years of missionary work in Asia. Fitting to the home of the man who claims the titles and position of Jesus Christ and who accepts worship, the Vatican is a monument to idolatry and blasphemy and man's shameless rebellion to God's revelation. There are statues of all sorts of pagan gods and goddesses; there are statues of Mary and the popes and the "saints" and angels and the infant Jesus and crucifixes. In fact, the Vatican is one gigantic idol. The great altar over the supposed tomb of St. Peter is overwhelmed by gigantic golden spiraling columns which look for all the world like coiling serpents. One can almost hear the sinister hiss. The Vatican is also a graveyard. Beneath "St. Peter's" cathedral are rows and rows of marble caskets--what appeared to be acres of dead popes! A life-sized statue of each pope is carved in marble and reclines on the lid of each casket. Candles and incense are burning profusely. The place is as eerie and pagan as any temple in darkest Nepal. Pitifully deluded Catholics light their pagan candles in a vain attempt to merit God's blessing just as do the poor benighted Hindus.

St. Catherine's and the pope's house provided fitting homes for two of the most deeply corrupted manuscripts available to Bible translators today.

Of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the textual theories which exalt these manuscripts, the brilliant John Burgon, after decades of lonely, vigilent toil in the dim corners of the libraries of Britain, Europe, and Egypt, testified:

On first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many years ago ... turn which way we would, we were encountered by the same confident terminology: `the best documents,' `primary manuscripts,' `first-rate authorities,' `primitive evidence,' `ancient readings,' and so forth: we found that thereby codices A [Sinaiticus] or B [Vaticanus], codices C or D [two similar manuscripts] were invariably and exclusively meant. It was not until we had laboriously collated these documents for ourselves, that we became aware of their true character. Long before coming to the end of our task (and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become convinced that the supposed `best documents' and `first-rate authorities' are in reality among the worst.

A diligent inspection of a vast number of later copies scattered throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and the exact collation of a few, further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, A, C, D is nothing else but a weak superstition and a vulgar error, that the date of a MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the problem, and that later copies ... on countless occasions, and as a rule, preserve those delicate lineaments and minute refinements which the `old uncials' are constantly observed to obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the entire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and more the soundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf had arrived: while we seemed led, as if by the hand, to discern plain indications of the existence for ourselves of a far `more excellent way' (Revision Revised, pp. 337,338).

We suspect that these two manuscripts [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] are indebted for their preservation, 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 generations of critical correctors, eventually got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had these 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 (Revision Revised, p. 319).

Thus we see that during the 1800s, one of the greatest missionary eras in history, while godly men were carrying the preserved Bible to the ends of the earth, unbelieving textual critics, enamored by German rationalism, went about searching the dusty libraries of apostate institutions to rediscover the Word of God that had never been lost. Confused men, all!

Westcott and Hort and the Revised Version of 1881

At this point we quote Dr. Edward F. Hills (1912-1981), a respected Presbyterian scholar who held degrees from Yale University, Westminster Theological Seminary, Harvard, and Columbia Seminary, and who pursued further graduate studies at Chicago University and Calvin Seminary. Dr. Hills encouraged many in his defense of the Received Text and in his exposure of the unbelief of modern textual criticism.

In the 1860's, manuscripts Aleph [the Sinaiticus manuscript] and B [the manuscript from the Vatican library in Rome] were made available to scholars through the labors of Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in 1881 B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892) [both were Anglican professors of Cambridge University; Westcott became Bishop of Durham] published their celebrated Introduction in which they endeavored to settle the N.T. text on the basis of this new information. They propounded the theory that the original N.T. text has survived in almost perfect condition in these two manuscripts, especially in the Vaticanus. This theory attained almost immediately a tremendous popularity, being accepted everywhere both by liberals and conservatives. Liberals liked it because it represented the latest thing in the science of N.T. textual criticism. Conservatives liked it because it seemed to grant them that security for which they were seeking.

... in the working out of their theory, Westcott and Hort followed an essentially naturalistic method. Indeed, they prided themselves on treating the text of the N.T. as they would that of any other book, making little or nothing of inspiration and providence. ... Westcott and Hort ... believed that the orthodox Christian scribes had altered the N.T. manuscripts in the interests of orthodoxy. Hence like Griesbach they ruled out in advance any possibility of the providential preservation of the N.T. text through the usage of believers (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 65,66).

Dr. Donald A. Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text. He has earned a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects. In summarizing the problem with the Westcott-Hort Text, Dr. Waite notes: "Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the Received Text that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the New Testament" (Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 1992, p. 41).

The Trinitarian Bible Society, in The Divine Original, provides the rest of the sad story:

The discovery of these manuscripts (MSS) betrayed many biblical students into a lamentable infirmity of critical judgment [and] exercised a similar mesmeric influence on the minds of many 19th and 20th century scholars. The Revised Greek text underlying the modern versions has the support only of that very small minority of the available MSS which are in some respects in agreement with the unreliable text of the Sinai and Vatican codices.

Westcott and Hort devised an elaborate theory, based more on imagination and intuition than upon evience, elevating this little group of MSS to the heights of almost infallible authority. Their treatise on the subject and their edition of the Greek N.T. exercised a powerful and far-reaching influence, not only on the next generation of students and scholars, but also indirectly upon the minds of millions who have had neither the ability, nor the time, nor the inclination to submit the theory to a searching examination.

The Sinai and Vatican manuscripts represent a small family of documents containing various readings which the churches rejected before the end of the 4th century. Under the singular care and providence of God, more reliable MSS were multiplied and copied from generation to generation, and the great majority of existing MSS exhibit a faithful reproduction of the true text which was acknowledged by the entire Greek `church' in the Byzantine period A.D. 312-1453. This text was also represented by the small group of documents available to Erasmus, Stephens, the compilers of the complutensian edition and other 16th century editors. This text is represented by the Authorized Version and other Protestant translations up to the latter part of the 19th century.

The Revisers of 1881 made 36,000 changes in the English of the KJV as well as almost 6,000 in the Greek text. The Sinai and Vatican manuscripts are responsible for most of the significant changes. As Canon F.C. Cook, chaplain to the Queen of England in the late 1800s and author of a critical review of the ERV, says: "By far the greatest number of innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the authority of two manuscripts, or even of one manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive. ... The Vatican Codex ... sometimes alone, generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the Revised Version" (Cook, The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels: Considered in its Bearings Upon the Record of Our Lord's Words and of Incidents in His Life, 1882, p. 250).

Philip Mauro, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day, noted the differences between the Received Text and the Sinai and Vatican Text: "As a sufficient illustration of the many differences between these two Codices [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] and the great body of other MSS, we note that, in the Gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus differs from the Received Text in the following particulars: It omits at least 2,877 words; it adds 536 words; it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies 1,132; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergences" (Mauro, "Which Version? Authorized Or Revised?" True or False?, p 78).

Most modern Bible translators remain allured by the Sinaitic and Vaticanus manuscripts. The editors of the New International Version, for instance, admit that they prefer the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts: "...in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the great Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century AD, are to be preferred over those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR [Received Text]" (Ronald Youngblood, The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 152). We could give dozens of pages of similar quotations from modern translators and textual critics. When the new versions say a certain word or verse is not found in the "oldest and best manuscripts," they are referring primarily to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, together with a handful of manuscripts which exhibit similar readings.

We conclude this section with the words of John William Burgon:

I am utterly disinclined to believe, so grossly improbable does it seem--that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy, and that the one, two, three, four, or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years, much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.

Happily, Western Christendom has been content to employ one and the same text for upwards of three hundred years. If the objection be made, as it probably will be, `Do you then mean to rest upon the five manuscripts used by Erasmus?' I reply that the copies employed were selected because they were known to represent the accuracy of the Sacred Word; that the descent of the text was evidently guarded with jealous care, just as the human genealogy of our Lord was preserved; that it rests mainly upon much of widest testimony; and that where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe it calls for correction (True or False?, p. 13).

While we don't believe the Received Text needs any correction whatsoever, and in that we would take exception to Burgon's position, we do commend his faith in the preservation of God's Word, which is in stark contrast with the scepticism of the hour. In reviewing the witness of the centuries to the preserved Bible and the unbelieving position of 19th century textual critics, Burgon had this to say:

Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions.

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially the same in all. ... In marked contrast with this Text is that contained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The editors of the R.V. have systematically magnified the merits of those viciously corrupt manuscripts, while they have, at the same time, sedulously ignored their many glaring and scandalous defects and blemishes, manifestly determined, by right or by wrong, to establish their paramount authority, when it is in any way possible to do so. ... Such, for the last fifty years, has been the practice of the dominant school of textual criticism among ourselves (True or False?, p. 115).

Modern Greek texts are founded upon the Westcott-Hort Text

Sadly, the critical approach to the Bible which was evident among many 19th century scholars has continued to be the dominant philosophy of the 20th century. In light of Bible prophecy regarding the apostasy of the last hours, we do not find this phenomenon surprising. It is upon the wretched foundation of Westcott-Hortism that the entire edifice of modern versions rests.

The Nestle's Greek Text. In 1904 the British and Foreign Bible Society issued an edition of the Greek text with Critical Apparatus prepared by Professor Eberhard Nestl. The Nestl's text was based on Tischendorf's 8th edition of 1869-72, Westcott and Hort's edition of 1881, and the 1902 edition of D. Bernhard Weiss (TBS Article No. 56). The Nestl's Text has gone through some 26 editions and has been widely used in classrooms and translation work. Later editions of the Nestl Text added Kurt Aland as co-editor; this is called the Nestl-Aland Text.

The United Bible Societies Greek Text. This popular Greek text, published in Mnster, Germany, is nearly identical to the 26th edition of the Nestl-Aland Text. The 1st edition was published in 1965; the 3rd, in 1983. It is edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren, and Eugene Nida. Not one of these men is a true Bible believer; all are either committed to or sympathetic with Modernism. Carlo Martini is a Roman Catholic bishop and Professor of N.T. Criticism at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Eugene Nida is a chief father in the philosophy of dynamic equivalency, which claims the Bible does not need to be translated literally, but can be made to conform to man's culture. Nida denies the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ and says the Blood was not a propitiation for our salvation. [See Atonement.] Nida does not believe the Bible is the absolute, perfect Word of God. Bruce Metzger is the modernistic editor of the National Council of Churches' Revised Standard Version. He edited the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV and the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible, both of which are filled with heretical comments about the Scriptures. In his editorial notes in these volumes, Metzger questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, John, Paul, and Peter; claims some of the O.T. stories are myths; calls Job a folktale and Jonah a legend.

It is evident that the editors of the UBS Text are not Bible believers. In this they follow in the footsteps of their noted textual forefathers, as we have seen. The UBS Greek Text is a revision of the Westcott-Hort Text and contains most of that Text's corruptions which are listed in the following study.

One fearful product of the exaltation of the critical Greek text has been the weakening of the authority of Scripture throughout the nations. Dr. Charles Turner summarizes this:

The critical point of departure had been made [with the ascendency of the Westcott-Hort Text]. No longer was the majority of the Greek manuscripts, preserved by the churches, the basis for recognizing the original reading. From now on, the learned professors would deliver the Christian world from their `blindness and ignorance.' By their scholarly expertise they would deliver to the churches a purer text of the N.T. Dr. Machen called this kind of scholarship `the tyranny of the experts.' Now the `experts' would rule over the churches and decide for them which variant reading was the acceptable one. After Westcott and Hort, the Pandora's box had been opened. As a result, all the evils of German rationalism began to tear at the foundation of the Faith, the Holy Scriptures. This `wrestling' of the Scriptures has continued on until this day in both the higher and lower forms of textual criticism. The situation today involves almost as many different texts of the Greek N.T. as there are scholars. Each `scholar' decides for himself what he will or will not accept as the Word of God.

It comes down to two choices. We can accept the text handed down by the churches for nearly two thousand years or accept the findings of modern scholars, no two of which agree. If we go with the scholars, there is no one text that is accepted by all of them. Confusion reigns among the scholars. There is no standard (Why the King James Version?, p. 9).

Vast omissions in the modern versions

The difference between the text underlying the KJV and that underlying the modern versions is vast. In the N.T. alone there are over 8,000 word differences between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions such as the Nestl's Text and the UBS Text). It is true that many of these changes are not as significant as others--but ALL ARE real differences. More than 2,800 of the words in the Received Text are omitted in the W-H Text underlying the modern versions. That is a vast number of words. It is roughly the number of words in 1 and 2 Peter combined. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mt. 4:4). The words of the Bible are crucial words!

Entire verses and phrases omitted from new versions. There are 17 verses omitted outright in the New International Version--Mt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Ac. 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Ro. 16:24; and 1 Jn. 5:7. Further, the NIV separates Mk. 16:9-20 from the rest of the chapter with a note that says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mk. 16:9-20," thus destroying the authority of this vital passage in the minds of the readers and effectively removing another 10 verses. Jn. 7:53--8:11 is also separated from the rest of the text with this footnote: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have Jn. 7:53--8:11." Hence another 24 verses are effectively removed from the Bible. The NIV questions four other verses with footnotes--Mt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of 55 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing.

Doctrinal corruptions in the modern versions

Promoters of the modern versions claim that the differences between their versions and the KJV are relatively slight and have no bearing on doctrine. This is not true. The differences are great, and many of the changes in the modern versions do affect doctrine. Even many of the promoters of the modern versions admit the differences are vast and serious. The Preface to the Revised Standard Version claims: "The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation." A more recent work, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, contains an entire chapter dealing with "the Doctrinal Problems in the King James Version." The author, Jack Lewis, concludes with these words: "`Doctrine' means `teaching,' and any failure to present the Word of God accurately, completely, and clearly in a translation is a doctrinal problem. The matters that we have surveyed in this chapter all affect the teaching the reader is to receive from his Bible. It is naive to declare that they have no doctrinal significance. ... The need for new translations lies in the inadequacies of the KJV."

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

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

Following are some crucial doctrines which are affected by modern texts and translations:

THE MODERN VERSIONS WEAKEN THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEITY.

Mk. 9:24--The man's testimony that Christ is Lord is removed. Mk. 15:39--The centurion's testimony of Christ's deity is removed from the text or questioned with a footnote. Lk. 2:33--The deity of Christ is attacked by changing `Joseph and his mother' to `father and mother.' Lk. 2:43--Modern versions have "his parents" instead of the correct rendering of the KJV--"Joseph and his mother." Lk. 23:42--Modern versions have the penitent thief addressing Christ merely as "Jesus," rather than as "Lord" in the KJV.

Jn. 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18--The NIV and most other modern versions omit "begotten," thereby removing an important witness to the uniqueness of Christ as the only begotten Son of God. Christ is not the only son of God. Adam is called the son of God (Lk. 3:38); angels are called sons of God (Job 1:6); Christians are called sons of God (Ph. 2:15). But Christ IS the only begotten son of God just as the KJV correctly affirms. [See Jesus Christ.]

Jn. 3:13--The new versions omit "which is in heaven." The KJV reads, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." This plain, irrefutable testimony of the deity and omnipresence of Christ is removed from modern translations.

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

Ac. 8:37--The modern versions omit this verse and thereby remove the glorious and important testimony of the Ethiopian eunuch as to the incarnation and deity of Jesus Christ.

1 Co. 15:47--The KJV reads, "The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is THE LORD from heaven." The modern versions omit the words "the Lord" and say, "...the second man is from heaven," thus effectively removing this blessed and powerful testimony that Jesus Christ is the Lord from heaven.

1 Ti. 3:16--The modern versions omit the key word in this verse, the word "God." The KJV reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." The NIV reads, "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 believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." By replacing the word "God" with the general pronoun "he" we are robbed of one of the plainest witnesses to Christ's deity in the entire Bible and are left with a meaningless reference to an unidentified, ambiguous "he" who was manifested in the flesh. Terrance Brown, respected former Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, makes this comment: "Countless millions of the Lord's people, from the dawn of the Christian era to the present day, have read these words in their Bibles precisely as they appear in our Authorised Version, but now this powerful testimony to the Godhead of our Saviour is to be swept out of the Scriptures and to disappear without trace."

Re. 1:11--The modern versions remove the important words "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" from this verse.

We have looked briefly at 15 key passages in which the testimony of Christ's deity either has been removed entirely or critically weakened in newer versions of the Bible. There are many more we did not consider. The deity of Christ has not been removed entirely from these Bibles, but by the changes in the wordings of these important passages, the overall testimony to the doctrine of Christ's deity has been weakened. Is this really a matter, friends, of little consequence as so many would have us believe? I say not.

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

LORD--Omitted in Mt. 13:51; Mk. 9:24; Ac. 9:6; 2 Co. 4:10; Ga. 6:17; 2 Ti. 4:1; Tit. 1:4.

JESUS--Omitted in Mt. 8:29; Mt. 16:20; 2 Co. 4:6; 2 Co. 5:18; Col. 1:28; Phile. verse 6; 1 Pe. 5:14.

CHRIST--Omitted in Lk. 4:41; Jn. 4:42; Ac. 16:31; Ro. 1:16; 1 Co. 16:23; 2 Co. 11:31; Ga. 3:17; Ga. 4:7; 1 Th. 2:19; I Th. 3:11; 1 Th. 3:13; 2 Th. 1:8; He. 3:1; 1 Jn. 1:7; Re. 12:17.

JESUS CHRIST--Omitted in 1 Co. 16:22; Ga. 6:15; Ep. 3:9; 2 Ti. 4:22.

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

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

From the above study, which is not exhaustive, it can be seen that the Westcott-Hort text and the modern translations make a definite attack upon the Scriptures' testimony of the deity of Jesus Christ. This one fact alone is sufficient cause to retain the Textus Receptus and faithful translations founded upon it and puts the lie to the idea that there are no doctrinal deviations in the versions.

THE MODERN VERSIONS WEAKEN THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.

Consider the following examples:

Col. 1:14--The modern versions omit the all-important phrase "through his blood."

He. 1:3--Modern versions omit the words "by himself" from this verse. The KJV says, "...when he had by himself purged our sins..." The NIV reads, "... after he had provided purification for sins..." The two little words omitted in the modern versions seriously weaken the testimony of this passage as to what Christ accomplished on the Cross.

1 Pe. 4:1--The modern versions omit "for us." The KJV reads, "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered FOR US in the flesh ..."

1 Co. 5:7--The modern versions omit "for us" in this verse, as well. The KJV reads, "... For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US."

THE MODERN VERSIONS WEAKEN THE DOCTRINE OF FASTING. The Critical Greek Text and the modern versions based upon it make a strange attack against the N.T. teaching of fasting. Though some references to fasting remain, several very significant references are removed.

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

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

These two verses about fasting are not the only references to this doctrine in Scripture, but they are the only two references which specifically, directly teach the importance of fasting as an aspect of spiritual warfare. Those who have fought spiritual battles against the powers of darkness know from experience the precious truth of what Jesus is saying in these passages. Prayer is a powerful spiritual resource, but there ARE demonic strongholds which cannot be broken by prayer alone without fasting. It is a fact, and it is a part of the Bible! To remove these references from the Bible is folly and evil. It is equal to removing part of the essential armament from a soldier's equipment before sending him into battle.

Ac. 10:30--Here we read in the KJV and most of the old Protestant translations in the various languages that Cornelius was fasting and praying. The new versions, following the lead of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, remove the word fasting.

1 Co. 7:5--The KJV reads, "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." Again, rejecting the majority of textual witnesses, the new versions remove fasting from this important passage.

2 Co. 6:5--The KJV reading, "fasting," has been changed in the new versions to "hunger." Obviously hunger and fasting are two different things. In 2 Co. 11:27, where the Apostle Paul gives a similar listing of some aspects of his ministry, he mentions bot