Examining James White’s “The King James Only Controversy”
Updated November 29, 2004 (first published March 5, 1998)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
Many friends have asked me to critique the popular book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? by James White (b. 1963)(Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995, 286 p.). White was educated at Southern Baptist Grand Canyon University and at Fuller Theological Seminary, both hotbeds of New Evangelical (and worse) compromise. It does not surprise me to see him parroting the tired theories of the undependable textual critics. What does surprise me is how widely White’s book has been accepted in fundamental Baptist circles.
INTRODUCTION
My first thought, as I looked through this book, was that this is a strange piece of writing. The world of Bible translation is becoming increasingly, bewilderingly perverse, yet James White aims his gun not at the Bible corrupters but at men who are attempting to defend God’s Word against the onslaught of end-times apostasy. Almost each passing year brings to light an English Bible version more corrupt than its predecessor. This is on the commercial side of Bible translations, yet the corruption is also evident in the field of professional missionary translation. The United Bible Societies, working hand in hand with the Roman Catholic Church, have almost completely given up on “formal equivalency” translation and have dedicated their vast resources to the production of paraphrase-type Bibles created with the presumptuous dynamic equivalency method of translation. The same is true for Wycliffe Bible Translators. White sounds no warning of these matters, though. His readers are given the impression that the onslaught of modernism in the field of Bible texts and translations is a matter of very minor consequence compared with the great evil of believing God has preserved His Word verbally in the Received Text and the Received Text translations which have gone to the ends of the earth during the past five centuries of great missionary endeavor. Consider the following amazing statement in the Foreword to White’s book, written by Mike Baird, a professor at the Southern Baptist-aligned Grand Canyon University:
“In this age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading. Yet many, even within Christendom, have set about to undermine the authority of Scripture. This happens in places of higher criticism, but it also happens in places where we are least suspecting. James White, in The King James Only Controversy, deals with this sense of uncertainty in God’s Word promoted by those who defend the KJV as the only reliable Bible” (p. i).
I shake my head at the strangeness of this statement. How in the world does the defense of a pure Scripture text create uncertainty in God’s Word? How in the world can the defense of a pure Bible be compared with the heresy of higher criticism? There is a popular book that claims, tongue-in-cheek, that women live on Venus and men live on Mars, referring to the vast difference in the way men and women think and act. A similar gulf exists between those who defend the King James Bible and those who defend the modern versions. It is very difficult for one to understand the other! The modern version defender allows a man to say the Scriptures were verbally inspired and perfect when they were first written, but he goes ballistic when he hears a man say that he has a Bible in his hands today that has been preserved by God. He charges such a man with heresy. He labels him a troublemaker, and an ignoramus, to boot.
I realize that the defense of the King James Bible and the Received Text creates doubt in the modern versions, but at the same time it creates complete faith in the Scriptures that have come down to use through the centuries. On the other hand, the modern version position creates doubt in EVERY Bible! According to the modern version position, there is no text or translation which can be trusted entirely, so the adherent is loosed from the rock of biblical certainty and is left to drift upon the shifting sands of modern textual scholarship.
Further, I did not read in White’s book long before I realized that it is misnamed. It should be titled not The King James Only Controversy, but The Ruckman-Riplinger Controversy, because White paints the entire movement in defense of the King James Bible with the brush of these two individuals.
White’s book appears, at first glance, to be an unemotional, objective, scholarly approach to the topic of Bible texts and versions. In reality, it is a vicious slander upon those who are defenders of the King James Bible and the Received Text which underlies the KJV and other great Reformation Bibles. He implies throughout that every KJV defender is either a raving lunatic or an ignorant extremist. He ignores or passes over slightly, even flippantly, the great issues of the KJV defense, focusing, instead, upon the most indefensible, asinine representations.
The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against “King James Onlyism” and will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the TR and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:
“In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT” (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).
This was the condition that Alfred Martin witnessed in Christian education in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It is much worse today. The reason why most students at colleges and seminaries are not presented with both sides of the Bible text-translation issue is because of men like James White, who do everything in their power to make the defenders of the Received Text and the King James Bible look like fools. I believe these men have a lot to answer for before God.
Let me also say this right at the outset: I am convinced that James White’s book on Bible versions is one of the most dangerous books that has been written in the last several years. This is because it is dead wrong and it is leading men and women away from the preserved Word of God, yet it has proven to be very popular. It is hastening a process which is rapidly destroying absolute truth in the churches.
A CRITIQUE OF THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY
WHITE’S APPROACH TO THE TOPIC OF TEXTS AND VERSIONS IS MAN-CENTERED, RATHER THAN GOD-CENTERED.
James White focuses almost exclusively upon men—Erasmus, the KJV translators, Calvin, Beza, King James Bible defenders—and upon their frailties. I keep asking myself, where does this author think God was during the past 500 years? His approach is a rationalistic one as opposed to simple faith based on God’s promises. He approaches the history of the text with his eyes upon man and human scholarship. Though he is an “evangelical” (the term is in quotations because it is almost meaningless today, a fact which has been witnessed in recent years by evangelical leaders themselves, in books such as The Great Evangelical Disaster by Francis Schaeffer and No Place for Truth: or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? by David F. Wells), his approach to the Biblical text mirrors that of theological modernists and neo-orthodox ecumenists such as Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger, whom he repeatedly exalts as authorities. This is the root error of those who defend the modern critical texts and versions. They do not approach this issue by faith; they approach it by human intellect and scholarship. The Bible says, though, that “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6).
WHITE IGNORES GOD’S PROMISE OF BIBLICAL PRESERVATION EXCEPT TO MENTION IT IN PASSING.
Note this statement:
“KJV Only advocates are quick to assert that those who do not join them in making the KJV the final authority in all things do not believe in the ‘preservation of the Scriptures.’ Almost all KJV Only books will contain a section on how God has promised to preserve His words, and they will, of course, assume that these ‘words’ are found in the KJV” (White, p. 47).
As he does throughout the book, White quickly paints this issue with the brush of extremism. In telling his readers how King James Bible defenders allegedly define preservation, he says they believe the Bible was “re-inspired” in 1611. This might be what a few believe, but I know hundreds of King James Bible defenders, including many of those who are writing on this subject, and it is certainly not what most believe. In fact, I don’t know anyone who believes the Bible was re-inspired in 1611. White does not quote from any one to demonstrate his point. He merely claims that some believe this. To my knowledge (and, as far as I know, I am the only man who has written an extensive history of King James Bible defense) the common view among King James Bible defenders is that God preserved the pure Greek and Hebrew text and delivered it to the Reformation Editors and it was translated accurately into many major languages and was subsequently carried to the ends of the earth during the great missionary movement of the last five centuries. Most King James Bible defenders, in my knowledge, do not confuse inspiration with preservation. They understand that inspiration refers to the original giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles of old, and that this inspired Scripture has been preserved for us. The King James Bible was not a re-inspiration of God’s Word; it was an accurate formal equivalency translation thereof which gave weight to every word in the original language text (unlike a dynamic equivalency such as the New International Version, which makes no attempt to translate all of the Greek and Hebrew words). The authority of the Greek and Hebrew text is carried over into English or into German or French, etc., insofar as the translation is accurate. I could site hundreds of men who believe the view of preservation that I am describing and who would absolutely reject any idea that the Bible was re-inspired in 1611. Consider, for example, the statement of The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies (also known as the Which Bible? Society), which was founded as an extension of Dr. David Otis Fuller's desire to address the version issue and textual debate on a broader scale:
The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies is committed to:
* the immediate, verbal, plenary inspiration of the original writings of Scripture and that they are therefore inerrant and infallible. This inspiration is unique, applicable both to the process of giving the original writings and the writings themselves which are that product;
* the verbal preservation of the Greek Received Text as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society;
* the verbal preservation of the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim;
* the position that translation is not an inherent boundary to verbal preservation. The breath of God, product, not process, conveyed by translation from the immediately inspired language copies of Scripture into any providentially prepared receptor language will impart to that translation infallible authority and doctrinal inerrancy inherent in the original language copies. Such a translation by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, both with and through that translation, will evidence to the believer its own self-attestation and self-authentication whereby God asserts himself as the supreme Authority to that culture. For the English speaking world this revelation of God's authority is preserved in the Authorized Version.
The late David Otis Fuller, editor of three very influential books in defense of the King James Bible, Which Bible?, True or False?, and Counterfeit or Genuine?, has been widely maligned by those who promote the modern versions. We see, though, that the organization which carries on his work does not confuse inspiration with preservation. The previous statement was written by Peter Van Kleeck, who is the pastor of Wealthy Park Baptist Church, the church pastored by D.O. Fuller for 40 years. Pastor Van Kleeck was Associate Director of the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies from 1990-94. Since then his father, William Van Kleeck, has assumed this position.
King James Bible defenders argue that it is impossible to believe in biblical preservation and to accept the tenets of modern textual criticism. The latter claims that the purest text of Scripture was basically misplaced or unused for centuries and did not begin to be recovered until the end of the 19th century. Textual critics tell us that the Received Text, which was without question the traditional text of the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians from 1500 to 1900, is an impure text which contains thousands of latter additions. They tell us that the pure text of the New Testament is actually the shortened Westcott-Hort type Greek text represented today in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. The problem is that this text type was rejected for hundreds of years until textual critics such as Tischendorf rediscovered it in the late 1800s, while the Received Text was greatly honored by God. If the Received Text is indeed the impure text, I believe the promise of God has failed. God preserves His Word in its use among His people, not in its misuse and neglect.
Consider a statement that illustrates the way the Received Text-King James Bible defender looks at Bible preservation. This statement was made in 1970 by Donald Brake in a Master of Theology thesis entitled “The Doctrine of the Preservation of Scriptures” presented to the faculty of the Department of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary:
“The issue ultimately is: Has God preserved throughout history a continuous, uninterrupted text for the Church or has He merely preserved for one thousand years a corrupted text and then revealed His true text when a German critic at the convent of St. Catherine picked out of a wastebasket one single manuscript?” (Donald Brake, reprinted from Counterfeit or Genuine?, Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, p. 179).
We would remind James White that this statement was not made by a Ruckman-Riplingerite fundamental Baptist.
Let me give another example. This statement is made by John Burgon in the late 19th century:
“I am utterly disinclined to believe--so grossly improbable does it seem--that at the end of eighteen hundred 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” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 12).
If the critical textual editors of the nineteenth century had believed God and His promise of preservation, they would have understood that the pure Word of God was not lost! That’s the major point of contention in this entire matter, as I see it. The Word of God was preserved; it was not lost. It was not unused or discarded. My confidence is not in Erasmus or in King James I or in John Burgon or in David Otis Fuller. My confidence is in a God who has promised to preserve His Word. And if the Bible which went to the ends of the earth during the greatest era of missionary activity in church history since the apostolic era was not the preserved Word of God, there is no such thing as the preserved Word of God, and this entire matter is merely an exercise in vanity.
White claims there is another way to look at preservation than to see the God-honored Received Text and the English Authorized Version and other accurate translations thereof as the preserved Word of God. It appears that he is saying that this other way of understanding preservation is to claim that the Bible is “preserved” only vaguely within the bewildering diversity of texts and versions. In a practical sense, though, such a view has almost no meaning for the average Christian. It leaves him dependent upon the “scholars” to tell him what is and is not the preserved Word of God, and the more he examines their teaching, the more he understands that a very large percentage of them do not know what they are talking about!
WHITE LUMPS ALL KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS INTO THE RUCKMAN-RIPLINGER CAMP.
In the beginning of his book, White divides “KJV Only” into five categories: Those who like the KJV best, those who support the KJV textually, those who are Received Text only, those who believe the KJV is inspired and inerrant, those who believe the KJV is advanced or new revelation. In the body of the book, though, White almost exclusively uses his pet term “KJV Only” to apply to a Ruckman-type position. In the chapter entitled “The King James Only Camp,” White claims that the scholars of the past (such as John Burgon and H.C. Hoskier) who defended the textual tradition underlying the KJV, cannot be included in the “KJV Only” camp. Thus he contradicts his own definition given in chapter one, by refusing to label men as “KJV Only” who are defenders of the textual tradition underlying the KJV.
White entitles the large section on Ruckman “Spearheading the KJV Only Movement.” We see, then, that his objective is to paint every KJV defender with a broad brush—the brush of Ruckmanism. I have seen this among a wide range of men who love to denounce the alleged error of that which they label “King James Onlyism.” They tend to ignore or lightly pass over the great issues of the Bible version debate and focus instead on human personalities, particularly on Peter Ruckman. In his chapter on “The King James Only Camp,” White gives only three examples of “KJV Only” defenders: Edward F. Hills, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman. He dedicates three brief pages to an incredibly shallow consideration of Hills and then proceeds to dedicate 32 pages to Riplinger and Ruckman. You can see the man’s emphasis. Before quoting one of Riplinger’s indefensible statements, for example, White says that her statement “is extremely important for anyone wishing to understand the thinking of KJV Onlyism” (White, The King James Only Controversy, p. 108). Thus you see his attempt to paint the defense of the King James Bible with the broad brush of extremism. He wants his readers to think that the entire defense of the King James Bible is nothing but a mass of conspiratorial theories, of conjecturing, of indefensible statements, of shallow scholarship in the extreme. In reality, Gail Riplinger’s statement on page 108 of White’s book is important only for someone wishing to understand Gail Riplinger. It is not important if one desires to understand a sound defense of the King James Bible.
White’s inclusion of Riplinger as one of the KEY examples of King James Bible defense is even more duplicitous than his use of Peter Ruckman. At least Dr. Ruckman is a biblical scholar, preacher and teacher, and has been writing about the King James Bible for many decades. Riplinger’s public entrance into this debate did not occur until 1993, only two years before White wrote his book. In reality, to use either of these people as the key examples of the defense of the King James Bible is to set up a straw man. In my book For Love of the Bible: The History of the Battle for the Received Text and the King James Bible from 1800 to Present, I list many examples of men who stood in defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible before Gail Riplinger was born and before Peter Ruckman ever thought of applying his acrid pen to this topic.
Uninformed readers of White’s book would naturally assume that all or most “KJV Onlyites” believe the things White is refuting, but this certainly is not the case. I believe it is unreasonable and slanderous to lump all into the same category, but this is what almost every modern version proponent does. The definition of “King James Only” is crucial. As I wrote recently to a friend, as to whether or not I am “KJV-only” depends, obviously, on how that term is defined. I am “KJV only” if that means I believe the KJV is the only completely authoritative English translation of the preserved text of Greek and Hebrew Scripture. I am not “KJV only” if that means the KJV is advanced revelation or is itself given by inspiration or that the English language has replaced the Greek and Hebrew or that the KJV itself has become the standard for all translations or that the KJV is the only Bible through which men can be born again or if it means that every man who disagrees with me is a member of a cult, etc.
WHITE ABSOLUTELY IGNORES THE FACT THAT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS REJECT PETER RUCKMAN AND HIS STRANGE IDEAS AND HIS CARNAL DEMEANOR.
White ignores the fact that many key King James Bible defenders have exposed Ruckmanism as an error. The Fundamental Evangelistic Association (FEA) of Los Osos, California, is an example. This organization has stood in defense of the King James Bible for much of this century and has published materials on the topic of Bible versions which have encouraged thousands of Christians to trust the old English Bible. The FEA is the publisher of Foundation magazine. Yet the FEA stands against Ruckmanism. In January 1986, the late M.H. Reynolds, head of the FEA, wrote a paper entitled “Are the Teachings of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman True to the Scriptures?” He gave me a copy of the paper that same year, when I preached at an FEA Bible conference. In the introduction, Dr. Reynolds said: “There may be some who will claim that the information presented in this article is an attack upon one of God’s leaders in the Bible version battle but I cannot remain silent about the false teachings of Dr. Ruckman, especially when so many of his followers appear willing to do so.” Dr. Reynolds wrote this paper because a sister church was being infiltrated with Ruckmanism and was on the verge of a carnal split.
The Maranatha Baptist Church of Elkton, Maryland, is also widely known for its unequivocal stand for the King James Bible. Allen Dickerson has been the pastor for more than 40 years. He publishes the Maranatha Baptist Watchman and the church operates the Maryland Baptist Bible College (P.O. Box 246, 4131 Old Neck Elk Road, Elkton, MD 21922. 410-398-3764). The Winter 1994 issue of college’s paper, the Swordsman, contained a “Position Paper of Maryland Baptist Bible College on Various Teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman,” by John Cereghin, a teacher at MBBC. The paper notes seven points at which they disagree with Ruckman: 1. That the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts can be corrected with the English of the Authorized Version. 2. Dr. Ruckman teaches there are errors in the Greek text from which our AV-1611 is translated. 3. Dr. Ruckman believes there are mistakes in the AV-1611 despite his claims to the contrary. 4. Dr. Ruckman claims Satan is a Fundamentalist. 5. Dr. Ruckman claims ‘The chief purpose of all higher education (Christian or otherwise) is to get rid of absolute authority (of the Bible).’ 6. Dr. Ruckman is guilty of date setting for the Second Advent. 7. Despite claims to the contrary, Dr. Ruckman displays an anti-Christian attitude toward those who do not agree with some of his interpretations on certain Scriptures. The position paper concludes: “Maryland Baptist Bible College, therefore, should not be identified with these teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman and does not wish to be identified with the same.”
Evangelist Paul Freeman also illustrates the many King James Bible defenders who reject Ruckmanism. He has published an excellent book entitled Doctrinal Changes in the Modern Versions. In a letter to me dated December 8, 1994, he wrote: “You are exactly right about Ruckman. He is a false teacher and a disgrace to the fundamental cause. I have seen graduates of the Bible Truth Institute in Sunbury, Penn., ruined by him. (I taught there for two and a half years.) His teaching on Divorce and Remarriage has put unqualified men in the ministry.”
Dr. Donald Waite is a staunch defender of the King James Bible. His book Defending the King James Bible is a classic which is widely used among KJV lovers. He believes the KJV is “God’s Word kept intact,” that it is absolutely trustworthy, and that it contains no translation errors. In Defending the King James Bible, Dr. Waite documents what he believes is the four-fold superiority of the KJV: It is superior in its texts, its translators, its techniques, and its theology. Waite has been writing on this subject since the founding of the Bible for Today ministry in 1971. He helped found the Dean Burgon Society in 1978 and has been its president ever since. This society exists to defend the Received Text and the KJV. Its motto is “In defense of traditional Bible text.” This refers to the traditional Massoretic Hebrew Old Testament Text that underlies the King James Bible, the traditional Greek New Testament Received Text, and the King James Bible itself, which is the traditional English Bible. Dr. Waite’s Bible for Today ministry offers the largest collection of material defending the King James Bible available today, including many reprints of rare 19th-century classics such as Burgon’s Revision Revised and Hoskier’s Codex B and Its Allies. As of 1992 the Bible for Today carried over 900 titles on textual issues. In spite of his unhesitating stand for the King James Bible, Dr. Waite has been labeled a heretic by Peter Ruckman because Waite rejects Ruckman’s views that the English is advanced revelation and because Dr. Waite refuses to apply the term “inspiration” to the translation of the Bible, believing, instead, that “God Himself did not ‘breathe out’ English, or German, or French, or Spanish, or Latin, or Italian. He did ‘breathe out’ Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek” (Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p. 246). In spite of Dr. Waite’s firm stand against a Ruckman position which confuses inspiration and preservation and exalts English above the Hebrew/Greek text, James White lumps Waite directly into the Ruckman camp. This is how extremely biased his book is.
The Biblical Fundamentalist is a bi-monthly paper published in Australia. The founding editor, the late Sidney W. Hunter, stood for the Received Text and the King James Bible, yet the June 1, 1993, issue of the Biblical Fundamentalist contained an article entitled “Ruckmanism--Its Attack on the KJV.” In this article Hunter stated:
“In his book The Monarch of Books (page 9), Ruckman states that ‘The King James text is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century. … The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611.’ Notice the implications of this absurd statement. Ruckman is saying that just as God closed the Old Testament with the Book of Malachi 389 years before Christ, He has now closed the Bible in the year 1611 with the KJV. What about people who speak languages other than English? Ruckman’s position indicates that foreign translations must be made from the English KJV, ignoring the Hebrew and Greek altogether. … Ruckman’s fascination with advanced revelation no doubt played a part in his setting the date for the rapture, in his book Zero Hour Approaches, to take place the 14th of May, 1989. It is not hard to get sucked into Ruckmanism. A Bible reader sees problems with the modern translations. He then understands that the Westcott and Hort Greek text used in modern translations is not as reliable as the Received Text used in the KJV. He begins reading Ruckman’s literature or listening to his tapes and rightly understands that the KJV translation is superior to other translations. Ruckman then introduces him to the teaching that the KJV is an up-date on the original Hebrew and Greek and contains advanced revelation. Having been cunningly led this far, the reader accepts Ruckman’s error. At first he plans to ‘eat the meat and spit out the bones,’ but soon he becomes a Ruckmanite.”
I am another of the King James Bible defenders who have warned about Ruckmanism. I have written a booklet entitled What about Ruckman, which has been widely distributed and well received among a wide range of King James Bible defenders (and hated by others!). It was first printed in 1994 and the latest edition contains 44 pages of information. It is also at our web site in the Bible Version section of the Apostasy Database—http://www.wayoflife.org.
During the early years of our missionary work in South Asia (which began in January 1979), I diligently researched the Bible text-translation issue. I had studied Greek with a UBS 3rd edition Greek New Testament in Bible school and had been taught that the text debate was basically a non-issue. My Greek teacher, who was trained at Dallas Theological Seminary, taught us that the KJV and the NASV and the NIV and the Received Greek New Testament and the UBS Greek New Testament were all equally God’s Word. It was up pretty much to us to pick and choose. By the time I graduated from school I was somewhat prejudiced against a “KJV only” position and was on the verge of questioning whether or not the disputed textual passages were the preserved Word of God. When we began to examine the Bible translations in South Asian languages, I realized I had to make a decision on this crucial issue. The Bible, of course, is foundational to everything that a missionary preacher does. I could not accept the idea that the texts and versions are roughly equal. I consider that an insane position. A Greek text that is shorter by thousands of words is not the same as another that contains those words. I realized there was a solemn choice to be made, and I prayerfully set about to find the answer. In the course of my studies in those days I was confronted with Peter Ruckman’s writings.
My conclusion was expressed in a letter I wrote to Dr. Ruckman from Nepal on January 24, 1985. I told him that I had reached the conclusion that he had done more damage to the cause of the King James Bible than many of its detractors. I said: "...your writings--because of the spirit in which they are given--actually make me desire to flee from whatever beliefs you are propounding. I sincerely fear ... that you have done more damage to the cause of the truth of the preservation of the Textus Receptus and the faithful translations thereof than have the enemies of this position." I explained that I was a writer and that since I had reached such a conclusion I was determined to mention it at times in my writings and I wanted to let him know personally how I felt. I came to the conclusion that Dr. Ruckman was a hindrance to the cause of the King James Bible because his heretical doctrines (i.e., salvation is by works in the Old Testament and the Tribulation), his multiple divorces, his angry spirit, his Alexandrian cult mentality, his extremism regarding the KJV being advanced revelation, tend to cause men to reject the entire issue. Ruckman’s teaching has also caused many unnecessary divisions and problems in churches. It is one thing if a Christian tries to stand for the Word of God and leaves a church that does not so stand, a church that promotes the new versions, but it is quite another matter if a Christian becomes caught up in Ruckman's peculiar doctrines and spirit and comes to the conclusion that his church is apostate because it does not accept all of the jots and tittles of a Ruckman approach even though it is a King James only church.
James White ignores the fact that Ruckman and many of his followers treat men like me as enemies basically on the same level as those who are members of his Alexandrian Cult. Through the years I have received literally thousands of letters and e-mail from those who were offended by my writings on various topics. I have written hundreds of articles and have published a dozen major books and 150 or more booklets, and in response I have heard from Mormons, Catholics, Masons, Charismatics, Seventh-day Adventists, Promise Keepers, modernists, infant baptizers, Tulip Calvinists, Southern Baptists, modern version defenders, Contemporary Christian Music lovers, and many others who took umbrage with one or another of my books and articles. None were more discourteous, more obnoxious, more unreasonable than some (though not all) of those who have written to me to express their anger that I would say something negative about Peter Ruckman (or Gail Riplinger).
Ruckman has dedicated articles in his magazine to mocking me just because I have had the gall to critique his views. In one brief article he called me a “conceited ass,” a “lying rascal,” “little hypocrite,” “buttery, smook, slick, mush-mouthed sissy,” “wimp,” “puffed-up, conceited ass” (Peter Ruckman, Bible Believer’s Bulletin, November 1994). To me, this demonstrates that Ruckman’s objective is not purely the defense of the King James Bible (which I defend without reservation) but the defense also of his own self. Of course, this tends to be the way of the flesh, of which we all partake. Dr. Ruckman is a brilliant but twisted man, and to lump the majority of King James Bible defenders into his camp is wrong and even slanderous. I believe Peter Ruckman is a saved man who knows and loves the Lord and who is genuinely zealous for God’s Word, but something is strange and twisted about the man.
The reader would do well to ask himself why men like White persist in this approach. Why are they so powerfully motivated to force King James Bible defenders into the mold of someone like Dr. Ruckman? I believe the answer is simple. They do not want to deal with the real issues of the Bible text debate.
The same can be said of White’s treatment of Gail Riplinger. He uses her and her book New Age Bible Versions as one of the key examples of King James Bible defense, but he fails to inform his readers that many King James Bible defenders reject Mrs. Riplinger’s conspiratorial, conjecture-filled approach. Repeatedly White cites some erroneous or strange statement by Riplinger, then makes a comment that such a statement exposes the error of the “KJV Only” position. Consider the following examples of this:
“We note the irony of the strongly anti-Calvinistic bent of such KJV Only writers as Gail Riplinger in light of the fact that Rainolds, as a Puritan, was very much a Calvinist. The inconsistency of the KJV Only position is again seen with clarity” (White, p. 88).
“Yet, she makes the following comment in regard to this, which I feel is extremely important for anyone wishing to understand the thinking of KJV Onlyism” (White, p. 108).
Thus we see that White attempts to make a direct connection between some of Mrs. Riplinger’s possible inconsistent and indefensible statements and the King James Bible defense in general. There is no doubt that Riplinger’s book has been very popular, as any sensationalistic book like this usually is, but her book is only four years old and she is relatively a neophyte in the Bible version battle, as she herself would admit. It is silly to use her book as one of the two key examples to describe the entire defense of the King James Bible. By the way, someone sympathetic to Mrs. Riplinger might be thinking here, “Yea, old Cloud probably thinks White should have used HIM as a key example of KJV defense.” By no means do I believe any such thing. I am a nobody in the Bible version debate. I believe While should have used men like Dr. Edward F. Hills, Dr. Donald Waite, Dr. Thomas Strouse, and a hundred other scholarly defenders of the TR-KJV. White does mention Hills and Waite, but he does not give serious consideration to their important work. I am glad that I read the works of these men before I read White’s book. Had I read White’s book as a young Bible school student or as a young missionary, and had I taken him seriously, I would have had a very shallow, insufficient conception of the works of KJV defenders, and I might not have taken the time to read Hills, Waite, Fuller, and others.
James White does not explain that many KJV defenders have themselves exposed Riplinger’s errors and extremism. I have a large file folder with correspondence from King James Bible defenders who agree with me about the danger of Riplinger’s book (and also from many who bitterly disagree with me!). White also does not explain that even many of those who find good in Mrs. Riplinger’s book do so with many reservations. Why does he not give this information?
The Trinitarian Bible Society, for example, published a critical review of her work at least a year before White’s book was published. Consider an excerpt:
“She makes here statements without differentiating between the various translations, nor with differentiation between the reasons for the fallacies in these translations (e.g., text, translation principles, etc.). … In addition, the book contains many factual errors, false innuendos, mistakes in logic, misquotations and instances of misleading research as well as general English language errors [in accompanying appendixes examples are given of each of these charges]. … It is therefore recommended that this book be read with the utmost discernment and that nothing be taken at face value. As far as is possible, the reader is encouraged to verify the truth of the information presented in this book before accepting and repeating the information to others. Because of the vast number of problems with this book, the Trinitarian Bible Society believe it is not trustworthy and therefore should not be used to defend the Authorised Version” (A Review of New Age Bible Versions, Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England, 1994).
The year before White’s book appeared, I published a booklet entitled New Age Bible Versions: A Critique. I summarized my position as follows:
“While I do not believe the connection between the modern versions and the New Age is as direct as Mrs. Riplinger contends, and I would discount many of the connections she tries to make, I have no doubt that there is a demonic involvement in the modern versions. I believe one can trace a clear line of demonic deception stretching from Tischendorf to Metzger. I do not see the modern versions DIRECTLY PROMOTING the New Age. Rather I believe the facts testify that the multiplicity of modern versions is AIDING the New Age by subtly weakening the authority the Word of God once held in the churches and in society. This having been said, I must hasten to add that I cannot recommend New Age Bible Versions by Mrs. Gail Riplinger. There are many good points made in the book, but it is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource” (D.W. Cloud, A Critique of New Age Bible Versions, 1994).
Before printing this review I wrote to Mrs. Riplinger and asked her to reply to my concerns. She has never answered me personally. Instead, she dedicated a chapter of a subsequent book to mocking me after the fashion of Peter Ruckman. The chapter is called “O Madmen” in mockery of the title of my monthly magazine, O Timothy. Though younger than me and though she herself is unqualified to be in church leadership or to teach or usurp authority over men, she calls me, an ordained Baptist preacher who has been in the ministry for almost 25 years, a “yearling who is still trying to figure out how to get the milk out of the bowl.” Playing mockingly with my name, she says that clouds are full of hot air and are always changing their shape. The chapter is filled with such childish things. In my critique of this harsh piece of writing I counted no less than seven outright slanders about me. Riplinger’s book which includes her mocking review of me is entitled Blind Guides, and she has included me as one of these guides. Why? Do I defend the King James Bible? I certainly do. Have I ever questioned anything in the King James Bible? Not a word. Do I support any modern version? Not one. Why, then, am I lumped into her blind guides category with men like James White? I cannot answer that with certainty, but it appears that because of her conspiratorial mindset, any questioning of her position is looked upon as a demonic attack and the person doing the questioning is looked upon as someone corrupted or influenced by the New Age. I only know that she viciously twisted my simple critique of her book and has demonstrated a very strange attitude. It is precisely the way Peter Ruckman has dealt with me and with many others who have crossed him.
James White knew exactly what he was doing when he selected Ruckman and Riplinger to be the chief spokesmen for the defense of the King James Bible. He is a clever man.
WHITE REPEATEDLY ATTACKS THE INTELLIGENCE AND SCHOLARSHIP OF AV DEFENDERS.
Consider this statement in the opening pages of White’s book: “The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for induction into the KJV Only camp” (White, Introduction, p. v).
This theme percolates throughout the book, and it is an approach which is typical of those who defend the modern versions or who promote the position that the preserved Word of God is scattered throughout the texts and versions. Invariably they look down upon men who defend the Authorized Version or the Received Text. They ignore the scholarly credentials and diligent study of men like Edward Hills, Donald Waite, D.O. Fuller, Bruce Lackey, Thomas Strouse, and James Qurollo. They ignore the diligent research behind the writings of many Authorized Version defenders. They ignore the vast libraries which many AV defenders have built in their effort to know the truth on this issue. They pretend that intelligent, learned people do not become defenders of the King James Bible.
Consider another example of this haughty approach from White’s book: “KJV Only individuals are not generally interested in church history as a subject” (White, p. 10). This is one of the strangest statements in this strange book. I don’t know what people White has in mind, and I don’t know what part of Mars he has been living on, but many of the King James Bible defenders with whom I fellowship are keenly interested in church history. Many of them, including me, have built extensive libraries in this area of research. I have rare books on the history of the Waldensians, the Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church, etc., which I have obtained at great expense, having paid as much as $1000 for one set of books and several hundred dollars each for other books and sets. I have diligently searched out volumes on the subject of the text and transmission of the Bible, and on visits to serious theological libraries, including the British Library, I have added to my collection via copies of rare books on microfiche and photocopies of rare books which I have not been able to purchase outright. My personal library on the history of the English Bible is a very serious collection. White might reply, “You are an exception, Brother Cloud,” but in my experience and knowledge of KJV defenders, I can say that he is wrong. I personally know hundreds of King James Bible defenders who love church history and have studied it diligently.
I must admit that though insidious, White’s approach is effective. His constant implication that the defense of the King James Bible is predicated upon ignorance is intimidating, particularly to young preachers. What man wants to be known as a member of a society of ignoramuses! What man will spend the time and money to obtain and study books written by ignorant writers?
Consider one more example from White’s book, illustrating his attitude toward those who defend the King James Bible: “It should be axiomatic among Christian scholars that open discussion and liberty should prevail. THAT IS ONE REASON WHY KJV ONLYISM HAS FOUND NO TRUE PROPONENT AMONGST CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS: it denies anyone the freedom to examine the KJV on the very same basis as any other translation. The position is, by its nature, anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, and anti-freedom” (emphasis added) (White, p. 151).
Let me make the following comments on this amazing statement: First, White sounds exactly like the theological modernist here. This is precisely how the haughty modernist speaks about those who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. White’s New Evangelical training at a Southern Baptist university and at Fuller Seminary is coming through loud and clear. The modernist charges Bible believers with not granting “liberty” to those who hold opposing views. He charges them with being anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, and anti-freedom. I am sorry, but the view that the Bible is the infallible Word of God cannot possibly allow freedom for “other views.” If it is the infallible Word of God, it must be defended as such and no quarter can be given. Likewise, the view that God has preserved His Word in the Received Text and the King James Bible cannot possibly grant liberty for other views to be equal, because those other views promote Bibles which the King James Bible defender views as corrupt. A corrupt text can never be equal to a preserved one, and an impure translation can never be equal to an accurate one. It is all well and good for James White to be broadminded on this topic. That is impossible for the Received Text-King James Bible defender.
Second, White is lying here. He says there are NO proponents of “KJV Onlyism” among Christian scholars. We wonder how Mr. White defines a Christian scholar. Must one have a Ph.D. in textual criticism? If so, White himself does not quality. The fact is that James White has himself admitted that there are scholars who defend the King James Bible. He mentions some of these in his own book: Dr. Donald Waite (Th.D. with honors from Dallas and Ph.D. from Purdue), Dr. Edward F. Hills (Ph.D. from Harvard), and Dr. Peter Ruckman (Ph.D. from Bob Jones University). Though we don’t agree with Dr. Ruckman on many points, as has been noted already, there can be no doubt that he is a Christian scholar. He has an earned Ph.D., is at home in the biblical languages, and is a brilliant and widely read man on many subjects. I have already said I believe the man is twisted; but the fact that he is twisted, in the thinking of some, does not mean he is not a genuine Christian scholar. Peter Ruckman is certainly as much a scholar as James White. Dr. Edward Hills was trained at the very highest scholarly level in textual criticism. Dr. Waite has better Greek and Hebrew credentials than James White and has decades more experience with the languages. When Dr. Waite began writing on the topic of Bible versions in 1971, James White was eight years old. While James was growing up and being educated at the feet of New Evangelical compromisers, Dr. Waite was conducting painstaking research projects, such as comparing, word-for-word, the Westcott-Hort Text with the Received Text, the NIV with the KJV, the original 1611 KJV with the modern KJV, the NKJV with the KJV, the NASV with the KJV, etc. James White does not come up to the level of any one of these three men in scholarly credentials, yet he puffs himself up with the silly statement that no scholars are “King James only.” It must be a joke, but we are not laughing.
If James White would argue that Dr. Hills was not “King James Only,” we would remind him that he himself uses Hills as an example of such in his own book.
Further, in chapter one of his book, White groups “KJV Only” into five broad categories. White’s group two includes those who “are joined by their common belief that the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used by the King James translators are, for various reasons, superior to all other original languages.” White’s group three is defined as those who are “Received Text only.” Within White’s five categories of “King James Onlyism” would fall every man that I have researched in our history For Love of the Bible.
Allow me to give a partial list of Christian scholars who fit James White’s own definition of “King James Only” -- Oswald Allis, Robert Barnett, David Blunt, Clinton Brainine, James Brookes, Terrance Brown, Mark Buch, John Burgon, E.L. Bynum, John Cereghin, Donald Clark, Frederic Cook, Bruce Cummons, Robert Lewis Dabney, William De Jonge, Russell Dennis, Nielson DiVietro, David Engelsma, Robert Flanigan, Everett Fowler, Paul Freeman, David Otis Fuller, Denis Gibson, William Grady, Jay P. Green, Sr., G.R. Guile, Herman Hanko, Robert Harbach, Samuel Hemphill, Lee Henise, Edward F. Hills, Zane Hodges, Herman Hoskier, William Hoste, Steven Houck, Kevin James, Don Jasmin, Ken Johnson, Jeffrey Khoo, Lebaron Kinney, Bruce Lackey, Gary LaMore, Theodore Letis, Alfred Levell, W. MacLean, D.K. Madden, Solomon Malan, Homer Massey, Philip Mauro, Michael Maynard, Alexander M’Caul, Alexander McClure, Edward Miller, Jack Moorman, Timothy Morton, Goebel Music, Frederick Nolan, Ian Paisley, Michael Penfold, J.C. Philpot, Jasper James Ray, Perry Rockwood, Peter Ruckman, Chick Salliby, George Samson, Robert Sargent, John Wesley Sawyer, Frederick Scrivener, Stephen J. Scott-Pearson, Ron Smith, Skip Spencer, Russell Standish, Bob Steward, Thomas Strouse, Robert G. Taylor, J.P. Thackway, D.A. Thompson, John Henry Todd, Timothy Tow, Charles Turner, Peter Van Kleeck, Oscar Von Rohr, Donald Waite, Robert J. Williams, B. Wordsworth, Ralph Yarnell, Gary Zeolla, and Samuel Zwemer. Details of these men’s research can be found in our book For Love of the Bible.
All of these men fall into one of the five groups listed by James White as “King James Only” and all are men who have done scholarly research into the issue of Bible texts and versions. Some are linguists and textual scholars; others are not. Most of these men have advanced theological degrees. The others have demonstrated their scholarship by diligent, long-standing personal research. All of these men have published material on the subject of Bible texts and versions. In my estimation, each of these men has done research that is at least as significant as that done by James White. The Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary defines a scholar as “a learned person; one trained in a special branch of learning; an advanced student.” I did not put myself in the previous list, but in all three of these dictionary senses, I am a scholar, though I do not have a Ph.D. in textual criticism. We believe in diligent study, but we also believe that many intelligent Christian men who lack advanced degrees from institutions of higher learning have nonetheless demonstrated their scholarship in Biblical and related studies. I believe God measures scholarship by a different standard than the world. First of all, God’s standard for scholarship requires that a man be born again, separated, and Spirit led and that he be a man with absolute faith in God’s Word.
Let me use the late Everett Fowler as an example. He spent many years diligently comparing the Received Text with the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the Nestles Greek Text, and the Bible Societies’ Greek Text, and several popular modern English versions. He began this research in the 1950s, when he took courses in Greek and began reading the Nestles’ Greek text. He saw that this Greek text did not follow the King James Bible which was used in his church, the famous First Baptist Church of New York City, a center for biblical fundamentalism from its origin in 1711. Fowler served with the respected Fundamentalist leader Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, who pastored the First Baptist Church from 1884 to 1933. Fowler served as a deacon in this church for 45 years, a Sunday School teacher for 40, trustee for 37, and treasurer for 21 years. In addition to his constant studies in the Greek New Testament, he read his English Bible through two times a year for 40 years. In 1976 Fowler obtained the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Received Text, and he began the textual comparisons which resulted in the publication of the book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. In my estimation, Everett Fowler was a Christian scholar and his book was a shining example of Christ-honoring Christian scholarship.
Even if James White disagrees with our definition of scholarship and would only allow us to list men who have advanced degrees from theological institutions, the entries in the above list would remain significant. I repeat, he has lied about the matter of scholarship on the side of the defense of the King James Bible.
WHITE IGNORES THE TEXTUAL TRADITION WHICH PRECEDED THE ADOPTION OF THE RECEIVED TEXT IN THE 1500S.
White ignores the old Latin tradition, which had a wide influence separate from and alongside the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. He ignores the Waldensian Romaunt translations and other translations that followed a textual stream akin to the Received Text and distinct from the modern critical text. In his diligent research into the early history of the Bible in the first few centuries following the Apostles, and into the Waldensian Romaunt and the old Latin, Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) concluded that the critical variations from the Received Text which were being introduced in his day and which are found in modern Bibles are reflections of textual corruptions which were introduced by Origen and Eusebius of Cesarea and other editors during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. Nolan concluded that the Received Text underlying the old Protestant Bibles (such as the English Authorized Version) is the text of the Apostles, and that the key omissions (such as those in Mark 16:9-20; Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16) found in the modern versions were introduced by heretics of the second and third centuries, or by those who were attempting to oppose the heretics. Nolan found evidence that the early Latin version called the Italick or old Latin was produced by Bible-believing Christians who were separate from Rome and its growing apostasy, and this biblical witness continued to be maintained in translations made by the Waldenses. The Waldensians, in the 16th century, raised the funds to publish the Olivetan French Received Text Bible, because they recognized that the text underlying it (the same text as used by Luther for German and Tyndale for English) was the one they had used for centuries in the translations which were sought out and destroyed by the Roman Catholic authorities. We have documented this history in our book Rome and the Bible: Tracing the History of the Roman Catholic Church and Its Persecution of the Bible and of Bible Believers (1996, Way of Life Literature). White leaves his readers in the dark about the true lineage of the Received Text, pretending that it was a happenstance thing created by a handful of men in the 16th century and adopted by God’s people largely because of ignorance. This is a gross perversion of history. (We will say more about Erasmus and the Received Text further on.)
WHITE ASSUMES THAT BIBLE EDITORS AND TRANSLATORS ARE ALWAYS SINCERE AND DISCOUNTS THE FEAR THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN CORRUPTED.
From beginning to end of this book, White works from the faulty assumption that differences in the texts and versions are largely based on honest mistakes by sincere transcribers. Consider some examples of this:
“And when textual variants appear in footnotes or in comparison with the KJV, believers can be assured that these things arose not because of some attempt to hide the truth from them, but due to the very understandable actions of scribes down through the centuries who were themselves doing their best to accurately copy those precious manuscripts” (White, pp. 186,87).
“In either case, no malicious intention can be asserted one way or the other” (White, p. 178).
“… there is no logical reason to impute evil motives to these translations” (White, p. 176).
“Whenever one finds a number of different variants, one can be sure that the shorter reading (that of the modern texts) is the best, as it gave rise to all the others that are found in the manuscripts” (White, p. 185).
Of course White cannot prove any of these statements. He does not know who these allegedly sincere scribes were. He cannot even give us their names, yet he pretends he knows the very motives of their hearts!
Note that White accepts the assumption of modern textual criticism that the “shorter reading” is the most accurate, that the longer reading is almost always a later scribal addition. They use this rule, not because they can prove that it is true, but because it conveniently supports the critical text and negates the longer Received Text. This strange theory is exactly the opposite to that which one would assume based on the testimony of Scripture itself. The Bible warns that the devil hates the Word of God, that he has been attacking it ever since his conversation with Eve in the Garden of Eden. In the first century, even as the New Testament Scripture was being given, the Apostles were already hounded by false teachers who were corrupting the Word of God (2 Cor. 2:17). This attack increased tremendously during the next two centuries.
In addition to copies of the apostolic books in the Greek language, within the first century after the Apostles (150 A.D.) there were also translations of the Greek New Testament into Latin and Syriac and possibly other languages. The Latin versions were very important because this language was spoken widely and was very influential. These versions multiplied and many corruptions were introduced. Heretics were busy adding to and taking away from the text, as it pleased them. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864), a diligent researcher into early church history, observed that “the founders of those different sects had tampered with the text of Scripture … in some instances the genuine text had been wholly superseded by the spurious editions” (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, pp. 468,69). They also added extra canonical books to the text in spite of the seal which had been placed on the biblical canon (Revelation 22:18,19). These spurious books included Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Teaching of the Twelve, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, etc. “The heretics of the 2nd century were so many, so brilliant, and so strong, that the fact that Christianity and the pure teaching of the New Testament survived is an impressive proof of their divine origin and authority” (Herbert Miller, General Biblical Introduction, Houghton, NY: The Word-Bearer Press, 1937, p. 141). Miller notes that these heretics rejected some the apostolic writings and mutilated others to suit their fancies and errors. “The convenience of labeling as ‘interpolations’ and casting out anything that did not square with their ideas of what should be, so highly prized in our day, was popular at this time” (Miller, p. 141). Origen (185-254) produced editions of the Bible and writings which influenced later editors, including Eusebius of Cesarea and Jerome. Origen has been called “the Father of Biblical Criticism and Exposition.” Though Origen sought to defend the Scriptures against certain heretics, he himself turned from the Faith once delivered to the saints and introduced many heretical teachings to his followers and many textual corruptions into manuscripts--corruptions which were passed on by his successors and widely disseminated in the heretical atmosphere of that time and place.
Of Origen’s textual efforts, Frederick Nolan makes the following important observation:
“… HE CONTRIBUTED TO WEAKEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW [TESTAMENT]. In the course of his Commentaries, he cited the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, on the former part of the Canon, he appealed to the authority of Valentinus and Heracleon on the latter. WHILE HE THUS RAISED THE CREDIT OF THOSE REVISALS, WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE HERETICKS, HE DETRACTED FROM THE AUTHORITY OF THAT TEXT WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ORTHODOX. Some difficulties which he found himself unable to solve in the Evangelists, he undertook to remove, BY EXPRESSING HIS DOUBTS OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT. In some instances he ventured to impeach the reading of the New Testament on the testimony of the Old, and to convict the copies of one Gospel on the evidence of another: thus giving loose to his fancy, and indulging in many wild conjectures, HE CONSIDERABLY IMPAIRED THE CREDIT OF THE VULGAR OR COMMON EDITION, as well in the New as in the Old Testament” (emphasis added) (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 432-34).
This testimony in regard to Origen is important because subsequent textual editors, Eusebius and Jerome in particular, depended upon Origen’s work. Nolan informs us that the heretical opinions of Origen had spread widely in Egypt. “Under the circumstances, the churches of Egypt were gradually prepared for the reception of a revised text, accommodated to the principles of Origen’s criticism” (Nolan, p. 440). Please remember that Frederick Nolan is no fundamental Baptist. He was writing in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th century. Few men have matched his research into the early transmission of the Biblical text, yet he tells us that Origen was moving away from the pure text of Scripture which had come from the Apostolic hands, and successive editors continued in this direction. When we consider the spiritual condition of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, it is little wonder that they lacked the discernment necessary to recognize and transmit the pure Word of God. Their heretical doctrines warn us that they were controlled by the god of this world (1 Timothy 4:1-4).
Contrast these facts of history with the view White is promoting. Like the textual scholars he is following, many of whom hold the modernistic historical-critical view of the Old Testament and documentary views of the Gospels, White operates from an almost naturalistic view of the transmission of the biblical text. In contrast to this view, we know that the devil has had an active role in attacking the Scriptures. Some might err in giving the devil too much credit for textual and translational variants, but most textual scholars err in giving the devil almost no credit. We also know that a great many of the men involved in the transmission of the text were heretics. This was true not only in the second and third centuries, but throughout the centuries. The Roman Catholic Church represents a wide stream of apostasy from the faith once delivered to the saints, and its scribes and scholars were unregenerate men. The politically dominant form of Christianity from the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries forward was the Roman Catholic Church. It tormented and persecuted Bible believing Christians. It often sought to destroy their Scriptures. It’s monks transmitted manuscripts, but to assume that they were godly, spiritually sincere men is nonsense. We have carefully documented these historical facts in our book Rome and the Bible: Tracing the History of the Roman Catholic Church and Its Persecution of the Bible and of Bible Believers.
WHITE LIGHTLY DISMISSES POWERFUL ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE LED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN TO CLEAVE TO THE RECEIVED TEXT AND THE AUTHORIZED VERSION AS THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD.
White raises some of the arguments supporting the TR and the KJV but, as a rule, he deals with them only in passing and in a light manner. Consider just two of these powerful reasons for believing the TR and the AV is the preserved Word of God: preservation and apostasy.
(1) THE DOCTRINE OF BIBLICAL PRESERVATION REQUIRES THAT WE REJECT THE MODERN TEXTS AND VERSIONS. In the thinking of multitudes of godly men, God’s promise to preserve the Scriptures requires us to reject the text which was discarded and to receive the text which was used by Bible believing Christians and blessed by God. To say that a text which was hidden away and rejected for hundreds of years and not used by God’s people (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is the preserved Word of God is beyond belief. White mentions the argument of preservation in passing, and he dismisses it, almost mocks it, in fact; but he does not answer it.
The Scriptures claim to be the infallible, inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21); it also promises that God would preserve His Word through the centuries (Ps. 12:6,7; 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2; 119:89,152,160; Is. 40:8; 59:21; Mt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; Rev. 22:18,19). The only position in the issue of Bible versions today that leaves one with a Bible preserved in its words and details is that which stands in defense of the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek Received New Testament, and the King James Bible in English. All other positions leave one, to various degrees, with uncertainty and doubt. They leave you dependent upon scholars rather than the testimony of the Word of God itself. Scoff at this if you please, but it is a serious matter.
I have found that the defenders of the King James Bible exalt the doctrine of preservation, whereas modern version proponents rarely mention it. When they do mention it, they put forth the strange position that God preserved the purest Scripture in an obscure monastery (Sinaiticus) and on an inaccessible shelf in the pope’s library (Vaticanus) and in a few other similar places.
Consider Westcott and Hort’s foundational theories of textual criticism, which have powerfully influenced the field of textual criticism in the 20th and 21st centuries. Hort theorized that there was a revision of the Greek New Testament in the 4th century in Syria that produced the Byzantine or Traditional text, and that from that point forward the Traditional text became the predominant text whereas the alleged “original” text as represented by the Vaticanus Codex was put on a shelf and not used in the vast majority of churches for 1,500 years until it was discovered and restored to prominence by the 19th century textual critics. Hort theorized that the readings of the Greek Received Text were not found in the quotations of Christian writers prior to 350 A.D. Frederic Kenyon called this the “corner-stone” of Hort’s theory (Kenyon, Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible, London: Oxford University Press, 1933, pp. 7-8). The reason that this was the cornerstone of Hort’s theory was that he believed it offered irrefutable evidence that the Traditional Text was created by a revision in the fourth century, since (so he said) it does not appear in the manuscript record prior to that.
If these foundational theories of modern textual criticism are correct, it would mean that the New Testament Scriptures were not divinely preserved in any practical sense, that they were preserved only in their rejection and disuse! This is contrary to how the Lord Jesus and the apostles commanded for the Scripture to be preserved in this age, which is by its transmission and usage among the churches, in the context of the discipleship of believers, the training of preachers, and the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Mat. 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:2).
Even though both of the aforementioned Hortian theories have since been modified significantly or proven wrong, modern textual criticism today still believes that the text they consider corrupt was the one in common use from the 4th to the 19th century and that the Alexandrian Greek text that they prefer, as represented by the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, was disused. You can call this view “divine preservation” if you want, but it is a very strange kind of preservation.
Edward F. Hills was a Presbyterian scholar who was awarded a doctorate in modern textual criticism from Harvard. Hills fought a lonely battle for many decades in defending the Traditional Text against its enemies, and he understood the necessity of faith when approaching the Bible text. He called modern textual theories “the logic of unbelief—maximum uncertainty,” and he called faith in the Traditional Text and the King James Bible “the logic of faith—maximum certainty.” I want to quote Hills to demonstrate the “King James Only” view of Bible preservation:
“If we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and defend the New Testament text in the same way that we defend the texts of other ancient books, then we are following the logic of unbelief. For the special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures is a fact and an important fact. Hence when we ignore this fact and deal with the text of the New Testament as we would with the text of other books, we are behaving as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the providential preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not an important fact, not important enough to be considered when dealing with the New Testament text. But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if the Scriptures are not infallibly inspired, how do we know that the Gospel message is true? And if the Gospel message is not true, how do we know that Jesus is the Son of God?
“Modernism has come in by degrees, beginning as early as the 17th century. ... And all during this long period conservative scholars have been combating this monstrous growth of unbelief. Their effectiveness, however, has been greatly impaired by their inconsistency. They have opposed some forms of modernism and favored others. For example, they have fulminated against Old Testament naturalistic higher criticism as satanic, but they have adopted New Testament naturalistic textual criticism as scientific. In short, without at all intending to be such, THEY HAVE BEEN HALF-WAY MODERNISTS.
“Conservative scholars, of course, have always denied this. Many of them still say that they believe in the special, providential preservation of the New Testament text. Most of them really don’t though, because, as soon as they say this, they immediately reduce this special, providential preservation to the vanishing point in order to make room for the naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort. As we have seen, some say that the providential preservation of the New Testament means merely that the same ‘substance of doctrine’ is found in all the New Testament documents. Others say that it means that the true reading is always present in at least one of the thousands of extant New Testament manuscripts. And still other scholars say that to them the special, providential preservation of the Scriptures means that the true New Testament text was providentially discovered in the mid-nineteenth century by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort after having been lost for 1,500 years.
“If you adopt one of these false views of the providential preservation of the Scriptures, then you are logically on your way toward the denial of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. For if God has preserved the Scriptures so carelessly, why would he have infallibly inspired them in the first place? It is not sufficient therefore merely to say that you believe in the doctrine of the special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures. You must really believe this doctrine and allow it to guide your thinking. You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and proceed according to the logic of faith. This will lead you to the Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version, in other words, to the common faith” (Hills, Believing Bible Study, Des Moines, Iowa: 1967, pp. 216-220).
Hill’s (whose textual scholarship excelled that of most of the men today who are promoting the modern versions) simple, down-to-earth, Christ-honoring, Bible-believing logic is too high for many scholars today, including a great many who claim to be Evangelical and Fundamental, but it thrills the heart of many humble children of God. In this context the words which Jesus spoke in Luke 10:21 are appropriate: “...I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
When modern version proponents look at the publication of the Received Text in the 1500s or of the King James Bible in the 1600s, they see weak and error-prone men. When a King James Bible-proponent looks at the same era, he sees the hand of God. Though some defenders of the modern versions claim that they believe in biblical preservation, they hold an unscriptural and inconsistent view.
(2) THE THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY THAT HAS CHARACTERIZED MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM REQUIRES THAT WE REJECT THE MODERN TEXTS AND VERSIONS. The most influential textual scholars have been rationalists who rejected the inerrant inspiration of Holy Scripture. That is a documented fact. I have hundreds of books in my library by textual scholars dating from the 18th century, and I have documented the apostasy underlying the modern textual scholarship in our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy (3rd edition 1997, Way of Life Literature). There are exceptions, of course, but the exceptions do not overthrow the rule. Since James White pretends these ideas are the brainchildren of feverish fundamental Baptists of recent decades, we will quote several men of former times and of other denominational persuasions to demonstrate our point.
Large numbers of King James Bible defenders in 19th-entury Britain understood the theological apostasy associated with the critical Greek texts. I have quoted a number of these men in our history For Love of the Bible. Let me give just one example for our purposes here. In 1819 Henry John Todd, chaplain to the king of England and keeper of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s records, published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible. This work was occasioned by the clamor of some who were wanting to correct the Received Greek New Testament and the King James Bible on the basis of modern textual criticism. This clamoring gradually increased among a relatively small segment of influential scholars through the 19th century and resulted, ultimately, in the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament and the English Revised Version of 1881. Todd understood that modern textual criticism was intimately associated with theological heresy. I searched for Todd’s treatise for five years and finally located it in the British Library. Consider the following important excerpt:
“For when we see men of the most latitudinarian principles uniformly pressing forward this dangerous proposal; when we see the most unbounded panegyrics bestowed on those, who have converted the Mosaic history into allegory, and the New Testament into Socinianism; when we see these attempts studiously fostered, and applauded, by the advocates for this projected [Bible] revision; we must conjecture, that something more is meant than a correction of mistakes, or an improvement of diction. Those doctrines, the demolition of which we know to be, in late instances, the grand object of such innovators when they propose alterations in articles of faith, or correction of liturgical forms, are surely in still greater danger when attempted, by the same men, under the distant approaches of a revision of our English Bible (Todd, A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible, 1819, pp. 79,80).
Todd and a vast number of other 18th- and 19th-century Christian scholars and preachers understood that the field of textual criticism was dominated by and was promoted by those who were infected with theological modernism. Twentieth-century textual criticism has merely built upon this skeptical foundation. James White claims this is the figment of a Ruckmanite’s imagination, but he can only say that by ignoring history. In the early part of the 19th century, the critical Greek text was successfully resisted precisely on the same basis upon which the King James Bible defender today resists the modern texts and versions, but by the end of that same century, it was accepted. Someone might ask, “Why did the Westcott-Hort text eventually prevail?” The answer is not hard to find. Theological rationalism spread like ivy. There is a saying about ivy that describes it growth stages: it sleeps; it creeps; it leaps. That is what happened with modernism. It was planted in the 18th century and slept for some time. It began to creep in the early 19th century; and from the middle to the end of the century it was spreading like wildfire across the Christian landscape. By the end of the century it was so well-entrenched in high places of Christian scholarship in British Protestant and Baptist denominations that it was able to win the day. Not only were many scholars themselves afflicted with modernistic views of the Bible, but a vast number of others, not themselves modernistic in theology, were nonetheless too spiritually weak to boldly resist modernism. Instead, they were quite willing to work hand-in-hand with the modernists, ignoring God’s warnings, “evil communications corrupt good manners” and “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”
We see this in the Baptist Union of Spurgeon’s day. He took his stand and left the Union in 1887, but most of the men who claimed to hold the same view of the Bible that Spurgeon held, nevertheless refused to discipline the modernists or to separate from them. In practice, they were forerunners of the New Evangelicals of our century. Spurgeon described the wretched situation in 1887 England with these powerful words:
“Believers in Christ’s atonement are now in declared union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death. … Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing their union with those who deny the faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ. To be very plain, we are unable to call these things Christian Unions, they begin to look like Confederacies in Evil” (Sword and Trowel, November 1887).
Spurgeon’s battles against modernism within the Baptist Union occurred at precisely the same time that the English Revised Version was being prepared, and the same battle was being fought (and lost) in other denominations, including Anglicanism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Methodism. (An excellent overview of this is found in The Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain Murray, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2nd edition 1973). In other words, apostasy had effectively prepared the way for the modern text and versions. The men we describe in our book For Love of the Bible, who fought earnestly against the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the English Revised Version, understood these facts.
The Trinitarian Bible Society wisely warns: “We must not permit our judgment to be overawed by great names in the realm of biblical ‘scholarship’ when it is so clearly evident that the distinguished scholars of the present century are merely reproducing the case presented by rationalists during the last two hundred years” (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, T.B.S. Article No. 14, p. 13). We would ask James White if the Trinitarian Bible Society, which was founded in Britain in the 19th century as a reaction against modernism, is a fundamental Baptist Ruckmanite cult.
Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar testified: “We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?
Of Westcott and Hort, who produced the Greek text underlying the Revised Version of 1881, Dallas Seminary professor Zane Hodges warned in 1971: “The charge of rationalism is easily substantiated for Westcott and Hort and may be demonstrated from direct statements found in their introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek. To begin with, Westcott and Hort are clearly unwilling to commit themselves to the inerrancy of the original Scriptures. … Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate.” (Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Dallas Seminary, January 1971, pp. 27-35). We don’t agree with Hodges’ support of the Majority text view which differs somewhat from the Received Text; but he has a keen understanding of the rationalism which underlies the modern texts and versions, and his writings have encouraged some men to take a closer look at this subject and to reject the critical Greek text and the modern versions based upon this text. One of these is James Qurollo, Academic Dean and Greek professor, Ambassador Baptist College (900 South Post Road, Shelby, NC 28150. 704-480-0500). Qurollo got his bachelor’s with a major in Greek from Wheaton College in 1964 and his master’s degree in New Testament from the same institution in 1966. He was taught the Westcott-Hort position, but God led him to reject it. His testimony is among the hundreds we have included in our book For Love of the Bible.
For a discerning overview of the theology of Westcott and Hort, see Dr. Donald Waite’s The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort: As Seen in Their Own Writings. Also Heresies of Westcott & Hort. Both are available from The Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.
In continuing to summarize the stream of apostasy underlying the modern texts and versions, consider some of the other translators of the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version, the predecessors of all modern 20th-century English versions. At least three of the translators--GEORGE VANCE SMITH, EZRA ABBOT, and JOSEPH HENRY THAYER--were Christ-denying Unitarians. Abbot and Thayer held influential positions at Harvard Divinity School and taught several generations of students the principles of textual criticism (teaching them to despise the Received Text and the King James Bible). A number of their pupils went on to hold influential positions in this field. An example is Caspar René Gregory (1846-1917). This man, who wrote influential books on textual criticism (Canon and Text of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), was a pupil of Ezra Abbot at Harvard. He also was the son-in-law to Thayer (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, p. 216).
All three of these textual scholars boldly and unequivocally denied the Deity of Jesus Christ and the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture. I have two of Smith’s books in my library, and it is very significant that he gloried in the various changes in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Revised Version (the same changes appear in the UBS Greek Text and the NIV) BECAUSE THESE TEXTUAL CHANGES MADE IT EASIER FOR HIM TO DISPUTE THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST. We believe this Unitarian understood something which James White, for some reason, cannot see.
When a public outcry ensued across Britain because of Unitarian George Smith’s presence on the committee, Westcott and Hort threatened to resign if Smith was not allowed to participate. All of this is carefully documented in our book For Love of the Bible.
Another of the ERV translators, WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH, was dismissed from his professorship of Old Testament at the Aberdeen College by the Free Church of Scotland in 1881 because of his modernistic views. By that time, the “new views” were so entrenched in Anglicanism and Presbyterianism in England that Smith was invited to a professorship at Cambridge and was given a seat on the Old Testament translation committee for the completion of the Revised Version. Some of Smith’s articles appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject of the Bible. These were filled with wicked speculation and unbelief. He denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He denied the accuracy of the Masoretic Hebrew Text. He threw “as much uncertainty as possible over the authorship of the Psalms.”
Another ERV translator, CONNOP THIRLWALL, was known for his attempts to promote German rationalistic theology in Britain. He collaborated in the English publication of books by German heretics Niebuhr and Schleiermacher. During a visit to the British Library in 1997, I located Letters Literary and Theological of Connop Thirlwall (London: Richard Bentley & Sons, 1881). In this one book English Revised Version committee member Thirlwall questioned the canon of Scripture; said the Bible was not accurate in its scientific statements; said it is not important whether or not we believe in the existence of God; questioned the divine inspiration of some of the Psalms; admitted uncertainty as to whether Christ operated on a divine supernatural level in His earthly ministry; claimed that Job 19:25-27 could not possibly refer to Job’s resurrection; questioned the infallible inspiration of the Pentateuch; etc. This is the type of theologian and textual scholar who was warmly welcome within the fellowship of men which produced the English Revised Version and which first brought the Westcott-Hort Greek text to light. It is obvious that it was not the strong Bible-believing crowd in Britain who produced the Westcott-Hort text and the Revised Version.
It was also not the strong Bible-believing crowd who produced the revision on the American side. PHILIP SCHAFF, the head of the American Standard Version committee, was twice brought to trial for heresy while teaching at the Theological Seminary of the German Reformed Church of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. His first public address in America in 1844 “was so Romish, that, when it was translated into English and published, it produced a storm of criticism, and brought forth accusations of Romanizing and Tractarian tendencies” (George Coy, The Inside Story of the Anglo American Revised New Testament, 1973, p. 89). Failing to obtain the dismissal of Schaff from the German Reformed Church seminary at Mercersburg, two Reformed groups (the Reformed Dutch Church and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church) separated themselves from the German Reformed Church “on account of her countenance of these works and their authors” (New Brunswick Review, August 1854). Though Schaff was able to avoid outright dismissal, his liberal views eventually forced him to move. His “broad views” were more at home at Union Seminary. In our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy and also in For Love of the Bible we have given excerpts from The Life of Philip Schaff by his son, David, proving that Schaff was a theological heretic. In fact, he was an early forerunner of the ecumenists of our day who are seeking the unity of all denominations with the Roman Catholic Church.
Following the stream of modern version apostasy down toward our day we come to the REVISED STANDARD VERSION of 1952. This thoroughly modernistic project was accomplished by the theologically heretical National Council of Churches in America. The translators included some of the most notorious Modernists of this century. In our books For Love of the Bible and Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy, we have given excerpts from a number of books written by RSV translators. Consider one example, Clarence Craig, who is representative of the whole. Craig’s heretical position on biblical inspiration can be contrasted sharply with that of the men who produced the text and translations in the lineage of the King James Bible.
“Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book. ... Even on Christian soil it has sometimes been held that the books of the Bible were practically dictated to the writers through the Holy Spirit. ... I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN POSITION. If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility. ... The true Christian position is the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelation” (Clarence T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity).
By the way, it is inconsistent to reject the Revised Standard Version for its modernism while accepting the New International Version because of its supposed theological conservatism. The NIV is founded upon basically the same critical, eclectic Greek text which contains basically the same departures from the Traditional Text as the RSV. Personally, I would reject the NIV on the basis of either one of just two corrupted verses, one in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2) and one in the New (1 Timothy 3:16).
Continuing to follow the stream of apostasy underlying the modern texts and versions, we come to THE EDITORS OF THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, which is the predominant critical Greek text used in colleges and seminaries today. The editors include BRUCE METZGER, CARLO MARTINI, EUGENE NIDA, and KURT ALAND. Not one of these men believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. Martini is an Archbishop in the Catholic Church, the head of the largest Catholic diocese in the world. Metzger works for the National Council of Churches in America and promotes the modernistic historical-critical views of the Old Testament. Eugene Nida is one of the fathers of the destructive modern theories of dynamic equivalency. Kurt Aland, co-editor of the Nestle-Aland Greek text since the 1940s, claims the canon of Scripture is not settled, and he believes the settling of this “question” is a key to the ecumenical unity between churches, denominations, and schools which he desires to see (Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, 1962, pp. 30-33). In our books For Love of the Bible and Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy we have documented the heresies of these men from their own writings.
If we wanted to take the time, we could travel on in this vein of thought to fill many volumes. We could consider the apostasy, for example, of the United Bible Societies and of the major Bible publishers today. I have written a book to expose the heresy and unregeneracy which abides in the UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES. It is called Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Word: A Report on the United Bible Societies, and is available from Way of Life Literature. It reveals the uniting of the Bible Societies with the Roman Catholic Church in recent decades. It reveals the theological modernism of the editors and translators who produced such influential Bible Society translations as the New English Version (British & Foreign Bible Society) and the Today’s English Version (American Bible Society). A look at the very influential THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHERS would fill another volume. We could mention Thomas Nelson’s Roman Catholic publishing division, for instance.
These, then, are the type of men who have led the charge for the critical text. The Bible commands us to mark and avoid such heretics. It would be the greatest form of confusion for God to tell us to separate from the very men who are (allegedly) giving us the pure Word of God today.
In summarizing this issue we quote again from Dr. Edward F. Hills. He recognized the rationalism and unbelief inherent in this system. Every modern version is built upon this rationalistic foundation. In his books he exposed the modernistic influences which led to the development of textual criticism, and he contrasted unbelieving textual scholarship with a Christ-honoring, Bible-believing approach. By the way, Dr. Hills was bitterly persecuted by the scholarly world for rejecting the popular line. Consider the testimony of this brilliant, yet humble scholar:
“Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he must attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Bible Defended, Introduction, 3rd ed., 1979, p. 1).
“... the Bible version which you use ... has already been decided for you by the workings of God’s special providence. If you ignore this providence and choose to adopt one of these modern versions, you will be taking the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same arguments which unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. If you adopt one of these modern versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. This naturalistic textual criticism requires us to study the New Testament text in the same way in which we study the texts of secular books which have not been preserved by God’s special providence” (Hills, Believing Bible Study, Des Moines, Iowa: Christian Research Press, 1967, pp. 226,27).
It is sad that James White cannot understand these important matters, and it is even sadder that he presents the views of men like Dr. Hills in such a shoddy manner that his readers probably will not study Hills for themselves.
BUT MANY SCHOLARS ARE “EVANGELICALS”
Do I hear James White and others protest, perhaps, that the New International Version was produced by “evangelicals” and has produced a strong “evangelical” movement? I do not believe that modern evangelicalism is a biblical movement. It can be demonstrated, in fact, that New Evangelical compromise has paved the way for today’s wholesale acceptance of the modern versions in the Evangelical world. Already in 1952 Billy Graham, New Evangelicalism’s foremost popularizer, accepted a copy of the RSV and told a crowd of 20,000 people: “These scholars have probably given us the most nearly perfect translation in English. While there may be room for disagreement in certain areas of the translation, yet this new version should supplement the King James Version and make Bible reading a habit throughout America” (Graham, cited by Perry Rockwood, God’s Inspired Preserved Bible, nd., p. 15).
Graham’s endorsement of the Revised Standard Version foreshadowed Evangelicalism’s capitulation to the endless stream of modern versions. Graham has endorsed practically every new version to appear on the scene, no matter how flippant and unfaithful, including the Living Bible (which he almost single-handedly rescued from oblivion), J.B. Phillips’ New Testament (Phillips, The Price of Success: An Autobiography, p. 116), and the blasphemous Good News for Modern Man (Today’s English Version) which replaces the word “blood” with “death” in speaking of the atonement of Jesus Christ and which perverts practically every passage on the Deity of Christ.
As New Evangelicalism has gradually leavened the entire Evangelical world over the past fifty years, the modern versions have increased in popularity. Many seem confused by the fact that most Evangelical leaders today give wholehearted endorsement to the critical Greek text as well as to the versions based upon them. “How could all of these men be wrong?” they muse. The answer, which many find difficult to accept but which is based upon historical reality, lies in the fact that New Evangelicalism is a form of apostasy. It is founded upon a willful repudiation of many of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity. It is a pragmatic approach to Christianity instead of simple obedience to the Bible.
The term “New Evangelicalism” was coined by the late Harold Ockenga (1905-1985) to define a new type of Evangelicalism and to distinguish it from those who had heretofore born that label. Ockenga has had a phenomenal influence upon today’s Evangelicalism. He was the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today. In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the position of New Evangelicalism:
“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of Fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. It differed from Fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.”
Ockenga and the new generation of Evangelicals, Billy Graham figuring most prominently, determined to abandon a militant Bible stance. We don’t believe New Evangelicalism was born with Ockenga’s 1948 address. Ockenga merely verbalized a position of neutrality and pragmatism that already existed in the hearts of many Evangelicals of that generation.
Ockenga contended that Evangelicals should practice infiltration rather than separation, meaning they should stay in the apostate denominations and organizations and try to change them from within rather than separate from them and serve God in pure New Testament churches. He contended that Evangelicals should practice dialogue rather than exhortation, that they should not be negative in their message by rebuking error and warning of false teachers publicly and specifically, but should attempt to change the false teachers through dialogue. He taught that Evangelicals should reexamine their idea of worldliness and not be as strict about separating from worldly evils as Bible-believing Christians had been in earlier days.
Ockenga decided that Evangelicals should consider the possibility that modern science was right in some areas in which it disagreed with the Bible. The prime example of this was in the origin of the world. Ockenga did not think Christians should so easily ignore the teaching of evolution as separatists were accustomed to do. He taught that there could be a synthesis between modern science and the Bible.
Ockenga also believed that Christians should aim to meet Modernists and the men of the world on their own scholastic level and therefore contended that Christian leaders should be as well educated in the social sciences and liberal arts as unregenerate scholars and as well-versed in Bible criticism as the Modernists. The idea was that the Christian leader should seek to influence men through human wisdom and scholarship rather than purely though the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word of God as we see in the ministries of the Apostles.
God says, “Walk ye in the old paths,” but the New Evangelical reassesses the old paths. God says, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” but the New Evangelical has removed them one by one. God says, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” but the New Evangelical reasons that such fellowship is necessary. God says, “A little leaven leaventh the whole lump,” but the New Evangelical thinks he can reform the already leavened lump. God says “evil communications corrupt good manners,” but the New Evangelical thinks good manners can uplift evil communications. God says, “I resist the proud but give grace to the humble,” but the New Evangelical thinks the way to reach the world is by meeting them on their own proud territory, matching them scholarly degree with degree.
The Bible warns that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. This is why God requires that His people separate from error. If they do not, they will be devoured by the error. Since 1945 the fearful consequences of apostasy have become evident throughout the Evangelical world.
Evangelicalism’s apostasy is seen in its cozy relationship with Roman Catholicism. There are exceptions, of course, but most popular Evangelical men and organizations have strong sympathies toward the Roman Catholic Church. Endless examples could be given of this. In a series of four books entitled Flirting With Rome: Evangelical Entanglement with Romanism, the author documents this amazing and fearful thing. [These books are available from Way of Life Literature, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277.] The 1994 statement “Evangelicals & Catholics Together,” which was signed by many well-known Evangelicals, called for an even closer relationship between Evangelicals and Catholics. Evangelical publishers are busy putting out books sympathetic to Rome and calling for ecumenical relationships. As early as 1971 Fleming H. Revell published A Prejudiced Protestant Takes a New Look at the Catholic Church by James Hefley. Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, which appeared in 1977, used two Roman Catholic historians as contributing editors. It is no wonder that Rome’s butchery of Bible believers receives small thrift in this Evangelical publication, while Pope John Paul XXIII is praised as having “a deep but traditional piety”! In 1979 Tyndale House Publishers came out with Three Sisters by Michael Harper. This book called for ecumenical unity between Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Roman Catholics. The author stated, “It is my own conviction that a growing unity between the three forces in the Christian world is both desirable and possible” (p. 41). In 1985 InterVarsity Press stirred the ecumenical waters with A Tale of Two Churches by George Carey (who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury). Carey called for the “eventual reunion of the two streams [Protestantism and Romanism] of Western Christendom.” The Foreword to this book, subtitled Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together, was written by J.I. Packer. In 1990 Thomas Nelson published Evangelical Catholics: A Call for Christian Cooperation to Penetrate the Darkness with the Light of the Gospel by Keith Fournier, a Roman Catholic. In 1994 InterVarsity Press came out with the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by two Roman Catholic authors, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. The latter is a Jesuit priest and a professor at Boston College. Moody Press joined its voice in this theme in 1994 by publishing Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. Not to be outdone, that same year the Navigators’ NavPress published House United? Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A Winning Alliance for the 21st Century. The authors are Roman Catholic Keith Fournier and Evangelical William Watkins (a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary).
Most of these books acknowledge that there is doctrinal error in the Roman Catholic Church, but all of them claim that Rome has changed for the better, that Roman Catholicism is not a cult, is not totally apostate. All of them speak of Rome’s heresies in gentle, “understanding” tones rather than labeling them the blasphemies they really are. Let me give you an example. In Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, John Armstrong says, “For centuries the magisterium had insisted that there was no salvation outside the church ... which meant, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. This sometimes caused a decidedly uncharitable response to Protestant evangelicals, who were considered lost outside of Rome and her sacramental system” (emphasis added). To describe Rome’s fearful, bloody, centuries-old persecution of Bible-believing Christians as “decidedly uncharitable” is insanity. Many of today’s Evangelicals want to believe that Rome’s official doctrinal position is not the real position of the so-called Evangelical Catholic today. All of these books call upon Evangelicals to lay aside the age-old divisions and to work hand-in-hand with Romanism in social, religious, and political causes. The cover jacket for House United quotes Pentecostal Vinson Synan’s recommendation of the book: “Keith Fournier is truly a twentieth-century apostle of unity for the Body of Christ.” This unscriptural unity in the so-called Body of Christ is one of the apostate keynotes of late twentieth-century Evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism’s apostasy is also seen in its attitude toward the Bible. The downgrade of the doctrine of biblical inspiration has been plainly documented by Evangelical leaders. Dr. Harold Lindsell, former vice-president of Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, published two volumes on the downgrade of the Bible in Evangelicalism, with particular focus on Fuller Seminary, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible was first published in 1976. The sequel, The Bible in the Balance, came out in 1979. This careful documentation by a man who has been in the inner circle of Evangelicalism’s leadership for many decades leaves no doubt about the fact that the Evangelical world of the last half of the twentieth century is leavened with apostasy.
In 1984 well-known Evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer published The Great Evangelical Disaster. The book’s title leaves no doubt about the thesis. The cover jacket says, “In this explosive new book Dr. Francis Schaeffer exposes the rise of compromise and accommodation, and the tragic consequences of this, within the evangelical church.” The issue which Schaeffer called “the watershed of Evangelicalism” is the inspiration and authority of the Bible. He testified, “Within evangelicalism there are a growing number who are modifying their views on the inerrancy of the Bible so that the full authority of Scripture is completely undercut” (The Great Evangelical Disaster, p. 44).
A more recent exposure of the corruption of doctrine in the Evangelical world is found in No Place for Truth: or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? by David F. Wells, Professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Time magazine described Well’s book as “a stinging indictment of evangelicalism’s theological corruption.” Though Wells is himself a committed New Evangelical, he properly identifies Evangelicalism’s chief problem as its repudiation of biblical separation and its accommodation with the world: “Fundamentalism always had an air of embattlement about it, of being an island in a sea of unremitting hostility. Evangelicalism has reacted against this sense of psychological isolation. It has lowered the barricades. It is open to the world. The great sin of Fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow” (emphasis added) (David Wells, No Place for Truth, p. 129). Wells also made this telling statement which acknowledges precisely where the New Evangelical world is today:
"But in between these far shores [Anglo-Catholicism and Fundamentalism] lie the choppy waters that most evangelicals now ply with their boats, and here the winds of modernity blow with disconcerting force, fragmenting what it means to be evangelical. This is because evangelicals have allowed their confessional center to dissipate" (p. 128).
I BELIEVE A CLEAR CASE CAN BE ESTABLISHED CONNECTING EVANGELICALISM'S APOSTASY WITH ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE CRITICAL TEXT AND ITS VERSIONS. The Fundamentalist who defends the modern versions joins hands with Modernists and New Evangelicals, because this has long been their position and they are the ones doing the vast majority of the “scholarly” writing on this subject.
Pastor Mark Buch (1910-1995) of Vancouver, British Columbia, who was in the Fundamentalist movement since the 1930s and therefore spoke from long, personal experience, gave this testimony to the fact that Evangelicalism has become corrupted: “[EVANGELICALISM] TODAY HAS FALLEN AWAY FROM THE OLD FAITH AND THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF AN EXCEPTION AMONG THEM, IT IS COMMON AND GENERAL. They no longer believe in the veracity, the verbal inspiration of the Holy Bible and they have gone a whoring after all sorts of innovations and foolishness in order to fill their churches...” (In Defence of the Authorized Version, Vancouver: People's Fellowship Tabernacle, 1977, p. 33).
I had the pleasure of meeting with Pastor Buch a few times before his promotion to Glory in 1995. He was a stalwart defender of the King James Bible for 60 years. He started the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle of Vancouver in 1939 and pastored it for 40 years. Buch knew and preached with many of the well-known Fundamentalist leaders of this century, including J. Frank Norris, G. Beauchamp Vick, and Bob Jones Sr. In 1990 Buch’s People’s Fellowship merged with the Bethel Baptist Church to become the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Vancouver. Its pastor is Gordon Conner, a personal friend who continues to hold a standard for the King James Bible and biblical fundamentalism in western Canada.
Buch sat under the ministry of the famous William Aberhart (1878-1943), high school principal, pastor, Bible school dean, radio Bible teacher, and a greatly beloved political leader. For 20 years (1915-1935) Aberhart was the principal of one of the most prestigious high schools in Canada, the Crescent Heights High School in Calgary, Alberta. He was Premier of Alberta from 1935-43, his Social Credit party having been swept into power on a tremendous landslide victory. During those years, he also served as Attorney-General and as Minister of Education. Aberhart also founded the Bible Institute Baptist Church, in Calgary, which was dedicated by the Fundamentalist Baptist leader William B. Riley. The Bible Institute Baptist Church, which seated 1,250 counting the seats in the gallery, was a prominent church in Calgary in those days. Aberhart was a bold defender of the King James Bible as early as the 1920s, and I have one of his booklets on that topic which was given to me by Pastor Buch. The fascinating testimonies of these men are in our book For Love of the Bible.
We digressed somewhat from our subject, but I believe it was worth it. We are looking at the apostasy of modern-day evangelicalism. Consider this summary of the downgrade of the doctrine of inspiration by today’s Evangelical leaders:
My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. Almost all of the literature which is produced in the evangelical world today falls into this category. In the October 1985 issue of Christianity Today, (the very popular and probably most influential voice of evangelicals in America), a symposium on Bible criticism was featured. The articles were written by scholars from several evangelical seminaries. Not one of the participants in that symposium in Christianity Today was prepared to reject higher criticism. All came to its defense. IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT ALL THE SCHOLARS FROM THE LEADING SEMINARIES IN THIS COUNTRY HELD TO A FORM OF HIGHER CRITICISM.
These men claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time they adopt higher critical methods in the explanation of the Scriptures. This has become so common in evangelical circles that IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN EVANGELICAL PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS OF OUR LAND AND ABROAD WHO STILL HOLDS UNCOMPROMISINGLY TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. THE INSIDIOUS DANGER IS THAT HIGHER CRITICISM IS PROMOTED BY THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION (Herman Hanko, The Battle for the Bible, Lansing, IL: Peace Protestant Reformed Church, 1993, pp. 2,3). [Editor: Hanko’s book should not be confused with Harold Lindsell’s book by that same name.]
The author of the above critique is Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, Grandville, Michigan.
Remember these sad facts the next time your hear something about how “thoroughly evangelical” certain modern Bible translators are. Today’s Evangelicals are polluted with the Modernism from which they have refused to separate. A little leaven has indeed leavened the whole lump.
Evangelicalism’s apostasy is not only seen in its relationship with Rome and its downgrade of biblical inspiration, it is also seen in its repudiation of biblical holiness. The old Fundamentalism was staunchly and boldly opposed to worldliness. The New Evangelical crowd rejected this. The result has been incredible to behold. R-rated and PG-13 movies are reviewed in Evangelical publications. Evangelical music groups look and sound exactly like the world. Many Evangelical Bible college campuses have the look and feel of secular colleges. The students wear the same immodest clothing as the world; they drink the same liquor; they dance to the same music; they celebrate the same worldly events; they sympathize with the same politically-correct, pacifistic-feminized-environmentally-sensitive philosophies. Richard Quebedeaux documented this in his 1978 book The Worldly Evangelicals. In describing this in The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer said:
“How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. The last sixty years have given birth to a moral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly we must say that the evangelical world has been part of the disaster. ... With tears we must say that ... a large segment of the evangelical world has become seduced by the world spirit of this present age” (p. 141).
Evangelical leaders today believe in a “concept Bible.” The inspired Word of God is not to be found in one place, but it is scattered throughout the texts and versions. What are we to say to this? I say that in light of the carnal, apostate condition of Evangelicalism, it is not surprising that its leaders and institutions cannot see the truth about Bible versions. A man who thinks the pope is a great evangelist (as Billy Graham does) or that Karl Barth was a great Christian (as many of today’s Evangelical leaders do) or that Robert Schuller is not a heretic (as Christianity Today’s editors do) or that we should yoke together in joint ventures with the National Council of Churches (as the current head of the National Association of Evangelicals does), could not be trusted to give sound advice about Bible versions or any other spiritual matter.
The pure Gospel and the pure Bible have always been held by the minority, the remnant. In light of the prophecies of the New Testament Scriptures which foresee the almost total apostasy of the visible “church” in the last hours of this age, I do not find it strange that the pure Bible is rejected by the majority of those who profess to be evangelical Christians today.
In concluding our thoughts about the connection between apostasy and the modern versions, we quote from Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute. In his 1951 doctoral thesis before the Dallas Theological Seminary graduate school faculty, he made this connection:
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM HAS NOT BEEN PERCEIVED CLEARLY ENOUGH BY MOST. AT PRECISELY THE TIME WHEN LIBERALISM WAS CARRYING THE FIELD IN THE ENGLISH CHURCHES THE THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT RECEIVED WIDE ACCLAIM. THESE ARE NOT ISOLATED FACTS. Recent contributions on the subject--that is, in the present century--following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible. ... Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God (pp. 69,70).
The Westcott-Hort theory has been examined and found wanting. The whole arrogant scheme of putting this study on a purely literary basis, without any acknowledgment of the corruption brought into the text in early days by willful and wicked men, and without any perception of God’s providential preservation of His Word down through the centuries, collapses when subjected to close scrutiny. Men would have seen this in the years immediately after 1881 if they had not been so committed to the liberal trends which were then gathering momentum. ...
IT WILL NOT DO TO MODIFY WESTCOTT AND HORT AND TO PROCEED FROM THERE. THE ONLY ROAD TO PROGRESS IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS REPUDIATION OF THEIR THEORY AND ALL ITS FRUITS. Most contemporary criticism is bankrupt and confused, the result of its liaison with liberal theology. A Bible-believing Christian can never be content to follow the leadership of those who do not recognize the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God (pp. 193,196,197).
Christian students who accept the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God need to interest themselves in the questions of textual criticism. This is not merely an academic matter which is only of passing interest to a few scholarly recluses (p. 204).
(Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951).
Would James White tell us that Alfred Martin is a Ruckmanite fundamental Baptist? Did Martin get his view that the modern versions are founded upon apostasy from Gail Riplinger?
Many other powerful lines of argument are offered by King James Bible defenders, but these are sufficient for me. Any one of the above points, in fact, would be sufficient for me to reject the modern texts and versions and to hold fast to the Received Text and the King James Bible. Multitudes of men who tremble at God’s Word and who have sought the face of God about the Bible, have concluded that the Received Text and accurate translations thereof are the preserved Word of God. I earnestly sought the face of God about this issue more than 20 years ago. I tried to examine the question from every side. If I was biased at that time, I was biased against the King James Bible position, having been taught in Greek class at Tennessee Temple in the mid 1970s that the various texts and versions are equally the Word of God and that the text-version debate was almost a non-issue. I prayerfully read all sorts of books, pro and con, about the KJV, and corresponded with men whom I respected spiritually and scholarly. I am convinced that God guided me to place my confidence in the Authorized English Version. Multitudes of other men can give the same testimony. I know hundreds of them personally. There are exceptions, of course, but I have observed that English-speaking men who are the most zealous for the jots and tittles of God’s Word are Received Text/King James Bible defenders. Men can mistake the guidance of God, of course, but men who have earnestly sought God’s face about an issue and who subsequently believe God has guided them to a certain position cannot lightly give it up.
In conclusion, James White pretends that the great lines of argument which underlie the King James Bible defense are views newly risen and are the property of a modern “King James Only” club. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Each one of these arguments was used widely in the 19th century to defend the King James Bible and its Received Text against the onslaught of critical Greek texts. We have documented this in For Love of the Bible.
WHITE RAISES QUESTIONS AND ISSUES WHICH HE IMPLIES ARE IGNORED BY THOSE HE LABELS “KING JAMES ONLY.”
This is reprehensible because all of these issues have been acknowledged and addressed by defenders of the Authorized Version. In fact, White’s entire book has been answered by Authorized Version defenders who wrote prior to the publication of his book. He simply ignores all of this work, or lightly passes over it as if it were insignificant. Consider some examples of this:
(1) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE RECEIVED TEXT and implies that this is a problem which is not addressed by “King James Only” men and that it is something which cannot be answered from a “King James Only” position. The fact is that Edward F. Hills addressed this in 1956 in his book The King James Bible Defended (Christian Research Press, P.O. Box 13023, Des Moines, IA 50310-0023). Chapter VII of this book (it was chapter VI in the 1956 edition) is titled “The Textus Receptus and the King James Version,” and it contains a detailed look at the various editions of the Reformation era Received Text and how this variety can be viewed in light of the doctrine of Bible preservation.
(2) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND IMPLIES THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM WHICH CANNOT BE ANSWERED FROM A “KING JAMES ONLY” POSITION. The fact is that Dr. Hills addressed this in 1956, and many other Authorized Version defenders have addressed it as well. Dr. Donald Waite has published an exhaustive comparison of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible and the modern editions of the King James Bible (The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version, Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). He has tallied and categorized every change and has shown us exactly what the differences are. He has shown that only a very tiny percentage of the changes affect the meaning of the text in any sense whatsoever and that this is actually a non-issue which is raised as a smokescreen by those who want to draw people’s attention away from the weighty matters of this debate. White admits that “most of the revisions have dealt with small matters of spelling, punctuation, etc.” (p. 79), but then he says of the differences, “Surely they present a sticky problem for the radical proponent of KJV Onlyism. … But once a person has invested the English with inspiration itself, that route is no longer a consistent option.” This is another evidence that White wants to cloud the debate by pretending that most defenders of the King James Bible are on the radical fringe and believe it is directly inspired of God. This is nonsense. In my experience, most defenders of the King James Bible believe it is an accurate translation of the preserved text. They believe that inspiration has to do, first and foremost, with the direct giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles of old. They do not believe that a translation is directly inspired, but that inasmuch as it is an accurate translation of the inspired text, it is therefore authoritative, carrying over into English the inspirational authority of the original text from which it is translated. Further, I contend that my experience is much more extensive than White’s in that I personally know and fellowship with and have communicated through the years with many more King James defenders than he has. Since 1973 I have been preaching and fellowshipping with and studying under and reading after King James Bible defenders. These are my friends and my people. James White was only 11 years old in 1973.
(3) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT AND THE MODERN SO-CALLED MAJORITY TEXT (such as that published by Thomas Nelson in 1982). White says, “It is important that the reader understand that the TR is not identical with the ‘Majority Text,’ even though it is closely related” (White, p. 65). Many Authorized Version defenders have addressed this issue. Jack Moorman, for example, addresses this in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). In this large work (153 pages, 8.5 X 11-inch format) Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Sodom apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. “These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text.” (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, “nevertheless [have] quite substantial support.” Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.
(4) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE ALLEGED LACK OF SUPPORT FOR 1 JOHN 5:7. White largely ignores the powerful arguments which have led Bible believers to accept 1 John 5:7 as Scripture for centuries on end. 1 John 5:7 stood unchallenged in the English Bible for a full six hundred years. It was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the Engish Revised of 1881 omitted it. James White would probably reply, “Sure, Wycliffe translated from the Latin Bible and 1 John 5:7 has always been in the Latin Bible. It was an accident of history. It doesn’t mean anything.” I believe this history means a lot. The fact that the most widely used Bibles through the centuries contained 1 John 5:7 speaks volumes to me. It tells me that God had His hand in this, that it is preserved Scripture. Were the countless preachers, theologians, church and denominational leaders, editors, translators, etc., who accepted the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 of these English Bibles through all these long centuries really so ignorant? What a proud generation we have today! White is correct when he states that long tradition in itself is not proof that something is true, but he ignores the fact that long tradition CAN BE an evidence that something is true, and if that tradition lines up with the Word of God, it is not to be discarded. “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28). There are many reasons for believing 1 John 5:7 was penned by the Apostle John under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but White’s readers are not informed of this fact and are left with an insufficient presentation of this issue.
White ignores the scholarly defense of the Trinitarian passage published by Frederick Nolan in 1815--An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. This 576-page volume has been reprinted by Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. The Southern Presbyterian Review for April 1871, described Nolan’s book as “a work which defends the received text with matchless ingenuity and profound learning.”
White ignores the Christ-honoring scholarship of 19th-century Presbyterian scholar Robert Dabney, who wrote in defense of the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Vol. 1, p. 350-390; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1891, reprinted 1967). Dabney was offered the editorship of a newspaper at age 22 and it was said of him that no man his age in the U.S. was superior as a writer. He taught at Union Theological Seminary from 1853 to 1883 and pastored the College Church during most of those years. He contributed to a number of publications, including the Central Presbyterian, the Presbyterian Critic, and the Southern Presbyterian. His last years were spent with the Austin School of Theology in Texas, a university he co-founded. A.A. Hodge called Dabney “the best teacher of theology in the United States, if not in the world,” and General Stonewall Jackson referred to him as the most efficient officer he knew (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, cover jacket, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977 edition of the 1903 original).
White ignores the fact that it was particularly the Unitarians and German modernists who fought viciously against the Trinitarian passage in the King James Bible. For example, in my library is a copy of Ezra Abbot’s Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v.7 (New York: James Miller, 1866). Abbot, Harvard University Divinity School professor, was one of at least three Christ-denying Unitarians who worked on the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. Abbot was a close friend of Philip Schaff, head of the ASV project, and was spoken of warmly in the introduction to Schaff’s history. According to the testimony of the revisers themselves, the Unitarian Abbot wielded great influence on the translation. Consider the following statement by Matthew Riddle, a member of the ASV translation committee:
“Dr. Ezra Abbot was the foremost textual critic in America, and HIS OPINIONS USUALLY PREVAILED WHEN QUESTIONS OF TEXT WERE DEBATED. ... Dr. Ezra Abbot presented a very able paper on the last clause of Romans 9:5, arguing that it was a doxology to God, and not to be referred to Christ. His view of the punctuation, which is held by many modern scholars, appears in the margin of the American Appendix, and is more defensible than the margin of the English Company. ... Acts 20:28. ‘The Lord’ is placed in the text, with this margin: ‘Some ancient authorities, including the two oldest manuscripts, read God.’ ... Dr. Abbot wrote a long article in favor of the reading [which removes ‘God’ from the text]” (Matthew Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Co., 1908, pp. 30,39,83).
Matthew Riddle’s testimony in this regard is very important as he was one of the most influential members of the American Standard Version committee and one of the few members who survived to see the translation printed. The ASV was the first influential Bible published in America to drop 1 John 5:7 from the text, AND IT DID SO UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A UNITARIAN. White sees no significance to these matters. I see great significance. White, as do most modern version defenders, ignores the direct Unitarian connection with modern textual criticism and with the textual changes pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ which appear in the modern versions. We have exposed this connection extensively in our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy.
White also ignores the scholarly articles defending 1 John 5:7 which have been published since the late 1800s by the Trinitarian Bible Society. He also ignores the excellent defense of 1 John 5:7-8 by Jack Moorman in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse. White also ignores the excellent reply given in 1980 by Dr. Thomas Strouse to D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate, in which Dr. Strouse provides an overview of the arguments supporting the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Received Text. Dr. Strouse (Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University) is Chairman of the Department of Theology, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary (717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464. 888-482-2287, tbcm@exis.net). White also ignores the landmark work of Michael Maynard, author of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Publications, 1855 “A” Ave. #4, Douglas, AZ 85607). It is possible, of course, that he had not seen Maynard’s book prior to the publication of The King James Bible Controversy. Maynard’s book basically summarizes the long-standing defense of 1 John 5:7-8 as it exists in the King James Bible, but White pretends that there is no reasonable defense of the Trinitarian passage.
(5) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF ERASMUS, OF HIS PERSONAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND TEXTUAL WEAKNESSES, PRETENDING THAT THE WEAKNESSES OF ERASMUS DETRACT FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT. This topic has been dealt with frequently by defenders of the Authorized Version. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864), in his 576-page An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament (available in reprint from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108), defended the sixteenth-century text on the basis of faith and theological purity, and he opposed the critics of his day who were disparaging the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in a manner mimicked by today’s modern version proponents. Nolan, in a careful and very technical manner, traced the history of the doctrinal corruptions which were introduced into the text of various manuscripts during the first four centuries after Christ. Nolan devastates the popular idea that Erasmus and the Reformation editors were working with insufficient textual evidence and that they did not know about the readings preferred by today’s textual critics. NOLAN SHOWS THAT THE REFORMATION EDITORS DID NOT FOLLOW THE RECEIVED TEXT BECAUSE THEY LACKED SUFFICIENT TEXTUAL EVIDENCE, BUT BECAUSE THEY CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE TO REJECT THE CRITICAL READINGS. (Contrast this with White’s statement on page 69 that the Reformation editors “used this text by default, not by choice.”) Consider the following statement from Nolan’s book:
“WITH RESPECT TO MANUSCRIPTS, IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT HE [ERASMUS] WAS ACQUAINTED WITH EVERY VARIETY WHICH IS KNOWN TO US; HAVING DISTRIBUTED THEM INTO TWO PRINCIPAL CLASSES, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in the possession of the Greek church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves that HIS OBJECTIONS TO THESE MANUSCRIPTS LAY MORE DEEP; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted” (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 413-15).
The fact is that at least many of the Reformation leaders believed that God had preserved His Word in a certain family of manuscripts which can be called the Traditional or Received Text and it was to this text that these wise men looked when they were searching for the words of God. It was not a decision they made out of ignorance or happenstance. The Reformation editors recognized that the Traditional Text is theologically pure whereas the text represented by Vaticanus and friends is impure. In a word, they did not adopt the Received Text out of ignorance, but out of conviction!
The Trinitarian Bible Society has looked closely at Erasmus in their publications throughout this century, yet James White ignores their research and position.
Dr. Edward Hills dealt with Erasmus in his books, beginning in 1956.
Erasmus is also considered in the books edited by David Otis Fuller (Which Bible?, True or False?).
In his 1951 doctoral dissertation to the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary’s Graduate School, Alfred Martin, then vice President of Moody Bible Institute, said: “A Bible-believing Christian had better be careful what he says about the Textus Receptus, for the question is not at all the precise wording of that text, but rather a choice between two different kinds of texts, a fuller one and a shorter one. ONE NEED NOT BELIEVE IN THE INFALLIBILITY OF ERASMUS, OR HIS SANCTITY, OR EVEN HIS HONESTY; BECAUSE HE MERELY FOLLOWED THE TYPE OF TEXT WHICH WAS DOMINANT IN THE MANUSCRIPTS ... (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 24,25).
Dr. Donald Waite has also dealt with Erasmus and has shown the error of many statements commonly made by modern version proponents and has shown how the Authorized Version defender looks at this question.
Michael Maynard, in his book A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a tracing of the longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity, has dealt extensively with Erasmus in relation to 1 John 5:7 and has debunked some myths commonly promoted about this.
I have also faced the issue of Erasmus in my books. In For Love of the Bible we concluded: “If the critical textual editors of the nineteenth century had believed God, they would have understood that the pure Word of God was not lost! That’s the major point of contention in this entire matter, as I see it. The Word of God was preserved; it was not lost. My confidence is not in Erasmus or in King James I or in John Burgon or in D.O. Fuller. My confidence is in a God who has promised to preserve His Word. And if the Bible which went to the ends of the earth during the greatest era of missionary activity in church history since the apostolic era was not the preserved Word of God, there is no such thing as the preserved Word of God, and this entire matter is merely an exercise in vanity.”
(6) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE MARGINAL READINGS OF THE ORIGINAL KING JAMES BIBLE. White notes that the 1611 KJV contained 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament and 767 in the New. He then says, “The importance of the marginal notes to the KJV Only controversy should not be overlooked” (p. 77). He implies that it is inconsistent for King James Bible defenders to make something of the critical textual notes in the modern versions while ignoring the ones in the original KJV. This is a comparison of monkeys and apples, though. Both the 1611 KJV and the modern versions have marginal notes, but the nature of those notes is very different.
First of all, the marginal notes in the modern versions ARE DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER. The textual notes in the 1611 KJV were not critical or deceitful as are the ones in the modern versions. The marginal notes in the 1611 KJV did not cast continual doubt upon the text, as do those in the modern versions. Consider, for example, the marginal note at 1 Timothy 3:16 in the NIV: “Some manuscripts God.” This is a deception, and those who read this note are led to believe a lie. The fact is that the vast majority of Greek manuscripts have the word “God” in this verse, and only a handful of very undependable ones omit it. In testifying of the marginal notes in the modern versions, Jay Green, a biblical scholar and Bible translator, says, “Deceitful footnotes often throw doubt on the words of the text, such as may be found at Mark 1:1; Romans 9:5, etc. Worse, yet, in other places when words that witness to the Godhead of Christ are removed from the text, seldom is there a footnote to call attention to it. And when there is a footnote purporting to give evidence for the change, a false impression is often given by an incomplete presentation of the facts” (Jay Green, Sr., The Gnostics, The New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, Lafayette, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1994, p. 5). James White, though, pretends that the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV are the same in nature as those of the modern versions and that the “King James Only” crowd is again proven inconsistent.
Second, the marginal notes in the modern versions ARE DIFFERENT IN QUANTITY. James White admits that only 37 of the marginal notes in the KJV New Testament relate to variant textual readings. Even this number is inflated. Allan MacRae and Robert Newman (who are not defenders of the KJV), in their Facts on the Textus Receptus and the King James Version (Hatfield, PA: Biblical School of Theology, 1975), cite 13 marginal notes of variant texts in the KJV. Dr. Donald Waite, in his research into this matter, found only 11 examples of KJV N.T. marginal notes which had anything to do with variant readings. Until we do our own study of the KJV marginal notes, we will lean on Dr. Waite’s research, because we know him and have more confidence in his figures than the other aforementioned men. In contrast, the NIV New Testament has 120 variant footnotes, the NASV New Testament has 133, and the NKJV New Testament has 772 (Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, Why Not the King James Bible!, Bible for Today, 1995, p. 22). Furthermore, many of the marginal notes in the modern versions question entire verses and passages, not just isolated words.
Dr. Waite has a paper on this subject entitled “Marginal Notes in the Original A.V. 1611.” It is item #2822, and is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. 609-854-4452.
(7) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE THAT DOCTRINES ARE NOT ENTIRELY REMOVED FROM THE MODERN VERSIONS. To my knowledge, no one is saying that doctrines are entirely removed from the modern versions. The typical argument is that key doctrines are weakened and diluted, not entirely removed, yet James White repeatedly makes an issue of the fact that the various doctrines are not removed. For example, of the doctrine of the virgin birth he says:
“Matthew 1:25 is often cited by critics of modern translations as an attempt to deny the virgin birth of Christ. Yet if a modern translation wished to do this, why not remove the parallel occurrence of the term at Luke 2:7 where all the modern translations contain the disputed term?” (White, p. 159).
Modern version defenders like James White appear not to understand the importance and power of repetition and of details, yet this is obviously the reason why the Bible is filled with the same. When the Lord wanted to impress Pharaoh with coming events, he repeated the dream two times (Gen. 41:32). When the Lord wanted to impress Peter that the Gospel was for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, he repeated the vision three times (Acts 10:16). The Lord Jesus Christ often emphasized His statements with the double phrase, “Verily, verily.” In the book of Ezekiel the phrase “they shall know that I am the Lord” is repeated 106 times. The Bible is literally filled with this type of repetition. Does that mean the repetitious details are not important? Hardly! Yet that is precisely what the modern version defenders tell us. For example, in Mark 9, the Received Text and the King James Bible repeats “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” three times (verses 44,46,48). In the United Bible Societies Greek text and in the modern English versions, this statement is omitted from two of those places. It is in verse 48 but verses 44 and 46 are removed. Is this of no consequence? I believe a sermon in which the unspeakably horrible eternal nature of hell is mentioned three times is more potent than one in which it is mentioned only once. Another example of this is in Matt. 4:4 and Luke 4:4. In the KJV both verses contain the crucial statement that man lives “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” The Greek Received Text has both statements. The critical Greek text, though, and the modern versions which follow that text, omit this statement from Luke 4:4. Not important, says White. It is in Matthew 4:4, and that is enough. Nonsense, says the King James Bible defender, it should be in both places because repetition and detail in God’s Word are crucial! That is one of the most important statements in the entire Bible, and it makes sense that the Holy Spirit would repeat it.
King James Bible defenders have made this point many times, but James White has ignored it. Why would the devil (assuming the textual differences were demonic corruptions) remove a verse in one place and leave a similar one in another? Why would he not go ahead and remove an entire doctrine? James White asks this question at various points in his book and seems to think that it is unanswerable, but I find that the answer is rather obvious. It would be almost impossible to entirely remove a doctrine from the Scriptures, but it was not so difficult to weaken certain key doctrines by a whittling down process through textual corruptions introduced by demonically-controlled men (such as Origen) and to dilute the potency of the Scripture overall through this same process. In warfare, a repeating rifle is much more effective than a single shot one! To take the thousands of omissions in the modern texts and translations as lightly as James White does is strange in light of the biblical warnings such as: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).
We conclude this section with an excellent statement on the importance of omissions in the Bible:
“Getting back to the omissions again, some defend them by pointing out that while a text might be missing from one place in Scripture, it is sometimes found somewhere else in Scripture. In other words, in some cases, essential writings were not removed from all passages. ‘So,’ they exclaim, ‘what is all of this fuss about?’ Beyond question, this has to be one of the most reckless attitudes toward Scripture in the Church, and can only belong to those so dulled by compromise and backslidden in heart that they have lost all sense of reality. The Bible is not simply another publication out there on the open market of religious books. It is the very word of God, which God deliberately placed above His own name (Ps. 138:2), and of which even He Himself, will not alter one word (Ps. 89:34). How then can a God fearing Christian justify even the slightest omission from its page? Are they not as much as saying that men have as much right to discard Scriptures as God did to write them down?
“To justify an omission because it can be found somewhere else does not answer the question of why it was removed in the first place. Instead, such a slight of hand explanation openly insults the declared infallibility of God’s Holy Word, creates alibis for its corrupters, and instructs the saints that they can live without all of God’s counsel. It plainly lowers the Bible in status to just ‘another book’ that we can do with as we please.
“However, while the Church’s tolerance for blemished Scripture is high--God’s is not. If He forbids, under the severest penalty, the adding or taking away of a single word of Scripture in Rev. 22:18,19, will He be lenient with those who support translations that have clearly tampered with the Scriptures? Or, will they stand as guilty on the day of judgment for their rationalizing, as the ones who did the tampering in the first place.
“Satan does not have to do much from without when such indifference lies within. It is this very spirit of nonresistance that the spoilers of God’s Word had hoped for and that will encourage them to do even further damage to Scripture. With the unchangeable Word of God now subject to the changeable views of men, what will the next generation of Bibles be like? If we today are willing to give up our most for less, will saints of tomorrow be willing to give up this less for nothing? Surely, paganism lies at the door” (Chick Salliby, If the Foundations Be Destroyed, Fiskdale, MA: Word and Prayer Ministries, 1994, pp. 88,89).
WHITE DOWNPLAYS THE THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY OF WESTCOTT-HORT, IMPLYING THAT WESTCOTT AND HORT WERE TYPICAL ANGLICANS LIKE THE 17-CENTURY AUTHORIZED VERSION TRANSLATORS AND THE 19TH-CENTURY JOHN BURGON.
White says, for example, “It is very common for KJV Only advocates to attack such men as Westcott and Hort for being ‘baby sprinklers,’ yet the KJV was born in the heart of such a system of theology” (White, p. 71). In another place White says: “As the KJV Only movement thrives most in conservative, independent Baptist circles, it is normally enough just to point out that Westcott and Hort were Anglicans, and hence ‘baby sprinklers’ as one harsh KJV Only proponent puts it. … The fact that the KJV was translated by ‘baby-sprinkling’ Anglicans does not seem to bother those who bring up Westcott and Hort, however” (White, pp. 122,123).
I do not doubt that some KJV defenders have made something of the fact that Westcott and Hort practiced infant baptism while ignoring the fact that most of the King James Version translators were infected with the same error, but I have examined practically everything which has been published on this subject and I can testify that White is missing the mark by MILES. The point commonly raised against Westcott and Hort is not their denominational peculiarities but their theological modernism, not their views on baptism but their views on the Bible and on Christ’s atonement and other foundational doctrines. At considerable expense I have collected most of the books which were published by Westcott and Hort, and I can assure my readers that they were infected with the modernism which was sweeping across the world in their day and with the Romanistic sympathies which were prevailing within 19th-century Anglicanism. John William Burgon, a Anglican who was contemporary with Westcott and Hort, strongly affirmed biblical infallibility, while both Westcott and Hort questioned it. Burgon strongly affirmed the biblical view of the atonement, while Westcott and Hort questioned it. Westcott and Hort represented the liberal Romanized wing of late 19th-century Anglicanism, while Burgon represented the staunchly conservative anti-Roman wing. The reader is encouraged to read Burgon’s work on biblical inspiration and his work against Roman Catholicism. The titles are included in the bibliography in my book For Love of the Bible and these out-of-print works can be viewed by microfiche in many key theological libraries.
Furthermore, it is not only fundamental Baptists who recognize Westcott and Hort’s apostasy. Dallas Theological Seminary professor Zane Hodges noted this almost 30 years ago. He also recognized the theological modernism which underlies the field of modern textual criticism, a fact discounted by White. Consider an excerpt from Hodges’ article “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism”--
“The charge of rationalism is easily substantiated for Westcott and Hort and may be demonstrated from direct statements found in their introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek. To begin with, Westcott and Hort are clearly unwilling to commit themselves to the inerrancy of the original Scriptures” (Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, pp. 27-35).
A precise, accurate description of Westcott-Hort’s theological position was also given by the late Presbyterian scholar Bishop D.A. Thompson, who looked carefully into these matters: “Neither of these scholars [Westcott and Hort] had been evangelical and as the influence of the German neology increased they moved slowly and discreetly with the times” (Thompson, The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to Mark, Surrey: The Bible Christian Unity Fellowship, pp. 39-40; reprint of four articles which appeared in The Bible League Quarterly, London, 1973).
While some Evangelicals and even some Fundamentalists have come to the defense of Westcott and Hort and have contended that they were theologically sound, these (perhaps) fail to understand the nature of Westcott-Hort’s theological apostasy. Like many Neo-orthodox and Modernistic theologians, Westcott and Hort did not so much openly deny the doctrines of the Word of God directly; instead they undermined these doctrines with clever doubt, with subtle questioning. Dr. D.A. Waite, who has examined the writings of Westcott and Hort in great detail, testifies: “Westcott’s attack on the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not by any means a direct clash of out-and-and denial, but rather an adroit, skillful, oblique undermining of the bodily resurrection of Christ by means of a re-definition of terms” (Waite, Westcott’s Denial of Bodily Resurrection, The Bible for Today, 1983, p. 8).
Dr. Waite’s views on this matter are not based on a cursory look at Westcott and Hort’s theology. He has examined the writings of these men probably as extensively as anyone speaking on the subject today. Certainly he has given much time and care to this research. No one would claim that a man like Dr. Waite is perfect and that he never makes mistakes. We are only men, but I have found Dr. Waite to be miles more dependable than James White and his crowd. As a background for his book Heresies of Westcott & Hort, Waite studied 1,291 pages of the writings of these men. Based on this research he makes the following charges (among others):
Westcott and Hort held a vague or erroneous position on inspiration, revelation, or inerrancy.
Westcott embraced the heresy of the universal ‘Fatherhood of God.’
Westcott denies that God had to be ‘propitiated.’
Westcott taught that men could be ‘divine’ in some way.
Westcott espoused ‘evolution’ in various ways.
Westcott had a heretical theory of man’s sinfulness and depravity, believing in man’s perfectibility in various ways.
Westcott and Hort failed to affirm the personality of the Devil, calling him only a ‘power.’
Westcott and Hort denied that Heaven is a place, speaking of it as a ‘state.’
Westcott believed that the ‘redemptive efficacy of Christ’s work’ was to be found ‘in his whole life’ rather than in his death.
Westcott questioned the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Westcott and Hort denied the deity of Jesus Christ.
Westcott explained away some of the miracles of Christ.
Westcott and Hort denied or gave a false meaning to the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ.
Westcott and Hort had a false and heretical view of the vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
For a discerning overview of the theology of Westcott and Hort, see Dr. Waite’s The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort: As Seen in Their Own Writings. Also Heresies of Westcott & Hort. Both are available from The Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.
WHITE DENIES A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN WESTCOTT-HORT AND THE MODERN VERSIONS.
White says, “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work” (White, p. 99). I have heard other modern version defenders imply that Westcott and Hort are irrelevant to the subject of the biblical text because “no textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual criticism.” This position ignores the real issue, which is the fact that Westcott and Hort represented the signal departure from the Received Text that is represented today in the popular theories of textual criticism. Westcott and Hort built upon the foundation established by their predecessors, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Westcott and Hort adapted the textual theories of these men into their own unique blend. While today’s textual scholars do not admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by the latter. Consider the following quotation by Ernest Cadman Colwell, a textual scholar who has published a number of widely used grammars and text books, including A Beginners Reader-Grammar for New Testament Greek (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), A Greek Papyrus Reader, with Vocabulary (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), A Hellenistic Greek Reader (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), and Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969).
“THE DEAD HAND OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT LIES HEAVY UPON US. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, though a glorious one. But HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—AND STILL SHAPES—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language” (emphasis added) (Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1965, p. 370).
White is failing to acknowledge a fact which modern textual authorities such as Colwell do acknowledge—that Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of textual criticism. To deny their influence is similar to denying the influence of Darwin on contemporary evolutionary thought. Many planks of Darwin’s theories have been discredited, but Darwin and his theories are important because of their key, pivotal role in the field.
Consider another quote, this one from Dr. Zane Hodges:
“MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY ‘ADDICTED’ TO WESTCOTT AND HORT. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate. The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts” (emphasis added) (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).
Zane Hodges is not a Ruckmanite fundamental Baptist, but he is more honest about the influence of Westcott and Hort upon modern textual scholarship than James White.
White and many others attempting to discredit King James Bible defense also claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because (as they say) “the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B.”
This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 in significant departures from the Received Text. For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH--48, UBS--45). Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH--193, UBS 185). Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH--221, UBS--212). An extensive comparison of the TR against the WH text, the Nestle’s Text, the UBS text, and key English versions was done by the late Everett Fowler and can be seen in his book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, available from Bible for Today.
The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible Societies’ text differ only in relatively minor points. Both represent the same TYPE of text with the same TYPE of departures from the Received Text.
The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the TR in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from it. It is a very significant text and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something.
WHITE DOWNPLAYS THE THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY OF ORIGEN.
White says, “Another common claim made by those who defend the KJV is that the Alexandrian texts have been corrupted by ‘heretics.’ They point to men like Origen (A.D. 185-254) who did things and believed things that most modern fundamentalists would find more than slightly unusual, and on this basis make the very long leap to the assertion that the manuscripts that come from the same area must be ‘corrupt’” (White, p. 44).
Note that the word “heretics” is in quotation marks. In other words, White would have his readers believe that it is only the “King James Only” crowd that identifies Origen and his followers as heretics, that this is another example of the alleged ignorance of the fundamental Baptists who make up a large percentage of King James Bible defenders today. In a footnote connected with the previous statement, White goes even further to cast aspersion upon those who would identify Origen as a heretic:
“Indeed, it might be difficult for them to find anyone in the ancient church, even around Antioch and Byzantium, who would look a whole lot like a modern fundamentalist Baptist. Even the most conservative of the ancient Fathers, like John Chrysostom, would provide KJV Only advocates with numerous reasons to object to his theology, beliefs, and practices” (White, pp. 50,51, footnote 24).
Fundamental Baptists do not look to men such as Chrysostom as “fathers.” We don’t have “fathers,” for the Lord Jesus Christ forbade us to call men fathers (Matt. 23:9). We don’t need some second century “church father” who was himself influenced by the apostasy of his day and about whom we have only a very incomplete record. We have the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles. We have the infallible Scriptures which have been preserved unto us. We have the faith once delivered to the saints. In the second and third centuries the apostasy was already taking form which would lead in the fourth and fifth centuries to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The leaven of heresy was permeating through many of the churches, and many of those who are called “fathers” by Protestants and Catholics were heretics. Further, we don’t use a meaningless term like “the ancient church.” What church does White mean by that term? In the early centuries there were churches which were apostate and which were rejecting the apostolic faith, and there were churches which were not and which were standing fast in the apostolic faith. What church does he mean? The man needs to read some good Baptist histories like that of John Christian and Thomas Armitage to get his ecclesiology and church history straightened out. The fact is that many of the “fathers” of the church, so called, were persecuting the Bible-believing churches of that day. Augustine is an example of this.
Further, the evidence that Origen himself was a heretic of the highest order is overwhelming, and it does not come from the pens of fundamental Baptists. Origen paved the way for Arianism by teaching that the Logos was subordinate and inferior to the Father, that there was a difference of essence between the Father and the Son. He believed in the “deity” of Christ, but not as it is defined biblically. This is precisely the heresy which was raising its ugly unitarian head and influencing Biblical scholarship and textual research in the last half of the 19th century. What a coincidence!
“Origen is described by Mosheim (in his Com. de Rebus Christ, Vol. II, p. 144) as ‘a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.’ While he gained, amidst the superstitious contemporaries who then gave character to Eastern Christianity, a splendid reputation for sanctity, as well as learning, his character was evidently dishonest and tricky, and his judgment most erratic. … As a controversialist, he was wholly unscrupulous” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 383).
Origen taught baptismal regeneration and “evidently had no clear conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith” (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 65). This is an important fact, because it means that the gospel Origen taught was a false gospel, and he therefore was under God’s curse (Galatians 1). Origen believed in purgatory and claimed that all men would eventually be reclaimed through the purgation of sin after death. This is a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement to wash away all sin of the believer. He taught that even the demons and Satan would eventually be restored (Berkhof, p. 75). Origen taught the pre-existence of man. He believed the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by the Father through the Son. Origen “disbelieved the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 383). Origen’s “opinions on the Trinity veered between Sabellianism and Arianism. He expressly denied the consubstantial unity of the Persons and the proper incarnation of the Godhead” (Dabney, I, p. 384).
Origen championed the method of Bible interpretation known as allegorizing, by which the literal meaning of Scripture is rejected for a “deeper meaning” discovered by the interpreter. Such a method makes the mind of the teacher authoritative over the plain meaning of Scripture; because if the plain sense of Scripture is not the true meaning, it is impossible to determine exactly what it does mean, and every man is therefore left to his own devices. Origen’s voluminous commentaries contain a wealth of fanciful interpretations, abounding “in references to apocryphal works and heretical revisals of Scripture” (Frederick Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, p. 367). “His reputation as the great introducer of mysticism, allegory, and Neo-Platonism into the Christian church, is too well known to need recital. THOSE WHO ARE BEST ACQUAINTED WITH THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN OPINION KNOW BEST, THAT ORIGEN WAS THE GREAT CORRUPTER, AND THE SOURCE, OR AT LEAST EARLIEST CHANNEL, OF NEARLY ALL THE SPECULATIVE ERRORS WHICH PLAGUED THE CHURCH IN AFTER AGES” (Dabney, I, p. 383).
I don’t believe James White should have put the word “heretic” in quotation marks when referring to Origen! Earlier we noted Origen’s destructive influence upon many Bible editors and translators who came after him. For White to imply that Origen was not an apostate and that his influence was not as harmful as King James Bible defenders argue, is indefensible.
WHITE DOWNPLAYS THE EVIDENCE THAT SOME OF THE INFLUENTIAL MANUSCRIPTS TRACE THEIR CORRUPTIONS TO THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES.
White says, “Another common claim made by those who defend the KJV is that the Alexandrian texts have been corrupted by ‘heretics.’ They point to men like Origen who did things and believed things that most modern fundamentalists would find more than slightly unusual, and on this basis make the very long leap to the assertion that the manuscripts that come from the same area must be ‘corrupt’” (White, p. 44).
In spite of White’s claim to the contrary, there is strong evidence linking many manuscripts preferred by modern textual critics with the heresies of the first few centuries. First of all, there can be no doubt that the manuscripts preferred by modern textual editors (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) were rejected by God’s people through the centuries. The vast majority of existing manuscripts represent a different type of text, the type found in the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation. Westcott and Hort tried to account for this Traditional or Majority text with their Syrian recension theory—a theory for which there is absolutely no evidence in history and a theory which Westcott-Hort’s successors have dropped. The fact is that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent a corrupted text which was rejected by God’s people, and the evidence supports the conclusion that these manuscripts were created by heretics during the second and third centuries. White would have his readers believe that this idea is a “long leap” and he implies that it is something which was dreamed up in recent years by fundamental Baptist King James Bible defenders. We could quote many important 19th-century Bible scholars who saw the connection between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and early century heresies, but three should be sufficient to prove the point. These were Burgon, Miller, and Nolan.
John Burgon (1813-1888) knew as much about the writings of ancient church leaders as any man who has lived in the past few centuries. He held several high degrees from Oxford University and was one of the foremost biblical scholars of his day. His biographer said, “Burgon was in this country [England] the leading religious teacher of his time, who brought all the resources of genius and profound theological learning to rebut the encroachments of Rationalism by maintaining inviolate the integrity of the written Word of God as the Church has received it” (Edward M. Goulburn, John William Burgon: Late Dean of Chichester, 1892, Preface, p. vii). F.H.A. Scrivener called him “that grand scholar” (cited by Edward Miller, Preface to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. viii), and called Burgon’s work defending the ending of Mark 16 “brilliant.” He was a first-rate textual scholar, the equal to any man alive at the time. He made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went. He visited the Vatican Library in 1860 to examine the Vaticanus. In 1862 he traveled to Mt. Sinai to inspect manuscripts at St. Catherine’s. Edward Hills notes the purpose of these travels: “Being driven by the desire to get to the bottom of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day, Burgon devoted the last 30 years of his life to disprove them. Believing firmly that God had providentially preserved the true text of the New Testament, he set out to discover how the depraved and corrupt readings developed. This required him to travel widely” (E.F. Hills, “A Biographical Sketch of the Life of Burgon,” Unholy Hands on the Bible: Vol. 1, Jay Green, ed., p. xix).
Burgon personally collated hundreds of Greek manuscripts. Another of his amazing textual achievements was his index of New Testament citations of the “church fathers” of antiquity. This index contains the fruit of his labors in analyzing the extant writings of ancient church leaders to determine what Scriptures they possessed. The index is in the British Museum and consists of sixteen thick manuscript volumes containing 86,489 quotations. Modern-day textual scholar Wilbur Pickering testifies that “Burgon’s scholarship in this facet of the total field has never been equaled” (Wilbur Pickering, “Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Criticism,” True or False?, p. 217).
Consider Burgon’s view of the direct connection between early century heretics and the modern critical Greek text:
We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Heschius in Egypt, ‘revised’ the text of the N.T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom there must have been a vast number in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we know for certain, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated gospels which anciently abounded ... and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of ancient Christendom must have exhibited a text which was even scandalously corrupt.
‘It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,’ writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [Scrivener], ‘that THE WORST CORRUPTIONS, TO WHICH THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS EVER BEEN SUBJECTED, ORIGINATED WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER IT WAS COMPOSED: that Irenaeus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus’ (Scrivener, ‘Introduction,’ p. 453).
And what else are codices ABCD [Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.] but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Dr. Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy? (John Burgon, “The Greek Text,” The Quarterly Review, Vol. 152, July & October 1881, pp. 321,22).
Edward Miller (1825-1901), another textual scholar of the highest caliber, presented the following position in his 1886 book entitled A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament:
“Now there are various reasons for supposing that B [Vaticanus] and Aleph [Sinaiticus] were amongst these fifty manuscripts [created by Eusebius for Constantine in A.D. 330-340]. ... These manuscripts are unrivalled for the beauty of their vellum and for their other grandeur, and are just what we should expect to find amongst such as would be supplied in obedience to an imperial command, and executed with the aid of imperial resources. ... They abound in omissions, and show marks of such carelessness as would attend an order carried out with more than ordinary expedition. And even the corrector, who always followed the copyist, did his work with similar carelessness to the scribe whom he was following. ... There is therefore very considerable foundation for the opinion entertained by many that these two celebrated manuscripts owe their execution to the order of Constantine, and show throughout the effects of the care of Eusebius, and the influence of Origen, whose works formed the staple of the Library of Pamphilus, in the city where they were most likely written. Such was probably the parentage, and such the production of these two celebrated manuscripts, which are the main exponents of a form of Text differing from that which has come down to us from the Era of Chrysostom, and has since that time till very recent years been recognized as mainly supreme in the Church” (Edward Miller, A Guide to Textual Criticism, 1886, pp. 82,83).
Note that textual scholar Edward Miller said there is VERY considerable foundation for the opinion entertained by MANY that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus witness to textual corruptions introduced by Origen and Eusebius. Was Edward Miller a Ruckmanite fundamental Baptist?
Finally, note the following statement by the aforementioned textual scholar Frederick Nolan:
“The works of those early writers lie under the positive imputation of being corrupted. THE COPIES OF CLEMENT AND ORIGEN WERE CORRUPTED IN THEIR LIFE TIME; THE MANUSCRIPTS FROM WHICH TERTULLIAN’S WORKS HAVE BEEN PRINTED ARE NOTORIOUSLY FAULTY; AND THE COPIES OF CYPRIAN DEMONSTRATE THEIR OWN CORRUPTION, by their disagreement among themselves, and their agreement with different texts and revisals of Scripture. It is likewise indisputable, that these fathers not only followed each other, adopting the arguments and quotations of one another; but that they quoted from the heterodox as well as the orthodox. They were thus likely to transmit from one to another erroneous quotations, originally adopted from sources not more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture. ... New revisals of Scripture were thus formed, which were interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts and fathers. NOR DID THIS SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION TERMINATE HERE; BUT WHEN NEW TEXTS WERE THUS FORMED, THEY BECAME THE STANDARD BY WHICH THE LATER COPIES OF THE EARLY WRITERS WERE IN SUCCESSION CORRECTED” (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 326-332).
Neither Burgon nor Miller nor Nolan were fundamental Baptists, and they were not members of some illusive “King James Only” club. These men analyzed the primary evidence as diligently as any men living today. In fact, as noted, no man living can match the research which John Burgon conducted into the writings of early church leaders. THESE TEXTUAL SCHOLARS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SINAITICUS AND VATICANUS REPRESENT THE SAME TYPE OF TEXT WHICH WAS PRODUCED THROUGH CORRUPTIONS INTRODUCED BY ORIGEN AND HIS FOLLOWERS.
It is amazing that this position is so consistently slighted in today’s textbooks on textual criticism, and by James White in particular. His implication that this view is the figment of the imagination of fundamental Baptists is laughable.
WHITE ALLEGES THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT AND THE MODERN CRITICAL TEXT IS NOT VERY SERIOUS.
White downplays the differences and gives statistics from Westcott and Hort to prove his point (p. 39). The fact is that Dr. Donald Waite has personally and painstakingly compared the Westcott-Hort text and the United Bible Societies text with the Received Text word for word, and he has published his findings. He does not base his conclusions on someone else’s statistics. He charges Westcott and Hort and other modern version proponents, such as the editor of the New International Version, with misstating the facts. Waite writes, “Hort’s 1/1000th of the Greek N.T. that he thought could be called ‘substantial variation’ would be 140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647 pages). This would be a little over one half a page in the Greek New Testament. This is extremely wide of the mark of truth! … The truth of the matter is that there is a 7% difference ... This would be 45.9 pages. This is a most serious error” (Waite, The Four-fold Superiority of the King James Bible).
Dr. Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible since 1971. He obtained a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952; an M.A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition from Dallas Seminary in 1955; and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. He holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts, and has taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for over thirty-five years in nine schools. In 1971 he founded the Bible for Today (BFT) ministry and has since produced over 900 studies, booklets, cassettes, and VCR’s that he distributes through BFT, along with hundreds of titles by other men on a wide variety of subjects. In 1992 he published his excellent book Defending the King James Bible, presenting the four-fold superiority of the KJV: Superior texts, translators, technique, and theology. Dr. Waite has assisted Bible believers tremendously by putting back into print many of the important 19th-century volumes on Bible texts and versions. Contact Bible for Today for a list: 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. (800) 564-6109 (orders), (609) 854-4452 (voice), (609) 854-2464 (fax), BFT@juno.com (e-mail).
White ignores the research of men such as Waite. When he cites them, it is only to give a shallow perspective on their work.
White says, “The KJV’s text is but one example of one ‘stream’ within a larger river. It doesn’t matter what translation you use, that truth remains true all the same” (White, p. 120).
This is one of the mantra’s of those who defend the modern versions, but it is a false statement. The truth of God has been given in WORDS. The Lord Jesus Christ said that man lives by every word of God (Matt. 4:4; Lk. 4:4). The words of the Received Text and the words of the critical Greek text are not the same and they do not express exactly the same truth. For example, 1 Timothy 3:16 in the KJV and 1 Timothy 3:16 in the NIV do not express the same truth. The KJV and the NIV do not express the same truth about fasting, because “fasting” is removed from most key passages in the NIV. We have given many examples of this in our book Modern Bible Versions and in the article on “Bible Versions” in the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity. Pastor Mickey Carter of Haines City, Florida, expressed this matter well in the title of his 1993 book “Things That Are Different Are Not the Same” (Landmark Baptist Church, Haines City, FL).
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 Nestlé'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! If the Received Text and the King James Bible, with its “longer” text, represents a corrupted text, it should be rejected completely. If, on the other hand, the texts containing the vast omissions is the corrupted text, it should be rejected completely. It is impossible that both are the preserved Word of God. If one is, the other isn’t. It is not truth in general that we need; it is the very words which express that truth.
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; Lk. 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 12 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 12 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 45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing. This is a huge portion of Scripture which is affected by textual changes, and yet White claims there is no serious problem. I don’t agree, and I will not be brow beaten into submission by men who seem to be infinitely patient with the corruption of the biblical text. I am not impressed with their broadmindedness in this matter.
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. In a sense, all of the differences affect doctrine--the doctrine, at the very least, of that particular verse or passage. 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, a defender of the modern versions, 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."
At least Lewis is honest enough to admit that he believes the KJV is inadequate and inferior and doctrinally corrupt. We agree with him 100% that there are serious doctrinal differences between the versions. A choice must be made. The idea that all of the texts and versions are somehow equal is nonsense.
We also acknowledge the happy fact that there is a general overall 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 pure text. A swordsman of old did not think a dull sword and a sharp sword, or a weak sword and a strong sword, were the same. 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 not for a moment does this mean that the changes made in these and other new translations are not significant.
WHITE DENIES THAT THE MODERN VERSIONS WEAKEN THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST’S DEITY.
White dedicates an entire chapter, “The Son of God, the Lord of Glory,” to denying that the modern texts and versions weaken the doctrine of Christ’s deity. He concludes that not only do the critical Greek text and key modern versions NOT undermine the deity of Christ, but he makes the claim that the New International Version and the New American Standard Version are actually stronger in their witness to Christ’s deity than the King James Bible. White states,” Some KJV Only advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ” (White, p. 196). How can he make such a statement? Is he right? No, he has done what he charges “KJV Only” folk with doing. He has twisted the facts to fit his point.
On page 197 he has a chart which compares passages on the deity of Christ in three versions (the KJV, NIV, NASV). He includes 12 passages--John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5-6; Colossians 1:15-17; 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1. He claims that the NIV has a clear testimony to Christ’s deity in 11 of these and omits one, whereas the KJV has a clear testimony in only six, is ambiguous in five, and omits one.
White’s chart reminds us of some of those produced by Mrs. Gail Riplinger in New Age Bible Versions. If you consider only the material presented in the chart, the author’s case is demonstrated without question. The problem comes when we analyze the chart carefully to see whether or not the author is presenting all of the facts and whether or not they are presented properly. Upon examination, White’s deity of Christ chart falls flat on both counts.
First, White errs in considering only part of the evidence.
There is no doubt that the 12 passages which White presents are SOME of the key passages on Christ’s deity (except, possibly for 2 Peter 1:1), but many other important passages are completely ignored, so that the results of his comparison are grossly and wrongly skewed in favor of the NIV. The following is a list of White’s passages with the addition of many others which should have been included. Those preceded by asterisks are weaker in the New International Version.
** MICAH 5:2 -- The NIV says Christ had an origin: “…out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The KJV, on the other hand, supports Christ’s eternal Godhead with the translation: “…yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” On the basis of this one verse I would reject the NIV.
MATTHEW 1:23; 3:3; 22:43-45 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. By the way, let me emphasize that I am not saying the NIV is translated as accurately as the KJV in these various verses. I am merely saying that in general some of these verses in the NIV are sound in their witness to Christ. On the other hand, I believe it is impossible that the NIV is truly sound even apart from the textual problems, because it admittedly uses the method of translation called dynamic equivalency. It is a “thought” translation rather than a “word” translation, and that is a great error. I want to know what the words are that God gave for me, not just the general thoughts or broad equivalency as expressed by some translator. The King James Bible is an accurate and literal word translation, and as such it is far superior to the New International Version, even with the textual problems aside.
**MATTHEW 8:2
MT. 8:2 KJV: “And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him…”
MT. 8:2 NIV: “A man with leprosy came and knelt before him…”
Eleven times in the Received Text and the King James Bible the Gospels tell us that Christ was worshipped (Mt. 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9,17; Mk. 5:6; Lk. 24:52; Jn. 9:38). This is indisputable evidence that Jesus Christ is God, because only God can be worshipped (Ex. 34:14; Is. 42:8; Mt. 4:10; Acts 14:11-15; Rev. 19:10). The NIV removes one-half of this unique witness to Christ’s deity, changing “worship” to “kneel before” in Mt. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20; Mk. 5:6. In the Received Text the Greek word (proskuneo) is the same in all eleven verses. It is the key New Testament word for “worship.” It appears 58 times in the Greek New Testament and is always translated “worship” in the King James Bible. The modern version defender will argue that there is no serious problem here, because Christ is still worshipped in six of the verses. I don’t agree with this evaluation. In fact, I consider such an argument very strange indeed, because the man who truly loves the words of God cares about the details of the Bible and is concerned deeply about the omission of things. For many years I have noticed that defenders of the modern versions have a strange lackadaisical attitude toward the details of the Bible. As we have noted earlier, the repetition is in the Bible for a purpose. It is not inconsequential fluff.
**MATTHEW 9:18
MT. 9:18 KJV: “… behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him…”
MT. 9:18 NIV: “… a ruler came and knelt before him…”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 15:25; 20:20; Mk. 5:6.
** MATTHEW 15:25
MT. 15:25 KJV: “Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.”
MT. 15:25 NIV: “The woman came and knelt before him. ‘Lord, help me!’ she said.”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 20:20; Mk. 5:6.
** MATTHEW 20:20
MT. 20:20 KJV: “20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him…”
MT. 20:20 NIV: “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons, and, kneeling down…”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 18:26; Mk. 5:6.
** MARK 5:6
MK. 5:6 KJV: “But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him.”
MK. 5:6 NIV: “When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him.”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20.
LUKE 1:17, 32, 76; 2:11 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
**LUKE 2:33,43
LK. 2:33 KJV: “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
LK. 2:33 NIV: “The child’s father and mother marveled about what was said about him.”
LK. 2:43 KJV: “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.”
LK. 2:43 NIV: “After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.”
By changing “Joseph” to “the child’s father” and “his parents,” the NIV weakens the testimony of Christ’s virgin birth somewhat, compared with the reading of the KJV and the Received Text. While it is true that the NIV plainly says that Christ was virgin born (Mt. 1:18-20), the KJV backs up that testimony with the added witness of Lk. 2:33,43, whereas the NIV does not.
JOHN 1:1; 5:17-18,23; 8:56-59; 10:30-33; 14:9; 20:28 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** JOHN 1:27
JN. 1:27 KJV: “He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.”
JN. 1:27 NIV: “He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”
By removing the phrase “is preferred before me,” the NIV weakens this wonderful testimony to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Evangelist Chuck Salliby notes: “Each little expression such as ‘is preferred before me,’ like so many pieces in a puzzle, was designed to make its own contribution to the completed picture of Christ on the Bible page--His Person, works, character, incomparableness, etc. Yet, they are systematically left out wherever possible in the NIV. This is indeed a strange practice. While a secular book generally exaggerates the depiction of its main character, the NIV depreciates that of its own” (Salliby, If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 21).
** JOHN 3:13
JN. 3:13 KJV: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
JN. 3:13 NIV: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.”
The King James Version witnesses to the Godhead and omnipresence of the Lord Jesus Christ in this verse, but the NIV, in deleting the crucial phrase “which is in heaven,” destroys this witness. At least 99.5% of all Greek manuscript evidence contains the phrase in question. Only two papyri, four uncials (particularly the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and one cursive manuscript omit it.
** JOHN 6:69
JN. 6:69 KJV: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”
JN. 6:69 NIV: “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
The KJV, following the Received Text, contains in this verse one of the most precious testimonies to the Deity of Christ. This testimony is emasculated in the NIV.
** JOHN 9:35
JN. 9:35 KJV: “… Doest thou believe on the Son of God?”
JN. 9:35 NIV: “… Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
The KJV witnesses to Christ’s deity in this verse, but the NIV, following the critical Greek text, does not.
** ACTS 3:13
ACTS 3:13 KJV: “.. the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus…”
ACTS 3:13 NIV: “… the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus…”
The KJV exalts Christ as the Son of God in this verse, whereas the NIV, following a different text, makes him a servant. Christ is called the Son of God or God’s Son 126 times in the New Testament, whereas he is called “servant” (in the KJV) only once, and that is in Matt. 12:18, which is a quotation of Isaiah 42:1.
ACTS 10:36; 20:28 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** ROMANS 9:5
ROM. 9:5 KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
ROM. 9:5 NIV: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
The NIV is sound in its witness to Christ in the text, but it undermines the text with a footnote which reads: “or, ‘Christ who is over all, God be forever praised.’” Bible scholar/translator Jay Green, Sr., notes: “The NIV footnote is a gloss preferred by those who do not believe that Christ is co-equal with God in essence and attributes. When the Revised Version (1881) inserted it, Burgon quoted 60 patristic fathers as using this verse to prove the Godhood of Christ. And the Unitarians have stated that the only two verses that needed to be changed to destroy the doctrine of the Trinity are Romans 9:5 and 1 Tim. 3:16” (Green, The Gnostics, p. 51). James White claims that the King James Version is ambiguous in this verse, but the KJV follows the Greek almost word for word and gives an accurate and clear translation in English. The verse does not say that Christ is blessed of God forever; it says He is GOD blessed for ever. It is one of the most powerful statements to the Godhood of Christ in the Bible, and it is plain for anyone who has ears to hear. As noted, 19th-century Unitarians who were on the Bible translation committees for the Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901) understood this and they did not like the KJV translation as a result. Godly English commentators of generations past had no problem with this verse as it stands in the King James Version. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) is an example. He saw this verse in the KJV as “a very full proof of the Godhead of Christ; he is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever.” We do not accept White’s charge that the KJV is weak here in regard to Christ’s deity. Every passage must be interpreted in the context of the wider testimony of Scripture, and when we do so with the KJV in Romans 9:5 we see that Christ is both God and that He is blessed of God. That is exactly what the rest of the Bible says! It speaks of the mystery of the Trinity.
** 1 CORINTHIANS 15:47
1 COR. 15:47 KJV: “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.”
1 COR. 15:47 NIV: “The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.”
By omitting the words “the Lord,” the NIV, following the critical text, obliterates a powerful reference to Christ’s deity, whereas the Received Text and the King James Version give a unique and unequivocal testimony that Jesus Christ is God.
** EPHESIANS 3:9
EPH. 3:9 KJV: “… which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:”
EPH. 3:9 NIV: “…which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.”
The KJV in this verse exalts Jesus Christ as the Creator of all things, whereas the NIV, by removing the crucial phrase “by Jesus Christ,” obliterates this witness entirely.
** PHILIPPIANS 2:6-7
PHIL. 2:6,7 KJV: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
PHIL. 2:6,7 NIV: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
The KJV is stronger in its witness to Christ’s deity and much clearer in every way because of its careful and literal translation of the Greek. The NIV says Christ was in very nature God but clouds the testimony by its wording that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” and that he “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant.” The NIV in this passage leaves Christ’s Godhead during his incarnation in doubt, whereas the KJV does not. The age-long theological battles pertaining to the Deity of Christ are very complex and involve many facets of Christ’s preexistence, nature, earthly character, and future status. The Gnostics were willing for Christ to be a god and creator, but not the very God. Origen, for example, accepted that Jesus was deity but not that He was co-equal in the Trinity with the Father. He wrote, “Christ is inferior to the Father who is the God. The Son is divine in a derivative sense, for he gains his deity by communication from the Father, ‘the only true God, who is preeminent as the single source or foundation of deity” (quoted from Jay Green, The Gnostics, the New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, p. 1). The Jehovah’s Witnesses admit that Jesus is the Son of God and “a” God, but not Jehovah God. The Unitarians admit that Jesus was “divine” but not that He was Almighty God. The Mormons admit that Jesus is a god, but not that He is Jehovah God or that He and the Father God are one. Others admit that Christ is God but not that He was eternally the Son of God. Still others acknowledge that Christ was God in eternity past but that He laid aside His deity in His incarnation. This is a view which is allowed by the rendering of Phil. 2:6,7 in the NIV.
Only an accurate translation of the preserved Text can secure the doctrinal victory in these fierce and complex theological battles so that God’s people have a proper understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ. I repeat, no English translation is more Christ-honoring than the King James Version.
COLOSSIANS 1:15 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
COLOSSIANS 1:19 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** COLOSSIANS 2:9
COL. 2:9 KJV: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
COL. 2:9 NIV: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
The term Godhead in the KJV is more powerful and effective than the NIV’s rendering of “deity.” Jay Green wisely notes: “While the lexicons give both deity and Godhead as the meaning of this Greek word (theothtos), keep in mind that there are many deities in this world, but only one true Godhead, which identifies Christ as being one in essence with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit” (Green, The Gnostics, p. 37).
1 TIMOTHY 1:15-17 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** 1 TIMOTHY 3:16
1 TIM. 3:16 KJV: “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.”
1 TIM. 3:16 NIV: “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.”
In this verse the KJV, following the Received Text, gives probably the clearest reference in the entire Bible that Jesus Christ is God. The NIV, following the critical Greek text, omits the word “God,” rendering the verse almost meaningless.
** 1 TIMOTHY 6:14-16
1 TIM. 6:14-16 KJV: “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”
1 TIM. 6:14-16 NIV: “to keep this commandment without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”
The KJV in this passage is unequivocal in its testimony that Jesus Christ is God. The NIV, though, by adding the word “God” to verse 15, creates doubt about whether or not this doxology refers directly to Christ.
TITUS 2:13 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** HEBREWS 1:3
HEB. 1:3 KJV: “”Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
HEB. 1:3 NIV: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”
The KJV is stronger in its witness to Christ in this verse. Jay Green, Sr., Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Bible, notes the important difference between the KJV and the NIV in this passage: “The new versions present the Son as a replica of God, not co-equal with God, not one in essence with God the Father and God the Spirit, but only a copy, a representation, an imprint, a stamp. The word xarakter is defined by Thayer as ‘that which has actual existence … real being … the substantial quality, nature of a person’ (#5287, Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 644)” (Green, The Gnostics, p. 32).
** HEBREWS 1:8
HEB. 1:8 KJV: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”
HEB. 1:8 NIV: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.”
The KJV clearly presents Christ as the eternal God in this verse. The NIV, though, by saying Christ’s throne “will last forever,” instead of “is forever,” leaves room for the false doctrine that Christ had a beginning. When combined with the NIV’s perverted rendering of Micah 5:2, it teaches this very heresy.
2 PETER 1:1 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.] We will say more about this verse later in this study.
** 1 JOHN 3:16
1 JOHN 3:16 KJV: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
1 JOHN 3:16 NIV: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”
By replacing “God” with “Christ,” the NIV removes this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead.
** 1 JOHN 4:3
1 JN. 4:2-3 KJV: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
1 JN. 4:3 NIV: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”
By removing the phrase “Christ is come in the flesh” from verse 3, the NIV weakens the testimony of this passage as compared with the KJV and allows room for the ecumenical philosophy that says everyone who “loves Jesus” is of God. False spirits will “acknowledge Jesus,” but the Jesus they acknowledge is a false Jesus (2 Cor. 11:3). One can argue that since the NIV has the phrase “confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” in verse 2 and omits the phrase only in verse 3, there is no significant problem. I am sure James White would say this, but my reply is that we are comparing the KJV with the NIV in key passages touching on Christ’s deity to see which translation is stronger overall, and there is no doubt that the NIV in this passage is somewhat weaker than the KJV.
** 1 JOHN 5:7
1 JN. 5:7 KJV: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
1 JN. 5:7 NIV: Omitted
This verse in the KJV is a powerful witness to the Deity of Jesus Christ as an equal member of the Godhead. The NIV, though, omits the verse and has no witness whatsoever. We are taking a simple survey through the New Testament to see which of the English translations is more honoring to Jesus Christ, the KJV or the NIV, and the KJV is winning hands down.
1 JOHN 5:20 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** REVELATION 1:8, 11
REV. 1:11 KJV: “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
REV. 1:11 NIV: “which said: ‘Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
By removing “the beginning and the ending” from verse 8 and “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” from verse 11, the NIV, following the critical Greek text, seriously weakens this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead. As it stands in the Received Text and the KJV and any other faithful TR translation, the Almighty of verse 8 is directly and unquestionably identified as the Lord Jesus Christ of verse 11, but this association is broken by the omissions in the critical Greek text. Modern version proponents like to point out the fact that the critical text adds the word "God" in verse 8, but that does not change the picture in the least. Verse 8 as it stands in either the Received Text or the critical text speaks of Almighty God. But the Received Text continues on to plainly identify the God of v. 8 with Jesus Christ of the following verses, whereas the critical text does not. The overall effect of the modern version rendering of Revelation chapter one is to seriously weaken its testimony to Christ‘s deity as compared with the King James Bible.
CONCLUSION: Twenty-four out of the above 44 key passages on the deity of Christ are weakened in the NIV. That means that more than one-half of the key testimonies are weakened or removed in the New International Version. Not one of these testimonies are omitted from the KJV; and, in our estimation, not one of these passages in the KJV is weak in its testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ. By taking into consideration a wider range of passages touching on the Deity of Christ, a much different picture is given from that which appears in James White’s book.
Second, White also errs in overstating and twisting that part of the evidence that he does consider.
For example, he claims the KJV is ambiguous in four key passages--Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Tit. 2:13; and 2 Pet. 1:1. Having examined the passages carefully, we believe he is misstating the case in all four instances. Consider 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV and the NIV:
2 PETER 1:1
2 PETER 1:1 KJV: “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:”
2 PETER 1:1 NIV: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:”
The King James Version also included a marginal reading with this verse: “our God and Saviour.” The KJV translators apparently believed the verse could possibly be translated both ways, though they preferred “God and Saviour Jesus Christ” and put it in the text. Commentator Albert Barnes notes that Erasmus also supposed “that it may be taken in either sense.” Thus we see that many of the best Greek scholars have believed the verse can rightly be translated in two different ways in Greek. This being the case, the King James Bible is again found to be more accurate and precise than the NIV, because it gives both: one in the text and one in the margin.
Further, both the KJV text rendering and the KJV marginal rendering witness that Christ is God. The KJV text, “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” is in itself a powerful and irrefutable witness to Christ’s Deity. In this expression Christ is put on the exact same footing as God as the source of the sinner’s righteousness. We receive righteousness from God and from Christ. If Christ were not God, such a statement would be absolute blasphemy. Who is righteous but God? Among men there “is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). Who can impart righteousness to a sinner except God?
Barnes also warns that the translation “our God and Saviour” “though certainly not a violation of the laws of the Greek language, is not so free from all doubt as to make it proper to use the passage as a proof-text in an argument for the divinity of the Saviour.” James White, though, includes this verse as one of the 12 most significant verses on the Deity of Christ in the entire New Testament. This is because he seemingly has an agenda to promote the New International Version and to make the King James Bible look inferior.
Turning to Colossians 2:9 and Titus 2:13, we see no ambiguity or lack of clarity pertaining to the deity of Jesus Christ in the KJV.
COLOSSIANS 2:9 KJV: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
TITUS 2:13 KVJ: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
For centuries the KJV rendering of these passages has been used by Bible-believing people to teach and defend that Jesus Christ is God. For example, Albert Barnes says that to interpret Titus 2:13 in the KJV to refer to Christ’s deity “is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox,” and, “That it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he [Christ] was divine, to one who had no theory to defend.” We agree with this assessment. The alleged ambiguity of this passage in the KJV has been in the minds of false teachers. The problem has not been with the KJV’s translation of the verse but with the failure of heretics to rightly divide the Word of God by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Now, though, in these recent and allegedly more enlightened times, when Bible scholarship has supposedly progressed beyond that of centuries past, we have men claiming that the KJV is unclear in these key passages. This is pathetic.
We have already looked at Colossians 2:9 and have seen that the KJV translation of “Godhead” is more powerful and effective than the NIV’s rendering of “deity.”
ROMANS 9:5
ROMANS 9:5 KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
ROMANS 9:5 NIV: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (Footnote: Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!)
What about Romans 9:5? We have already seen that though the rendering in Romans 9:5 does appear at first glance to be clearer in the NIV as a testimony to Christ’s deity, IT LOSES ITS SHINE WHEN THE NIV’S FOOTNOTE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
Whereas the KJV marginal notes strengthen the Deity of Christ, those in the NIV often degrade it. The NIV footnote effectively undermines the rendering given in the text and greatly confuses the issue. To say, then, that the NIV’s translation here is a more effective testimony to Christ’s deity than that of the KJV is, in our estimation, nonsense. The NIV translation of Romans 9:5 contains much “dynamic equivalency” and paraphrasing. The phrase “human ancestry” is an example. The KJV gives an exact rendering of the Greek in this verse basically word for word, whereas the NIV gives a loose approximation. The KJV reads as it does in Romans 9:5 PRECISELY because it is faithful to the Greek.
This brings us to an important point. Ambiguity in itself does not mean that a translation is an inaccurate rendering of the Greek text. One mark of an excellent translation, in fact, is its precise handling of ambiguity. If the Greek or Hebrew is ambiguous, that means the Holy Spirit has made it so for a purpose. If a translator renders such a passage by interpreting or making a “dynamic equivalency” it to remove the ambiguity instead of accurately translating it, he will rob the readers of part of the meaning. An example of this is in Psalm 12:6,7. The Hebrew text allows the reader to interpret the pronoun “them” in verse 7 as referring both to the “word” of verse 6 and to the people of the previous verses. The King James Bible translation of this verse allows the same double interpretation. In most modern versions, though, such as the NIV, verse 7 is translated in such a way that it cannot possibly be applied to the words of verse 6, thus completely destroying the application of this important passage to the doctrine of biblical preservation.
Returning to Romans 9:5, the KJV translation of this verse follows the Greek text precisely. If there is ambiguity, it is also in the Greek. Every passage must be interpreted in the context of the wider testimony of Scripture, and when we do so with the KJV in Romans 9:5 we see that Christ is both God and that He is blessed of God. That is exactly what the rest of the Bible says! The “ambiguity” in the Greek and in the English speaks of the mystery of the Trinity. Hallelujah!
Consider another example of White’s misstatement of the evidence. In his chart on page 197 he claims that the KJV omits one witness to Christ’s deity which he claims the NIV and the NASB contain. This is in John 1:18. Consider the following comparison of this verse in the NIV and the KJV--
JOHN 1:18
John 1:18 KJV -- “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
John 1:18 NIV -- “No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”
It does appear, at first glance, that the NIV is superior in this verse in its witness to Christ’s deity in that it reads “God the only Son.” The KJV, on the other hand, has “the only begotten Son.” What White does not explain to his readers is this: In the King James Bible, following the Received Text, John had introduced the term “only begotten Son” four verses prior to verse 18, and he has connected this unique term directly to Christ’s eternal deity in verse one. Thus, one who reads the King James Bible or any other faithful Received Text Bible is made to understand that the phrase “only begotten Son” is a direct reference to Christ’s eternal Godhead. This phrase appears in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9. In each of these verses the NIV changes this important doctrinal phrase “only begotten” to “one and only,” which is not even a true statement. Jesus Christ is not God’s one and only Son (born again believers are sons of God--Heb. 2:10), but Christ is the only begotten Son. We thus disagree with White’s assessment of this passage, and reject his claim that the KJV omits Christ’s deity from John 1:18. In reality, the modern versions, including the NIV, have perverted the doctrine of Christ by removing the key phrase “only begotten” in all five verses in which it should appear. John 1:18 in the NIV, by its erroneous dynamic equivalency translation, teaches false doctrine.
Third, White errs in claiming that the vast omissions pertaining to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ does nothing to weaken the doctrine of His deity.
One of the characteristics of the critical Greek text and the modern versions which follow it is the widespread omission of names and titles belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. The aforementioned Everett Fowler spent many years diligently comparing the Received Text with the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the Nestles Greek Text, and the Bible Societies’ Greek Text, and several popular modern English versions. In 1976 Fowler obtained the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Received Text, and he began his comparisons. Eventually he published his findings in the book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. One section of this excellent work lists “Omissions of Names of Our Lord God.” The omissions affect the reading of 101 verses. There are 221 omissions of the various names of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Westcott-Hort text, 230 in the Nestles’ text, 212 in the Bible Societies text. The modern English versions follow this pattern. The American Standard Version of 1901 has 198 of these omissions of the names and titles of the Lord Jesus Christ and the New American Standard Version of 1973 has 210 omissions.
Many men of God believe the Westcott-Hort text and the modern translations weaken the Scriptures' testimony of the deity of Jesus Christ through this barrage of significant omissions pertaining to His name and title. The flippant dismissal of this as insignificant by James White and other modern version defenders is strange.
Fourth, White errs in failing to acknowledge exactly what King James Bible defenders say about the witness of the modern versions to Christ’s deity and some other key doctrines.
As noted earlier, King James Bible defenders do not claim that the modern versions OMIT key doctrines. They claim that the modern versions WEAKEN some of them through a barrage of often relatively minor (in themselves) changes and omissions. I have studied the Bible in various versions for a quarter of a century, and I am convinced that this charge is accurate. (I was prejudiced AGAINST the King James Bible in my early years, and only through prayerful study did I become convinced that the Received Text and the King James Bible were the preserved Word of God.) I have attempted to defend the doctrine of Christ’s Godhead many times through various modern versions which were possessed by people with whom I was dealing. This has happened frequently in the county jail ministry, for example, during the past six years. From time to time someone will attend our Bible studies who has a Jehovah’s Witness or some other background which undermines Christ’s deity. They often have a modern version, and in my experience it is easier to defend their perverted doctrine from the modern versions than it is from the King James Bible. It is no accident that the Jehovah’s Witnesses choose to publish the Westcott-Hort Greek text. They, and their Unitarian friends who also deny Christ’s Godhead, understand that which White claims is not true: that the modern critical text provides the best support for doctrinal heresy.
Fifth, in regard to the issue of whether or not the modern critical Greek text weakens the doctrine of Christ, White errs in ignoring the testimony of 19th-century Bible defenders.
A large number of men of God in the 19th century, who fought against the critical Greek texts that were then being introduced, saw in them an attack upon the deity of Christ. I have documented this in my book For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the Received Text and the King James Bible from 1800 to Present. I believe this is a very significant point, and it is one that James White completely ignores, because he persists in his delusion that this issue is one which has been raised solely by some “King James Only” cult of recent decades. Consider a couple of examples of the many which could be given.
The first example is Frederick Nolan (1784-1864). In 1815 he published An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, subtitled “in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin.” As the title suggests, this 576-page volume was a defense of the text underlying the Authorized Version. Nolan said, “... it shall be my object to vindicate those important passages of the Received Text which have been rejected from the Scripture Canon, on the principles of the German method of classification” (p. 43). Among the several passages that he thus vindicated are 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7.
Nolan defended the sixteenth-century text on the basis of faith and theological purity. In particular, Nolan was defending the TR against the text and theorizing of J. Griesbach. Nolan saw the hand of God guiding the sixteenth-century textual editors, and he understood that the Received Text is theologically superior to the critical texts. In a careful and very technical manner this Bible scholar traced the history of the doctrinal corruptions which were introduced into the text of various manuscripts during the first four centuries after Christ. Of course, James White and his modern version defender friends pretend that such a view is the delusion of late 20th-century King James Only cultists. Nolan would be amazed.
“The works of those early writers lie under the positive imputation of being corrupted. The copies of Clement and Origen were corrupted in their life time; the manuscripts from which Tertullian’s works have been printed are notoriously faulty; and the copies of Cyprian demonstrate their own corruption, by their disagreement among themselves, and their agreement with different texts and revisals of Scripture. It is likewise indisputable, that these fathers not only followed each other, adopting the arguments and quotations of one another; but that they quoted from the heterodox as well as the orthodox. They were thus likely to transmit from one to another erroneous quotations, originally adopted from sources not more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture. ... New revisals of Scripture were thus formed, which were interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts and fathers. Nor did this systematic corruption terminate here; but when new texts were thus formed, they became the standard by which the later copies of the early writers were in succession corrected” (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, pp. 326-332).
Nolan connects this textual corruption with manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which contain readings at variance with the Received Text. In his Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Nolan detailed the overwhelming textual authority which supports various key passages which were in the Received Text but which are disputed by the modern versions.
The amazing thing is that these facts, which were understood by the Reformation editors and confirmed by wise scholars in the nineteenth century, are scoffed today, even by many supposed Evangelical and some Fundamentalist scholars. James White is only one example. Why? BECAUSE THESE EVANGELICALS AND FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE NOT DEPENDING ON THEIR OWN SCHOLARSHIP BUT UPON THE RATIONALISTIC SCHOLARSHIP OF THE PAST TWO CENTURIES.
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-98) is another example of those who were opposing the theories of modern textual criticism in the United States a century and more ago. We gave an overview of Dabney’s life and ministry earlier in this study. He boldly withstood the apostasy which was creeping in on every side in this day. His biographer called him “a soldier until death, at war with much in his age.” We can say amen and praise the Lord to that attitude!
Dabney understood the theological corruption of the critical text, and he traced these corruptions to second- and third-century heretics. He understood that scholarship is not synonymous with wisdom and spiritual discernment. He knew the fickleness of modern scholarship. He knew that the modern theories of textual criticism are founded upon conjecture and rationalism, not absolute truth and biblical faith. We do not agree with all of Dabney’s conclusions on textual matters, but the fact remains that his analysis of modern textual criticism is devastating and it definitely was contrary to that of James White. It is crucial to understand that the modern English versions are translated from a Greek text which is built upon discredited theories. Consider an excerpt from one of his articles on this subject which noted the doctrinal nature of the textual battle:
“The following list [of doctrinal corruptions in the critical Greek text] is not presented as complete, but as containing the most notable of these points. ... the Sinai and the Vatican MSS. concur in omitting, in Matthew vi. 13, the closing doxology of our Lord’s prayer. In John viii. 1-11, they and the Alexandrine omit the whole narrative of Christ’s interview with the woman taken in adultery and her accusers. The first two omit the whole of Mark xvi., from the ninth verse to the end. Acts viii. 37, in which Philip is represented as propounding to the eunuch faith as the qualification for baptism, is omitted by all three.
.”.. in Acts ix. 5,6 ... the Sinai, Vatican and Alexandrine MSS. all concur in [omitting ‘Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said...’ from the passage.]
“In 1 Tim. iii. 16 ... the Sinai, Codex Ephremi, and probably the Alexandrine [omit God]...
“In 1 John v. 7 ... all the old MSS. concur in omitting the heavenly witnesses...
“In Jude 4 ... the MSS. omit God.
“In Rev. i. 11 ... all three MSS. under remark concur in omitting the Messiah’s eternal titles...
If now the reader will glance back upon this latter list of variations, HE WILL FIND THAT IN EVERY CASE, THE DOCTRINAL EFFECT OF THE DEPARTURE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT IS TO OBSCURE OR SUPPRESS SOME TESTIMONY FOR THE DIVINITY OF THE SAVIOUR....
“The significant fact to which we wish especially to call attention is this: that all the variations proposed on the faith of these manuscripts which have any doctrinal importance, should attack the one doctrine of the Trinity; nay, we may say even more specifically, the one doctrine of Christ’s deity. ... Their admirers [of the favored manuscripts supporting the critical text] claim for them an origin in the fourth or fifth century. The Sabellian and Arian controversies raged in the third and fourth. Is there no coincidence here? Things do not happen again and again regularly without a cause. ... And when we remember the date of the great Trinitarian contest, and compare it with the supposed date of these exemplars of the sacred text, the ground of suspicion becomes violent. ... THESE VARIATIONS ARE TOO NUMEROUS, AND TOO SIGNIFICANT IN THEIR EFFECT UPON THE ONE DOCTRINE, TO BE ASCRIBED TO CHANCE. ... there are strong probable grounds to conclude, that the text of the Scriptures current in the East received a mischievous modification at the hands of the famous ORIGEN, which has not been usually appreciated. ... He is described by Mosheim ... as ‘a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.’ ... HIS REPUTATION AS THE GREAT INTRODUCER OF MYSTICISM, ALLEGORY, AND NEO-PLATONISM INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, IS TOO WELL KNOWN TO NEED RECITAL. Those who are best acquainted with the history of Christian opinion know best, that Origen was the great corrupter, and the source, or at least earliest channel, of nearly all the speculative errors which plagued the church in after ages. ... HE WAS STRICTLY A RATIONALIST. ... HE DISBELIEVED THE FULL INSPIRATION AND INFALLIBILITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely. ... THE KEY-NOTE OF ALL ORIGEN’S LABORS WAS THE EFFORT TO RECONCILE CHRISTIANITY AND THIS ECLECTIC PAGAN PHILOSOPHY INTO A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY....
“... SOMEBODY HAS PLAYED THE KNAVE WITH THE TEXT ... We think that [the reader] will conclude with us that the weight of probability is greatly in favour of this theory--that the anti-Trinitarians, finding certain codices in which these doctrinal readings had been already lost through the licentious criticism of Origen and his school, industriously diffused them, while they also did what they dared to add to the omissions of similar readings” (R.L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871, reprinted in Discussions Evangelical and Theological, 1890, pp. 350-389 ).
We see that Robert Dabney, upon examining the same textual changes which later appeared in the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881 and which appear in the modern English versions today, concluded that they were deliberate and damnable doctrinal corruptions. We think Dabney would be amazed to hear James White say that this conclusion is the product of the feverish imagination of an allegedly anti-intellectual fundamental Baptist “King James Only” crowd which has arisen only in recent years! As we have seen, this is nonsense. For those who want to know the truth of the matter, we have offered a list of recommended resources at the end of this article.
Sixth, White errs in ignoring the witness of a wide range of modern versions.
In attempting to prove that the modern versions do not weaken the doctrine of Christ’s deity, White focuses almost exclusively upon the New International Version and the New American Standard Version. Though he does mention in passing that some modern versions are weaker in this area, he does not give the reader the complete picture. Let’s go back and examine key Christology passages in a wide range of the newer popular modern versions. We will use the following six translations: The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), New Living Translation (NLT), Today’s English Bible (TEV), God’s Word: Today’s Bible Translation (TBT), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson (highly recommended by such well-known men as J.I. Packer, Warren Wiersbe, and Michael Card). All of these versions are widely distributed and influential and have been recommended in “evangelical” circles. The Today’s English Version, for example, has sold millions of copies is the most popular Bible text in England and Australia
ACTS 20:28
KJV: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
NRSV: “… to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”
TBT: “’And now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God’s flock--his church, purchased with his blood--over whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders.’”
TEV: …Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the sacrificial death of his Son.”
TBT: “Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to be shepherds for God’s church which he acquired with his own blood.”
CEV: “…Be shepherds to God’s church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son.”
MESSAGE: “… God’s people they are--to guard and protect them. God himself thought they were worth dying for.”
The KJV powerfully demonstrates the deity of Christ by showing that the blood that was shed on Calvary was God’s blood. On the other hand, the NRSV, the TEV, the CEV, and The Message completely remove this powerful witness to Christ’s deity.
ROMANS 9:5
KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
“NRSV: “to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”
NLT: “Their ancestors were great people of God, and Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.”
TEV: “they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.”
TBT: “The Messiah is descended from their ancestors according to his human nature. The Messiah is God over everything, forever blessed. Amen.”
CEV: “They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of Jesus Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen.”
MESSAGE: “They had everything going for them--family, glory, covenants, revelation, worship, promises, Christ, who is God over everything, always. Oh, yes!”
James White claims that Romans 9:5 in the KJV is ambiguous and that it does not plainly present the deity of Christ. The fact is that the KJV follows the Greek text precisely. An examination of an interlinear Greek-English Bible will demonstrate this. If there is ambiguity, it is also in the Greek, and an accurate translation can do nothing more than follow its underlying text. In fact, there is no problem with the KJV translation of Romans 9:5, and we do not accept White’s charge that the KJV is weak here in regard to Christ’s deity. Every passage must be interpreted in the context of the wider testimony of Scripture, and when we do so with the KJV in Romans 9:5 we see that Christ is both God and that He is blessed of God. That is exactly what the rest of the Bible says! It speaks of the mystery of the Trinity. The doctrine of Christ’s deity is completely removed, though, from the Today’s English Version and the Contemporary English Version.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:47
KJV: “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.”
NRSV: “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.”
NLT: “Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven.”
TEV: “The first Adam, made of earth, came from the earth; the second Adam came from heaven.”
TBT: “The first man was made from the dust of the earth. He came from the earth. The second man came from heaven.”
CEV: “The first man was made from the dust of the earth, but the second man came from heaven.”
MESSAGE: “The First Man was made out of earth, and people since then are earthy; the Second Man was made out of heaven, and people now can be heavenly.”
The KJV tells us that Christ is the Lord from heaven, but by omitting the words “the Lord,” all of the modern versions, following the critical text, obliterate this powerful reference to Christ’s deity.
PHILIPPIANS 2:6-7
KJV: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
NRSV: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross.”
NLT: “Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in a human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross.”
TEV: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God. Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like man and appeared in human likeness. He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death--his death on the cross.”
TBT: “Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, death on a cross.”
CEV: “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. He gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. He gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross.”
MESSAGE: “He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn’t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death--and the worst kind of death at that: a crucifixion.”
The King James Bible most perfectly presents the mystery of Christ’s incarnation in this key passage by its precise rendering of the Greek text. On the other hand, several popular versions detract from the doctrine. The TBT claims that Christ became like other humans. This is very weak and allows for false doctrine pertaining to Christ’s humanity. The CEV claims he gave up everything. That poor translation allows for the false doctrine that Christ laid aside His Godhead. The Message says that Christ merely had “equal status” with God.
COLOSSIANS 1:15
KJV: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:”
NRSV: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
NLT: “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation.”
TEV: “Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things.”
TBT: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
CEV: “Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation.”
MESSAGE: “We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen.”
The KJV perfectly and beautifully presents the doctrine of Christ’s eternal Godhead here, but some of the modern versions do not. The NLT claims that He merely existed before God made anything, which means He might not have been eternal. The CEV claims He is exactly like God, but this could mean He is not God but that He is only like God. The weak rendering in The Message could mean many false things.
COLOSSIANS 1:19
KJV: “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.”
NRSV: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.”
NLT: “For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ.”
TEV: “For it was by God’s own decision that the Son has in himself the full nature of God.”
TBT: “God was pleased to have all of himself live in Christ.”
CEV: “God himself was pleased to live fully in his Son.”
MESSAGE: “So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding.”
The King James Bible, with its precise rendering of the correct Greek text, contains a lovely testimony to Christ’s Godhead in this verse. Many of the modern versions muddy this testimony. To say that God lived in Christ is not the same as saying that in Christ was all the fullness of God. The difference is subtle, but real. Those who know the subtilty of false doctrine, understand how important these distinctions are. The KJV, correctly following the Greek, says nothing about God living in Christ. God could live in Christ, in the sense taught by New Agers and many false teachers, without Christ Himself being Almighty God. The modern versions, by their less precise rendering of the Greek, provide more fertile ground for the dissemination of error.
COLOSSIANS 2:9
KJV: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
NRSV: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
NLT: “For in Christ the fullness of God lives in a human body.”
TEV: “For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity.”
TBT: “All of God lives in Christ’s body…”
CEV: “God lives fully in Christ.”
MESSAGE: “Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly.”
The KJV translation is a clear and marvelous testimony to the doctrine that Jesus Christ is fully God. The other translations, though, have problems of various sorts with this passage. The NRSV rendering of “deity” is less clear and powerful than the KJV’s “Godhead.” Some, such as the Unitarians and Modernists, who deny Christ’s Godhead claim they believe in his “deity” as they falsely define it. The Message rendering is typically weak and almost meaningless. The TBT rendering is very strange. How would “all of God” live in Christ’s body? God is omnipresent. The TEV, likewise, through its lax paraphrasing, presents strange doctrine. Does the full content of divine nature live in Christ’s humanity?
1 TIMOTHY 1:15-17
KJV: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
NRSV: “But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”
NLT: “This is a true saying, and everyone should believe it: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--and I was the worst of them all. But that is why God had mercy on me, so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe on him and receive eternal life. Glory and honor to God forever and ever. He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.”
TEV: “This is a true saying, to be completely accepted and believed: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I am the worst of them but God was merciful to me in order that Christ Jesus might show his full patience in dealing with me, the worst of sinners, as an example for all those who would later believe in him and receive eternal life. To the eternal King, immortal and invisible, the only God--to him be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.”
TBT: “This is a statement that can be trusted and deserves complete acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the foremost sinner. However, I was treated with mercy so that Christ Jesus could use me, the foremost sinner, to demonstrate his patience. This patience serves as an example for those who would believe in him and live forever. Worship and glory belong forever to the eternal king, the immortal, invisible, and only God. Amen.”
CEV: “’Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.’ This saying is true, and it can be trusted. I was the worst sinner of all! But since I was worse than anyone else, God had mercy on me and let me be an example of the endless patience of Christ Jesus. He did this so that others would put their faith in Christ and have eternal life. I pray that honor and glory will always be given to the only God, who lives forever and is the invisible and eternal King! Amen.”
MESSAGE: “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. I’m proof--Public Sinner Number One--of someone who could never have made it apart from sheer mercy. And now he shows me off--evidence of his endless patience--to those who are right on the edge of trusting him forever. Deep honor and bright glory to the King of All Time--One God, Immortal, Invisible, ever and always. Oh, yes!”
This passage in the King James Bible, particularly taken in combination with the KJV translation of 1 Tim. 6:14-17, is an unequivocal testimony that Jesus Christ is the only wise God. The paraphrasing in the NLT and the CEV completely remove this testimony. The TEV does the same thing by adding the word “God” in verse 16 with no Greek authority, thus introducing an apparent distinction between Jesus Christ and God. The CEV and the Message are so loosely paraphrased that it is difficult to understand what they are saying, but their testimony to Christ’s deity is certainly not clear in this passage.
1 TIMOTHY 3:16
KJV: “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.”
NRSV: “Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.”
NLT: “Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ appeared in the flesh and was shown to be righteous by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and was announced to the nations. He was believed on in the world and was taken up into heaven.”
TEV: “No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven.”
TBT: “The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory.”
CEV: “Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human. The Spirit proved that he pleased God, and he was seen by angels. Christ was preached to the nations. People in this world put their faith in him, and he was taken up to glory.”
MESSAGE: “This Christian life is a great mystery, far exceeding our understanding, but some things are clear enough: He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible Spirit, was seen by angels. He was proclaimed among all kinds of peoples, believed in all over the world, taken up into heavenly glory.”
The King James Version, by following the God-honored Received Text, contains in this verse one of very plainest references in the Bible to Jesus Christ as God. The modern versions, following the critical Greek text and on scant and undependable authority, omit the word “God,” rendering the verse almost meaningless, and certainly robbing it of any clear reference to the Deity of Jesus Christ.
1 TIMOTHY 6:14-16
KJV: “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”
NRSV: “to keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will bring about at the right time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.”
NLT: “that you obey his commands with all purity. Then no one can find fault with you from now until our Lord Jesus Christ returns. For at the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No one has ever seen him, nor ever will. To him be honor and power forever. Amen.”
TEV: “to obey your orders and keep them faithfully until the Day when our Lord Jesus Christ will appear. His appearing will be brought about at the right time by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. He alone is immortal; he lives in the light that no one can approach. No one has ever seen him; no one can ever see him. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.”
TBT: “I insist that, until our Lord Jesus Christ appears, you obey this command completely. Then you cannot be blamed for doing anything wrong. At the right time God will make this known. God is the blessed and only ruler. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the only one who cannot die. He lives in light that no one can come near. No one has seen him, nor can they see him. Honor and power belong to him forever! Amen.”
CEV: “Promise to obey completely and fully all that you have been told until our Lord Jesus Christ returns. The glorious God is the only Ruler, the Kings of kings and Lord of lords. At the time that God has already decided, he will send Jesus Christ back again. Only God lives forever! And he lives in light that no one can come near. No human has ever seen God or ever can see him. God will be honored, and his power will last forever. Amen.”
MESSAGE: “Keep this command to the letter, and don’t slack off. Our Master, Jesus Christ, is on his way. He’ll show up right on time, his arrival guaranteed by the Blessed and Undisputed Ruler, High King, High God. He’s the only one death can’t touch, his light so bright no one can get close. He’s never been seen by human eyes--human eyes can’t take him in! Honor to him, and eternal rule! Oh, yes.”
In this beautiful passage the King James Version offers a powerful, unequivocal witness that Jesus Christ is God. Every statement in verses 15 and 16 is identified directly with the “our Lord Jesus Christ” of verse 14. The NRSV, on the other hand, rewords the passage to make it possible that the rest of the passage does not refer directly to Christ. It is not as clear as the KJV. The NLT changes the passage completely so that it no longer refers to Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords, etc., but to “almighty God.” The TEV, TBT, and CEV do the same thing. The Message is even worse. All of these pervert the passage doctrinally.
TITUS 2:13
KJV: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
NRSV: “while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
NLT: “while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.”
TEV: “as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ will appear.”
TBT: “At the same time we can expect what we hope for--the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
CEV: “We are filled with hope, as we wait for the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
MESSAGE: “This new life is starting right now, and is whetting our appetites for the glorious day when our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, appears.”
The KJV presents Jesus Christ as the great God and our Saviour. The other versions also present Christ this way. It is the only key passage we have found in which all of the popular English versions present the Deity of Christ properly.
HEBREWS 1:3
KJV: “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
NRSV: “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
NLT: “The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven.”
TEV: “He reflects the brightness of God’s glory and is the exact likeness of God’s own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word. After achieving forgiveness for the sins of mankind, he sat down in heaven at the right side of God, the Supreme Power.”
TBT: “His Son is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact likeness of God’s being. He holds everything together through his powerful words. After he had cleansed people from their sins, he received the highest position, the one next to the Father in heaven.”
CEV: “God’s Son has all the brightness of God’s own glory and is like him in every way. By his own mighty word he holds the universe together. After the Son had washed away our sins, he sat down at the right side of the glorious God in heaven.”
MESSAGE: “This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God’s nature. He holds everything together by what he says--powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God.”
The KJV has a lovely testimony to Christ’s Deity and to the Trinity. He is the express image of God’s person yet he sat down on the right hand of God in Heaven. None of the other versions are as precise and accurate as the KJV, and all of them omit the very important phrase “by himself” in reference to His atonement.
HEBREWS 1:8
KJV: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”
NRSV: “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.”
NLT: “But to his Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal power is expressed in righteousness.”
TEV: “About the Son, however, God said: ‘Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever! You rule over your people with justice.’”
TBT: “But God said about his Son, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice.’”
CEV: “But God says about his Son, ‘You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice.”
MESSAGE: “But he says to the Son, ‘You’re God, and on the throne for good; your rule makes everything right. You love it when things are right; you hate it when things are wrong.’”
This is one of the most important verses teaching the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and the KJV translates it beautifully. All of the translations allow for the Son to be called God, but the NRSV, TEV, TBT, and CEV change the direction of God’s statement. Instead of addressing His words to the Son, they have Him speaking about the Son. The alleged “dynamic equivalency” rendering of this verse in the NLT, the TEV, the CEV, and the Message is almost childish.
1 JOHN 3:16
KJV: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
NRSV: “We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us--and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.”
NLT: “We know what real love is because Christ gave up his life for us. And so we also ought to give up our lives for our Christian friends.”
TEV: “This is how we know what love is: Christ gave his life for us. We too, then, ought to give our lives for our brothers!”
TBT: “We understand what love is when we realize that Christ gave his life for us. That means we must give our lives for other believes.”
CEV: “We know what love is because Jesus gave his life for us. That’s why we must give our lives for each other.”
MESSAGE: “This is how we’ve come to understand and experience love: Christ sacrificed his life for us.”
The KJV has an unequivocal testimony that Jesus Christ is God. The one who laid down his life for us is called God. By replacing “God” with “Christ” or “he,” all of the other versions remove this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead.
REVELATION 1:11
KJV: “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
NRSV: “saying, ‘Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”
NLT: “It said, ‘Write down what you see, and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
TEV: “It said, ‘Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
TBT: “saying, ‘Write on a scroll what you see, and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
CEV: “The voice said, ‘Write in a book what you see. Then send tit to the seven churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
MESSAGE: “’Write what you see into a book. Send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
By removing “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” from verse 11, all of the modern versions, following the critical Greek text, seriously weaken this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead. As it stands in the Received Text and the KJV and any other faithful TR translation, the Almighty of verse 8 is obviously the Lord Jesus Christ of verse 11. Modern version proponents like to point out the fact that the critical text adds the word "God" in verse 8. But consider the whole picture: Verse 8 in the critical text omits "the beginning and the ending." Verse 9 omits "Christ" two times. Verse 11 omits "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." The overall effect of the modern version rendering of Revelation chapter one is to weaken its testimony to Christ‘s deity as compared with the King James Bible.
Seventh, White errs in claiming that heretics who corrupt Bibles would always corrupt every key doctrinal passage.
He says, “If there was an effort on the part of modern translations like the NIV or NASB to downplay the deity of Christ … [s]uch a bias would be exhibited throughout a translation, and such is simply not the case” (White, p. 197). This is a false statement. Heretics do not necessarily attempt to corrupt every single passage, and to demonstrate this I will not go back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I can demonstrate this with a modern example, the Today’s English Version (TEV). As demonstrated in the previous study, the TEV weakens the doctrine of the deity of Christ in many key passages--but not in every one of them. There are passages even in the Today’s English Version which teach Christ’s deity. This is interesting because its key translator, Robert Bratcher, denied that Jesus Christ is God. As early as 1953, Bratcher, then a Southern Baptist missionary in Brazil, Bratcher stated the following: “Jesus Christ would not enjoy omniscience. That is an attribute of God … Jesus did not claim He and the Father to be one--which would be absurd” (Bratcher, O Jornal Batista [The Baptist Journal], July 9, 1953). In a letter to Julius C. Taylor, July 16, 1970, Bratcher confirmed what he wrote in 1953. Bratcher also denies the blood atonement of Jesus Christ and believes that the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is “willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty” (Bratcher, Baptist Courier, April 2, 1981, reporting on Bratcher’s speech to the Southern Baptist Life Commission in Dallas, Texas). Bratcher began working with the American Bible Society (ABS) in 1957 and was the chief translator for the Today’s English Version, which was completed in 1976. After his public comments in 1981, the American Bible Society came under widespread attack and began losing support. Bratcher was therefore forced to resign from the ABS, but it was a mere shell game to deceive ABS supporters. Bratcher was hired by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and the American Bible Society continues to help pay his salary through its massive grants to the UBS; the Southern Baptists, in turn, continue to help fund Bratcher’s work through the large SBC grants to the American Bible Society!
In spite of the fact that its chief translator denies the Godhead of Jesus Christ, the Today’s English Version does not COMPLETELY remove the deity of Christ; it merely weakens it. That is precisely what the critical Greek text does and all of the modern versions that follow that text.
IN CONCLUSION, WHAT IS THE FRUIT OF WHITE’S APPROACH?
James White does an excellent job of tearing down faith in the Authorized Version and the Received Text, but what does he offer in its place? If I accept White’s position, (1) I am dependent on modern scholarship to determine for me the correct text. (2) I am left without an established biblical authority. White makes light of this type of viewpoint, but he can make light all he wants, as far as I am concerned. I don’t believe at this point in history that we are still groping around searching for the preserved Word of God. I believe the preservation of Scripture was progressive to a certain extent, just as the revelation of Scripture was progressive. There were the long centuries we call the dark ages and the middle ages, during which the Roman Catholic Church held sway over the civilized world. During those centuries, the history of the Bible was clouded by horrible and continuous persecution. Multitudes of Bibles and Scripture portions were destroyed by Rome. The literary records of entire groups of separated Christians were wiped from the face of the earth. We will not know the details of the transmission of the Scripture during those centuries until we get to Glory and can search Heaven’s libraries, although we do know that many Scriptures were used during those centuries which were similar to the Received Text. The history of the transmission of the biblical text does not become perfectly clear until the 15th and 16th centuries. Since then we can trace the history quite plainly, because we have the necessary records. We certainly see a progression in the history of the English Bible. From 1380 or 82, when the first English Bible was published, until 1611, the English Bible was in a state of transition and perfecting. From that point until the end of the 19th century, only minor changes were made in the English Bible, largely spelling and grammatical changes. We believe we can see the hand of God in all of this. The perfecting period was over, and the distribution period had begun. During the centuries following the publication of the Authorized Version, the English Bible was distributed to the four corners of the world and wielded an influence among nations which has never been equaled. Many books have been written to document this phenomenon.
What fruit does White’s approach produce in his readers’ minds? -- questioning, doubt, uncertainty, confusion. He will not agree with this assessment, I am certain, but I believe this is precisely the fruit of his approach to this issue. I saw it in my own life, when I briefly entertained the modern version position years ago.
On the other hand, what is the fruit of the approach that accepts the Received Text as the preserved Word of God and the AV and other excellent Reformation translations as accurate translations thereof? The fruit of such an approach is faith, confidence, a settled text, an ability to preach and teach dogmatically. That is the fruit I have experienced in reading men like Edward F. Hills and D.O. Fuller. This is the fruit of my own writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. I am willing to stand before the Lord and to give account for causing my readers to have confidence in the Authorized Version and in the textual family that it represents. I would not want, though, to stand before Him and to give account for causing people to have doubt and uncertainty and confusion, and for leaving them without a settled biblical standard in these last days.
Edward F. Hills put it well when he stated that the modern critical approach gives maximum uncertainty, while the Received Text approach gives maximum certainty. No position can answer every question. No position can deal conclusively with every problem. But one position leaves one adrift upon the unsettled waters of modern textual scholarship, and the other position leaves one with a dependable Bible. That might be too simple and practical for some men, but I like it just fine!
May God richly encourage you and bless you with confidence in His Preserved Scriptures in these troubled times, my friend. We need to be about the Father’s business while it is day.
SUGGESTED MATERIALS ON THE SUBJECT OF BIBLE VERSIONS
COUNTERFEIT OR GENUINE? MARK 16, JOHN 8? edited by David Otis Fuller. 1978, 230 pages.
FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS by David Cloud. 775 pages. Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143.
FOR LOVE OF THE BIBLE by David W. Cloud. 1995, 460 pages. Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143.
THE MODERN BIBLE VERSION HALL OF SHAME by David Cloud. 292 pages. Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143.
THE GNOSTICS, THE NEW VERSIONS, AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST by Jay P. Green, Sr. 1994, 113 pages.
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills. 1984, 280 pages.
THE REVISION REVISED by John William Burgon. 1883, 549 pages.
TRUE OR FALSE? edited by David Otis Fuller. 1973, 305 pages.
WHEN THE KJV DEPARTS FROM THE “MAJORITY TEXT” by Jack Moorman. 1988, 154 pages.
INTRODUCTION
My first thought, as I looked through this book, was that this is a strange piece of writing. The world of Bible translation is becoming increasingly, bewilderingly perverse, yet James White aims his gun not at the Bible corrupters but at men who are attempting to defend God’s Word against the onslaught of end-times apostasy. Almost each passing year brings to light an English Bible version more corrupt than its predecessor. This is on the commercial side of Bible translations, yet the corruption is also evident in the field of professional missionary translation. The United Bible Societies, working hand in hand with the Roman Catholic Church, have almost completely given up on “formal equivalency” translation and have dedicated their vast resources to the production of paraphrase-type Bibles created with the presumptuous dynamic equivalency method of translation. The same is true for Wycliffe Bible Translators. White sounds no warning of these matters, though. His readers are given the impression that the onslaught of modernism in the field of Bible texts and translations is a matter of very minor consequence compared with the great evil of believing God has preserved His Word verbally in the Received Text and the Received Text translations which have gone to the ends of the earth during the past five centuries of great missionary endeavor. Consider the following amazing statement in the Foreword to White’s book, written by Mike Baird, a professor at the Southern Baptist-aligned Grand Canyon University:
“In this age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading. Yet many, even within Christendom, have set about to undermine the authority of Scripture. This happens in places of higher criticism, but it also happens in places where we are least suspecting. James White, in The King James Only Controversy, deals with this sense of uncertainty in God’s Word promoted by those who defend the KJV as the only reliable Bible” (p. i).
I shake my head at the strangeness of this statement. How in the world does the defense of a pure Scripture text create uncertainty in God’s Word? How in the world can the defense of a pure Bible be compared with the heresy of higher criticism? There is a popular book that claims, tongue-in-cheek, that women live on Venus and men live on Mars, referring to the vast difference in the way men and women think and act. A similar gulf exists between those who defend the King James Bible and those who defend the modern versions. It is very difficult for one to understand the other! The modern version defender allows a man to say the Scriptures were verbally inspired and perfect when they were first written, but he goes ballistic when he hears a man say that he has a Bible in his hands today that has been preserved by God. He charges such a man with heresy. He labels him a troublemaker, and an ignoramus, to boot.
I realize that the defense of the King James Bible and the Received Text creates doubt in the modern versions, but at the same time it creates complete faith in the Scriptures that have come down to use through the centuries. On the other hand, the modern version position creates doubt in EVERY Bible! According to the modern version position, there is no text or translation which can be trusted entirely, so the adherent is loosed from the rock of biblical certainty and is left to drift upon the shifting sands of modern textual scholarship.
Further, I did not read in White’s book long before I realized that it is misnamed. It should be titled not The King James Only Controversy, but The Ruckman-Riplinger Controversy, because White paints the entire movement in defense of the King James Bible with the brush of these two individuals.
White’s book appears, at first glance, to be an unemotional, objective, scholarly approach to the topic of Bible texts and versions. In reality, it is a vicious slander upon those who are defenders of the King James Bible and the Received Text which underlies the KJV and other great Reformation Bibles. He implies throughout that every KJV defender is either a raving lunatic or an ignorant extremist. He ignores or passes over slightly, even flippantly, the great issues of the KJV defense, focusing, instead, upon the most indefensible, asinine representations.
The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against “King James Onlyism” and will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the TR and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:
“In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT” (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).
This was the condition that Alfred Martin witnessed in Christian education in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It is much worse today. The reason why most students at colleges and seminaries are not presented with both sides of the Bible text-translation issue is because of men like James White, who do everything in their power to make the defenders of the Received Text and the King James Bible look like fools. I believe these men have a lot to answer for before God.
Let me also say this right at the outset: I am convinced that James White’s book on Bible versions is one of the most dangerous books that has been written in the last several years. This is because it is dead wrong and it is leading men and women away from the preserved Word of God, yet it has proven to be very popular. It is hastening a process which is rapidly destroying absolute truth in the churches.
A CRITIQUE OF THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY
WHITE’S APPROACH TO THE TOPIC OF TEXTS AND VERSIONS IS MAN-CENTERED, RATHER THAN GOD-CENTERED.
James White focuses almost exclusively upon men—Erasmus, the KJV translators, Calvin, Beza, King James Bible defenders—and upon their frailties. I keep asking myself, where does this author think God was during the past 500 years? His approach is a rationalistic one as opposed to simple faith based on God’s promises. He approaches the history of the text with his eyes upon man and human scholarship. Though he is an “evangelical” (the term is in quotations because it is almost meaningless today, a fact which has been witnessed in recent years by evangelical leaders themselves, in books such as The Great Evangelical Disaster by Francis Schaeffer and No Place for Truth: or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? by David F. Wells), his approach to the Biblical text mirrors that of theological modernists and neo-orthodox ecumenists such as Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger, whom he repeatedly exalts as authorities. This is the root error of those who defend the modern critical texts and versions. They do not approach this issue by faith; they approach it by human intellect and scholarship. The Bible says, though, that “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6).
WHITE IGNORES GOD’S PROMISE OF BIBLICAL PRESERVATION EXCEPT TO MENTION IT IN PASSING.
Note this statement:
“KJV Only advocates are quick to assert that those who do not join them in making the KJV the final authority in all things do not believe in the ‘preservation of the Scriptures.’ Almost all KJV Only books will contain a section on how God has promised to preserve His words, and they will, of course, assume that these ‘words’ are found in the KJV” (White, p. 47).
As he does throughout the book, White quickly paints this issue with the brush of extremism. In telling his readers how King James Bible defenders allegedly define preservation, he says they believe the Bible was “re-inspired” in 1611. This might be what a few believe, but I know hundreds of King James Bible defenders, including many of those who are writing on this subject, and it is certainly not what most believe. In fact, I don’t know anyone who believes the Bible was re-inspired in 1611. White does not quote from any one to demonstrate his point. He merely claims that some believe this. To my knowledge (and, as far as I know, I am the only man who has written an extensive history of King James Bible defense) the common view among King James Bible defenders is that God preserved the pure Greek and Hebrew text and delivered it to the Reformation Editors and it was translated accurately into many major languages and was subsequently carried to the ends of the earth during the great missionary movement of the last five centuries. Most King James Bible defenders, in my knowledge, do not confuse inspiration with preservation. They understand that inspiration refers to the original giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles of old, and that this inspired Scripture has been preserved for us. The King James Bible was not a re-inspiration of God’s Word; it was an accurate formal equivalency translation thereof which gave weight to every word in the original language text (unlike a dynamic equivalency such as the New International Version, which makes no attempt to translate all of the Greek and Hebrew words). The authority of the Greek and Hebrew text is carried over into English or into German or French, etc., insofar as the translation is accurate. I could site hundreds of men who believe the view of preservation that I am describing and who would absolutely reject any idea that the Bible was re-inspired in 1611. Consider, for example, the statement of The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies (also known as the Which Bible? Society), which was founded as an extension of Dr. David Otis Fuller's desire to address the version issue and textual debate on a broader scale:
The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies is committed to:
* the immediate, verbal, plenary inspiration of the original writings of Scripture and that they are therefore inerrant and infallible. This inspiration is unique, applicable both to the process of giving the original writings and the writings themselves which are that product;
* the verbal preservation of the Greek Received Text as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society;
* the verbal preservation of the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim;
* the position that translation is not an inherent boundary to verbal preservation. The breath of God, product, not process, conveyed by translation from the immediately inspired language copies of Scripture into any providentially prepared receptor language will impart to that translation infallible authority and doctrinal inerrancy inherent in the original language copies. Such a translation by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, both with and through that translation, will evidence to the believer its own self-attestation and self-authentication whereby God asserts himself as the supreme Authority to that culture. For the English speaking world this revelation of God's authority is preserved in the Authorized Version.
The late David Otis Fuller, editor of three very influential books in defense of the King James Bible, Which Bible?, True or False?, and Counterfeit or Genuine?, has been widely maligned by those who promote the modern versions. We see, though, that the organization which carries on his work does not confuse inspiration with preservation. The previous statement was written by Peter Van Kleeck, who is the pastor of Wealthy Park Baptist Church, the church pastored by D.O. Fuller for 40 years. Pastor Van Kleeck was Associate Director of the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies from 1990-94. Since then his father, William Van Kleeck, has assumed this position.
King James Bible defenders argue that it is impossible to believe in biblical preservation and to accept the tenets of modern textual criticism. The latter claims that the purest text of Scripture was basically misplaced or unused for centuries and did not begin to be recovered until the end of the 19th century. Textual critics tell us that the Received Text, which was without question the traditional text of the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians from 1500 to 1900, is an impure text which contains thousands of latter additions. They tell us that the pure text of the New Testament is actually the shortened Westcott-Hort type Greek text represented today in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. The problem is that this text type was rejected for hundreds of years until textual critics such as Tischendorf rediscovered it in the late 1800s, while the Received Text was greatly honored by God. If the Received Text is indeed the impure text, I believe the promise of God has failed. God preserves His Word in its use among His people, not in its misuse and neglect.
Consider a statement that illustrates the way the Received Text-King James Bible defender looks at Bible preservation. This statement was made in 1970 by Donald Brake in a Master of Theology thesis entitled “The Doctrine of the Preservation of Scriptures” presented to the faculty of the Department of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary:
“The issue ultimately is: Has God preserved throughout history a continuous, uninterrupted text for the Church or has He merely preserved for one thousand years a corrupted text and then revealed His true text when a German critic at the convent of St. Catherine picked out of a wastebasket one single manuscript?” (Donald Brake, reprinted from Counterfeit or Genuine?, Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, p. 179).
We would remind James White that this statement was not made by a Ruckman-Riplingerite fundamental Baptist.
Let me give another example. This statement is made by John Burgon in the late 19th century:
“I am utterly disinclined to believe--so grossly improbable does it seem--that at the end of eighteen hundred 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” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 12).
If the critical textual editors of the nineteenth century had believed God and His promise of preservation, they would have understood that the pure Word of God was not lost! That’s the major point of contention in this entire matter, as I see it. The Word of God was preserved; it was not lost. It was not unused or discarded. My confidence is not in Erasmus or in King James I or in John Burgon or in David Otis Fuller. My confidence is in a God who has promised to preserve His Word. And if the Bible which went to the ends of the earth during the greatest era of missionary activity in church history since the apostolic era was not the preserved Word of God, there is no such thing as the preserved Word of God, and this entire matter is merely an exercise in vanity.
White claims there is another way to look at preservation than to see the God-honored Received Text and the English Authorized Version and other accurate translations thereof as the preserved Word of God. It appears that he is saying that this other way of understanding preservation is to claim that the Bible is “preserved” only vaguely within the bewildering diversity of texts and versions. In a practical sense, though, such a view has almost no meaning for the average Christian. It leaves him dependent upon the “scholars” to tell him what is and is not the preserved Word of God, and the more he examines their teaching, the more he understands that a very large percentage of them do not know what they are talking about!
WHITE LUMPS ALL KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS INTO THE RUCKMAN-RIPLINGER CAMP.
In the beginning of his book, White divides “KJV Only” into five categories: Those who like the KJV best, those who support the KJV textually, those who are Received Text only, those who believe the KJV is inspired and inerrant, those who believe the KJV is advanced or new revelation. In the body of the book, though, White almost exclusively uses his pet term “KJV Only” to apply to a Ruckman-type position. In the chapter entitled “The King James Only Camp,” White claims that the scholars of the past (such as John Burgon and H.C. Hoskier) who defended the textual tradition underlying the KJV, cannot be included in the “KJV Only” camp. Thus he contradicts his own definition given in chapter one, by refusing to label men as “KJV Only” who are defenders of the textual tradition underlying the KJV.
White entitles the large section on Ruckman “Spearheading the KJV Only Movement.” We see, then, that his objective is to paint every KJV defender with a broad brush—the brush of Ruckmanism. I have seen this among a wide range of men who love to denounce the alleged error of that which they label “King James Onlyism.” They tend to ignore or lightly pass over the great issues of the Bible version debate and focus instead on human personalities, particularly on Peter Ruckman. In his chapter on “The King James Only Camp,” White gives only three examples of “KJV Only” defenders: Edward F. Hills, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman. He dedicates three brief pages to an incredibly shallow consideration of Hills and then proceeds to dedicate 32 pages to Riplinger and Ruckman. You can see the man’s emphasis. Before quoting one of Riplinger’s indefensible statements, for example, White says that her statement “is extremely important for anyone wishing to understand the thinking of KJV Onlyism” (White, The King James Only Controversy, p. 108). Thus you see his attempt to paint the defense of the King James Bible with the broad brush of extremism. He wants his readers to think that the entire defense of the King James Bible is nothing but a mass of conspiratorial theories, of conjecturing, of indefensible statements, of shallow scholarship in the extreme. In reality, Gail Riplinger’s statement on page 108 of White’s book is important only for someone wishing to understand Gail Riplinger. It is not important if one desires to understand a sound defense of the King James Bible.
White’s inclusion of Riplinger as one of the KEY examples of King James Bible defense is even more duplicitous than his use of Peter Ruckman. At least Dr. Ruckman is a biblical scholar, preacher and teacher, and has been writing about the King James Bible for many decades. Riplinger’s public entrance into this debate did not occur until 1993, only two years before White wrote his book. In reality, to use either of these people as the key examples of the defense of the King James Bible is to set up a straw man. In my book For Love of the Bible: The History of the Battle for the Received Text and the King James Bible from 1800 to Present, I list many examples of men who stood in defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible before Gail Riplinger was born and before Peter Ruckman ever thought of applying his acrid pen to this topic.
Uninformed readers of White’s book would naturally assume that all or most “KJV Onlyites” believe the things White is refuting, but this certainly is not the case. I believe it is unreasonable and slanderous to lump all into the same category, but this is what almost every modern version proponent does. The definition of “King James Only” is crucial. As I wrote recently to a friend, as to whether or not I am “KJV-only” depends, obviously, on how that term is defined. I am “KJV only” if that means I believe the KJV is the only completely authoritative English translation of the preserved text of Greek and Hebrew Scripture. I am not “KJV only” if that means the KJV is advanced revelation or is itself given by inspiration or that the English language has replaced the Greek and Hebrew or that the KJV itself has become the standard for all translations or that the KJV is the only Bible through which men can be born again or if it means that every man who disagrees with me is a member of a cult, etc.
WHITE ABSOLUTELY IGNORES THE FACT THAT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS REJECT PETER RUCKMAN AND HIS STRANGE IDEAS AND HIS CARNAL DEMEANOR.
White ignores the fact that many key King James Bible defenders have exposed Ruckmanism as an error. The Fundamental Evangelistic Association (FEA) of Los Osos, California, is an example. This organization has stood in defense of the King James Bible for much of this century and has published materials on the topic of Bible versions which have encouraged thousands of Christians to trust the old English Bible. The FEA is the publisher of Foundation magazine. Yet the FEA stands against Ruckmanism. In January 1986, the late M.H. Reynolds, head of the FEA, wrote a paper entitled “Are the Teachings of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman True to the Scriptures?” He gave me a copy of the paper that same year, when I preached at an FEA Bible conference. In the introduction, Dr. Reynolds said: “There may be some who will claim that the information presented in this article is an attack upon one of God’s leaders in the Bible version battle but I cannot remain silent about the false teachings of Dr. Ruckman, especially when so many of his followers appear willing to do so.” Dr. Reynolds wrote this paper because a sister church was being infiltrated with Ruckmanism and was on the verge of a carnal split.
The Maranatha Baptist Church of Elkton, Maryland, is also widely known for its unequivocal stand for the King James Bible. Allen Dickerson has been the pastor for more than 40 years. He publishes the Maranatha Baptist Watchman and the church operates the Maryland Baptist Bible College (P.O. Box 246, 4131 Old Neck Elk Road, Elkton, MD 21922. 410-398-3764). The Winter 1994 issue of college’s paper, the Swordsman, contained a “Position Paper of Maryland Baptist Bible College on Various Teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman,” by John Cereghin, a teacher at MBBC. The paper notes seven points at which they disagree with Ruckman: 1. That the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts can be corrected with the English of the Authorized Version. 2. Dr. Ruckman teaches there are errors in the Greek text from which our AV-1611 is translated. 3. Dr. Ruckman believes there are mistakes in the AV-1611 despite his claims to the contrary. 4. Dr. Ruckman claims Satan is a Fundamentalist. 5. Dr. Ruckman claims ‘The chief purpose of all higher education (Christian or otherwise) is to get rid of absolute authority (of the Bible).’ 6. Dr. Ruckman is guilty of date setting for the Second Advent. 7. Despite claims to the contrary, Dr. Ruckman displays an anti-Christian attitude toward those who do not agree with some of his interpretations on certain Scriptures. The position paper concludes: “Maryland Baptist Bible College, therefore, should not be identified with these teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman and does not wish to be identified with the same.”
Evangelist Paul Freeman also illustrates the many King James Bible defenders who reject Ruckmanism. He has published an excellent book entitled Doctrinal Changes in the Modern Versions. In a letter to me dated December 8, 1994, he wrote: “You are exactly right about Ruckman. He is a false teacher and a disgrace to the fundamental cause. I have seen graduates of the Bible Truth Institute in Sunbury, Penn., ruined by him. (I taught there for two and a half years.) His teaching on Divorce and Remarriage has put unqualified men in the ministry.”
Dr. Donald Waite is a staunch defender of the King James Bible. His book Defending the King James Bible is a classic which is widely used among KJV lovers. He believes the KJV is “God’s Word kept intact,” that it is absolutely trustworthy, and that it contains no translation errors. In Defending the King James Bible, Dr. Waite documents what he believes is the four-fold superiority of the KJV: It is superior in its texts, its translators, its techniques, and its theology. Waite has been writing on this subject since the founding of the Bible for Today ministry in 1971. He helped found the Dean Burgon Society in 1978 and has been its president ever since. This society exists to defend the Received Text and the KJV. Its motto is “In defense of traditional Bible text.” This refers to the traditional Massoretic Hebrew Old Testament Text that underlies the King James Bible, the traditional Greek New Testament Received Text, and the King James Bible itself, which is the traditional English Bible. Dr. Waite’s Bible for Today ministry offers the largest collection of material defending the King James Bible available today, including many reprints of rare 19th-century classics such as Burgon’s Revision Revised and Hoskier’s Codex B and Its Allies. As of 1992 the Bible for Today carried over 900 titles on textual issues. In spite of his unhesitating stand for the King James Bible, Dr. Waite has been labeled a heretic by Peter Ruckman because Waite rejects Ruckman’s views that the English is advanced revelation and because Dr. Waite refuses to apply the term “inspiration” to the translation of the Bible, believing, instead, that “God Himself did not ‘breathe out’ English, or German, or French, or Spanish, or Latin, or Italian. He did ‘breathe out’ Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek” (Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p. 246). In spite of Dr. Waite’s firm stand against a Ruckman position which confuses inspiration and preservation and exalts English above the Hebrew/Greek text, James White lumps Waite directly into the Ruckman camp. This is how extremely biased his book is.
The Biblical Fundamentalist is a bi-monthly paper published in Australia. The founding editor, the late Sidney W. Hunter, stood for the Received Text and the King James Bible, yet the June 1, 1993, issue of the Biblical Fundamentalist contained an article entitled “Ruckmanism--Its Attack on the KJV.” In this article Hunter stated:
“In his book The Monarch of Books (page 9), Ruckman states that ‘The King James text is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century. … The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611.’ Notice the implications of this absurd statement. Ruckman is saying that just as God closed the Old Testament with the Book of Malachi 389 years before Christ, He has now closed the Bible in the year 1611 with the KJV. What about people who speak languages other than English? Ruckman’s position indicates that foreign translations must be made from the English KJV, ignoring the Hebrew and Greek altogether. … Ruckman’s fascination with advanced revelation no doubt played a part in his setting the date for the rapture, in his book Zero Hour Approaches, to take place the 14th of May, 1989. It is not hard to get sucked into Ruckmanism. A Bible reader sees problems with the modern translations. He then understands that the Westcott and Hort Greek text used in modern translations is not as reliable as the Received Text used in the KJV. He begins reading Ruckman’s literature or listening to his tapes and rightly understands that the KJV translation is superior to other translations. Ruckman then introduces him to the teaching that the KJV is an up-date on the original Hebrew and Greek and contains advanced revelation. Having been cunningly led this far, the reader accepts Ruckman’s error. At first he plans to ‘eat the meat and spit out the bones,’ but soon he becomes a Ruckmanite.”
I am another of the King James Bible defenders who have warned about Ruckmanism. I have written a booklet entitled What about Ruckman, which has been widely distributed and well received among a wide range of King James Bible defenders (and hated by others!). It was first printed in 1994 and the latest edition contains 44 pages of information. It is also at our web site in the Bible Version section of the Apostasy Database—http://www.wayoflife.org.
During the early years of our missionary work in South Asia (which began in January 1979), I diligently researched the Bible text-translation issue. I had studied Greek with a UBS 3rd edition Greek New Testament in Bible school and had been taught that the text debate was basically a non-issue. My Greek teacher, who was trained at Dallas Theological Seminary, taught us that the KJV and the NASV and the NIV and the Received Greek New Testament and the UBS Greek New Testament were all equally God’s Word. It was up pretty much to us to pick and choose. By the time I graduated from school I was somewhat prejudiced against a “KJV only” position and was on the verge of questioning whether or not the disputed textual passages were the preserved Word of God. When we began to examine the Bible translations in South Asian languages, I realized I had to make a decision on this crucial issue. The Bible, of course, is foundational to everything that a missionary preacher does. I could not accept the idea that the texts and versions are roughly equal. I consider that an insane position. A Greek text that is shorter by thousands of words is not the same as another that contains those words. I realized there was a solemn choice to be made, and I prayerfully set about to find the answer. In the course of my studies in those days I was confronted with Peter Ruckman’s writings.
My conclusion was expressed in a letter I wrote to Dr. Ruckman from Nepal on January 24, 1985. I told him that I had reached the conclusion that he had done more damage to the cause of the King James Bible than many of its detractors. I said: "...your writings--because of the spirit in which they are given--actually make me desire to flee from whatever beliefs you are propounding. I sincerely fear ... that you have done more damage to the cause of the truth of the preservation of the Textus Receptus and the faithful translations thereof than have the enemies of this position." I explained that I was a writer and that since I had reached such a conclusion I was determined to mention it at times in my writings and I wanted to let him know personally how I felt. I came to the conclusion that Dr. Ruckman was a hindrance to the cause of the King James Bible because his heretical doctrines (i.e., salvation is by works in the Old Testament and the Tribulation), his multiple divorces, his angry spirit, his Alexandrian cult mentality, his extremism regarding the KJV being advanced revelation, tend to cause men to reject the entire issue. Ruckman’s teaching has also caused many unnecessary divisions and problems in churches. It is one thing if a Christian tries to stand for the Word of God and leaves a church that does not so stand, a church that promotes the new versions, but it is quite another matter if a Christian becomes caught up in Ruckman's peculiar doctrines and spirit and comes to the conclusion that his church is apostate because it does not accept all of the jots and tittles of a Ruckman approach even though it is a King James only church.
James White ignores the fact that Ruckman and many of his followers treat men like me as enemies basically on the same level as those who are members of his Alexandrian Cult. Through the years I have received literally thousands of letters and e-mail from those who were offended by my writings on various topics. I have written hundreds of articles and have published a dozen major books and 150 or more booklets, and in response I have heard from Mormons, Catholics, Masons, Charismatics, Seventh-day Adventists, Promise Keepers, modernists, infant baptizers, Tulip Calvinists, Southern Baptists, modern version defenders, Contemporary Christian Music lovers, and many others who took umbrage with one or another of my books and articles. None were more discourteous, more obnoxious, more unreasonable than some (though not all) of those who have written to me to express their anger that I would say something negative about Peter Ruckman (or Gail Riplinger).
Ruckman has dedicated articles in his magazine to mocking me just because I have had the gall to critique his views. In one brief article he called me a “conceited ass,” a “lying rascal,” “little hypocrite,” “buttery, smook, slick, mush-mouthed sissy,” “wimp,” “puffed-up, conceited ass” (Peter Ruckman, Bible Believer’s Bulletin, November 1994). To me, this demonstrates that Ruckman’s objective is not purely the defense of the King James Bible (which I defend without reservation) but the defense also of his own self. Of course, this tends to be the way of the flesh, of which we all partake. Dr. Ruckman is a brilliant but twisted man, and to lump the majority of King James Bible defenders into his camp is wrong and even slanderous. I believe Peter Ruckman is a saved man who knows and loves the Lord and who is genuinely zealous for God’s Word, but something is strange and twisted about the man.
The reader would do well to ask himself why men like White persist in this approach. Why are they so powerfully motivated to force King James Bible defenders into the mold of someone like Dr. Ruckman? I believe the answer is simple. They do not want to deal with the real issues of the Bible text debate.
The same can be said of White’s treatment of Gail Riplinger. He uses her and her book New Age Bible Versions as one of the key examples of King James Bible defense, but he fails to inform his readers that many King James Bible defenders reject Mrs. Riplinger’s conspiratorial, conjecture-filled approach. Repeatedly White cites some erroneous or strange statement by Riplinger, then makes a comment that such a statement exposes the error of the “KJV Only” position. Consider the following examples of this:
“We note the irony of the strongly anti-Calvinistic bent of such KJV Only writers as Gail Riplinger in light of the fact that Rainolds, as a Puritan, was very much a Calvinist. The inconsistency of the KJV Only position is again seen with clarity” (White, p. 88).
“Yet, she makes the following comment in regard to this, which I feel is extremely important for anyone wishing to understand the thinking of KJV Onlyism” (White, p. 108).
Thus we see that White attempts to make a direct connection between some of Mrs. Riplinger’s possible inconsistent and indefensible statements and the King James Bible defense in general. There is no doubt that Riplinger’s book has been very popular, as any sensationalistic book like this usually is, but her book is only four years old and she is relatively a neophyte in the Bible version battle, as she herself would admit. It is silly to use her book as one of the two key examples to describe the entire defense of the King James Bible. By the way, someone sympathetic to Mrs. Riplinger might be thinking here, “Yea, old Cloud probably thinks White should have used HIM as a key example of KJV defense.” By no means do I believe any such thing. I am a nobody in the Bible version debate. I believe While should have used men like Dr. Edward F. Hills, Dr. Donald Waite, Dr. Thomas Strouse, and a hundred other scholarly defenders of the TR-KJV. White does mention Hills and Waite, but he does not give serious consideration to their important work. I am glad that I read the works of these men before I read White’s book. Had I read White’s book as a young Bible school student or as a young missionary, and had I taken him seriously, I would have had a very shallow, insufficient conception of the works of KJV defenders, and I might not have taken the time to read Hills, Waite, Fuller, and others.
James White does not explain that many KJV defenders have themselves exposed Riplinger’s errors and extremism. I have a large file folder with correspondence from King James Bible defenders who agree with me about the danger of Riplinger’s book (and also from many who bitterly disagree with me!). White also does not explain that even many of those who find good in Mrs. Riplinger’s book do so with many reservations. Why does he not give this information?
The Trinitarian Bible Society, for example, published a critical review of her work at least a year before White’s book was published. Consider an excerpt:
“She makes here statements without differentiating between the various translations, nor with differentiation between the reasons for the fallacies in these translations (e.g., text, translation principles, etc.). … In addition, the book contains many factual errors, false innuendos, mistakes in logic, misquotations and instances of misleading research as well as general English language errors [in accompanying appendixes examples are given of each of these charges]. … It is therefore recommended that this book be read with the utmost discernment and that nothing be taken at face value. As far as is possible, the reader is encouraged to verify the truth of the information presented in this book before accepting and repeating the information to others. Because of the vast number of problems with this book, the Trinitarian Bible Society believe it is not trustworthy and therefore should not be used to defend the Authorised Version” (A Review of New Age Bible Versions, Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England, 1994).
The year before White’s book appeared, I published a booklet entitled New Age Bible Versions: A Critique. I summarized my position as follows:
“While I do not believe the connection between the modern versions and the New Age is as direct as Mrs. Riplinger contends, and I would discount many of the connections she tries to make, I have no doubt that there is a demonic involvement in the modern versions. I believe one can trace a clear line of demonic deception stretching from Tischendorf to Metzger. I do not see the modern versions DIRECTLY PROMOTING the New Age. Rather I believe the facts testify that the multiplicity of modern versions is AIDING the New Age by subtly weakening the authority the Word of God once held in the churches and in society. This having been said, I must hasten to add that I cannot recommend New Age Bible Versions by Mrs. Gail Riplinger. There are many good points made in the book, but it is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource” (D.W. Cloud, A Critique of New Age Bible Versions, 1994).
Before printing this review I wrote to Mrs. Riplinger and asked her to reply to my concerns. She has never answered me personally. Instead, she dedicated a chapter of a subsequent book to mocking me after the fashion of Peter Ruckman. The chapter is called “O Madmen” in mockery of the title of my monthly magazine, O Timothy. Though younger than me and though she herself is unqualified to be in church leadership or to teach or usurp authority over men, she calls me, an ordained Baptist preacher who has been in the ministry for almost 25 years, a “yearling who is still trying to figure out how to get the milk out of the bowl.” Playing mockingly with my name, she says that clouds are full of hot air and are always changing their shape. The chapter is filled with such childish things. In my critique of this harsh piece of writing I counted no less than seven outright slanders about me. Riplinger’s book which includes her mocking review of me is entitled Blind Guides, and she has included me as one of these guides. Why? Do I defend the King James Bible? I certainly do. Have I ever questioned anything in the King James Bible? Not a word. Do I support any modern version? Not one. Why, then, am I lumped into her blind guides category with men like James White? I cannot answer that with certainty, but it appears that because of her conspiratorial mindset, any questioning of her position is looked upon as a demonic attack and the person doing the questioning is looked upon as someone corrupted or influenced by the New Age. I only know that she viciously twisted my simple critique of her book and has demonstrated a very strange attitude. It is precisely the way Peter Ruckman has dealt with me and with many others who have crossed him.
James White knew exactly what he was doing when he selected Ruckman and Riplinger to be the chief spokesmen for the defense of the King James Bible. He is a clever man.
WHITE REPEATEDLY ATTACKS THE INTELLIGENCE AND SCHOLARSHIP OF AV DEFENDERS.
Consider this statement in the opening pages of White’s book: “The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for induction into the KJV Only camp” (White, Introduction, p. v).
This theme percolates throughout the book, and it is an approach which is typical of those who defend the modern versions or who promote the position that the preserved Word of God is scattered throughout the texts and versions. Invariably they look down upon men who defend the Authorized Version or the Received Text. They ignore the scholarly credentials and diligent study of men like Edward Hills, Donald Waite, D.O. Fuller, Bruce Lackey, Thomas Strouse, and James Qurollo. They ignore the diligent research behind the writings of many Authorized Version defenders. They ignore the vast libraries which many AV defenders have built in their effort to know the truth on this issue. They pretend that intelligent, learned people do not become defenders of the King James Bible.
Consider another example of this haughty approach from White’s book: “KJV Only individuals are not generally interested in church history as a subject” (White, p. 10). This is one of the strangest statements in this strange book. I don’t know what people White has in mind, and I don’t know what part of Mars he has been living on, but many of the King James Bible defenders with whom I fellowship are keenly interested in church history. Many of them, including me, have built extensive libraries in this area of research. I have rare books on the history of the Waldensians, the Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church, etc., which I have obtained at great expense, having paid as much as $1000 for one set of books and several hundred dollars each for other books and sets. I have diligently searched out volumes on the subject of the text and transmission of the Bible, and on visits to serious theological libraries, including the British Library, I have added to my collection via copies of rare books on microfiche and photocopies of rare books which I have not been able to purchase outright. My personal library on the history of the English Bible is a very serious collection. White might reply, “You are an exception, Brother Cloud,” but in my experience and knowledge of KJV defenders, I can say that he is wrong. I personally know hundreds of King James Bible defenders who love church history and have studied it diligently.
I must admit that though insidious, White’s approach is effective. His constant implication that the defense of the King James Bible is predicated upon ignorance is intimidating, particularly to young preachers. What man wants to be known as a member of a society of ignoramuses! What man will spend the time and money to obtain and study books written by ignorant writers?
Consider one more example from White’s book, illustrating his attitude toward those who defend the King James Bible: “It should be axiomatic among Christian scholars that open discussion and liberty should prevail. THAT IS ONE REASON WHY KJV ONLYISM HAS FOUND NO TRUE PROPONENT AMONGST CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS: it denies anyone the freedom to examine the KJV on the very same basis as any other translation. The position is, by its nature, anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, and anti-freedom” (emphasis added) (White, p. 151).
Let me make the following comments on this amazing statement: First, White sounds exactly like the theological modernist here. This is precisely how the haughty modernist speaks about those who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. White’s New Evangelical training at a Southern Baptist university and at Fuller Seminary is coming through loud and clear. The modernist charges Bible believers with not granting “liberty” to those who hold opposing views. He charges them with being anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, and anti-freedom. I am sorry, but the view that the Bible is the infallible Word of God cannot possibly allow freedom for “other views.” If it is the infallible Word of God, it must be defended as such and no quarter can be given. Likewise, the view that God has preserved His Word in the Received Text and the King James Bible cannot possibly grant liberty for other views to be equal, because those other views promote Bibles which the King James Bible defender views as corrupt. A corrupt text can never be equal to a preserved one, and an impure translation can never be equal to an accurate one. It is all well and good for James White to be broadminded on this topic. That is impossible for the Received Text-King James Bible defender.
Second, White is lying here. He says there are NO proponents of “KJV Onlyism” among Christian scholars. We wonder how Mr. White defines a Christian scholar. Must one have a Ph.D. in textual criticism? If so, White himself does not quality. The fact is that James White has himself admitted that there are scholars who defend the King James Bible. He mentions some of these in his own book: Dr. Donald Waite (Th.D. with honors from Dallas and Ph.D. from Purdue), Dr. Edward F. Hills (Ph.D. from Harvard), and Dr. Peter Ruckman (Ph.D. from Bob Jones University). Though we don’t agree with Dr. Ruckman on many points, as has been noted already, there can be no doubt that he is a Christian scholar. He has an earned Ph.D., is at home in the biblical languages, and is a brilliant and widely read man on many subjects. I have already said I believe the man is twisted; but the fact that he is twisted, in the thinking of some, does not mean he is not a genuine Christian scholar. Peter Ruckman is certainly as much a scholar as James White. Dr. Edward Hills was trained at the very highest scholarly level in textual criticism. Dr. Waite has better Greek and Hebrew credentials than James White and has decades more experience with the languages. When Dr. Waite began writing on the topic of Bible versions in 1971, James White was eight years old. While James was growing up and being educated at the feet of New Evangelical compromisers, Dr. Waite was conducting painstaking research projects, such as comparing, word-for-word, the Westcott-Hort Text with the Received Text, the NIV with the KJV, the original 1611 KJV with the modern KJV, the NKJV with the KJV, the NASV with the KJV, etc. James White does not come up to the level of any one of these three men in scholarly credentials, yet he puffs himself up with the silly statement that no scholars are “King James only.” It must be a joke, but we are not laughing.
If James White would argue that Dr. Hills was not “King James Only,” we would remind him that he himself uses Hills as an example of such in his own book.
Further, in chapter one of his book, White groups “KJV Only” into five broad categories. White’s group two includes those who “are joined by their common belief that the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used by the King James translators are, for various reasons, superior to all other original languages.” White’s group three is defined as those who are “Received Text only.” Within White’s five categories of “King James Onlyism” would fall every man that I have researched in our history For Love of the Bible.
Allow me to give a partial list of Christian scholars who fit James White’s own definition of “King James Only” -- Oswald Allis, Robert Barnett, David Blunt, Clinton Brainine, James Brookes, Terrance Brown, Mark Buch, John Burgon, E.L. Bynum, John Cereghin, Donald Clark, Frederic Cook, Bruce Cummons, Robert Lewis Dabney, William De Jonge, Russell Dennis, Nielson DiVietro, David Engelsma, Robert Flanigan, Everett Fowler, Paul Freeman, David Otis Fuller, Denis Gibson, William Grady, Jay P. Green, Sr., G.R. Guile, Herman Hanko, Robert Harbach, Samuel Hemphill, Lee Henise, Edward F. Hills, Zane Hodges, Herman Hoskier, William Hoste, Steven Houck, Kevin James, Don Jasmin, Ken Johnson, Jeffrey Khoo, Lebaron Kinney, Bruce Lackey, Gary LaMore, Theodore Letis, Alfred Levell, W. MacLean, D.K. Madden, Solomon Malan, Homer Massey, Philip Mauro, Michael Maynard, Alexander M’Caul, Alexander McClure, Edward Miller, Jack Moorman, Timothy Morton, Goebel Music, Frederick Nolan, Ian Paisley, Michael Penfold, J.C. Philpot, Jasper James Ray, Perry Rockwood, Peter Ruckman, Chick Salliby, George Samson, Robert Sargent, John Wesley Sawyer, Frederick Scrivener, Stephen J. Scott-Pearson, Ron Smith, Skip Spencer, Russell Standish, Bob Steward, Thomas Strouse, Robert G. Taylor, J.P. Thackway, D.A. Thompson, John Henry Todd, Timothy Tow, Charles Turner, Peter Van Kleeck, Oscar Von Rohr, Donald Waite, Robert J. Williams, B. Wordsworth, Ralph Yarnell, Gary Zeolla, and Samuel Zwemer. Details of these men’s research can be found in our book For Love of the Bible.
All of these men fall into one of the five groups listed by James White as “King James Only” and all are men who have done scholarly research into the issue of Bible texts and versions. Some are linguists and textual scholars; others are not. Most of these men have advanced theological degrees. The others have demonstrated their scholarship by diligent, long-standing personal research. All of these men have published material on the subject of Bible texts and versions. In my estimation, each of these men has done research that is at least as significant as that done by James White. The Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary defines a scholar as “a learned person; one trained in a special branch of learning; an advanced student.” I did not put myself in the previous list, but in all three of these dictionary senses, I am a scholar, though I do not have a Ph.D. in textual criticism. We believe in diligent study, but we also believe that many intelligent Christian men who lack advanced degrees from institutions of higher learning have nonetheless demonstrated their scholarship in Biblical and related studies. I believe God measures scholarship by a different standard than the world. First of all, God’s standard for scholarship requires that a man be born again, separated, and Spirit led and that he be a man with absolute faith in God’s Word.
Let me use the late Everett Fowler as an example. He spent many years diligently comparing the Received Text with the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the Nestles Greek Text, and the Bible Societies’ Greek Text, and several popular modern English versions. He began this research in the 1950s, when he took courses in Greek and began reading the Nestles’ Greek text. He saw that this Greek text did not follow the King James Bible which was used in his church, the famous First Baptist Church of New York City, a center for biblical fundamentalism from its origin in 1711. Fowler served with the respected Fundamentalist leader Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, who pastored the First Baptist Church from 1884 to 1933. Fowler served as a deacon in this church for 45 years, a Sunday School teacher for 40, trustee for 37, and treasurer for 21 years. In addition to his constant studies in the Greek New Testament, he read his English Bible through two times a year for 40 years. In 1976 Fowler obtained the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Received Text, and he began the textual comparisons which resulted in the publication of the book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. In my estimation, Everett Fowler was a Christian scholar and his book was a shining example of Christ-honoring Christian scholarship.
Even if James White disagrees with our definition of scholarship and would only allow us to list men who have advanced degrees from theological institutions, the entries in the above list would remain significant. I repeat, he has lied about the matter of scholarship on the side of the defense of the King James Bible.
WHITE IGNORES THE TEXTUAL TRADITION WHICH PRECEDED THE ADOPTION OF THE RECEIVED TEXT IN THE 1500S.
White ignores the old Latin tradition, which had a wide influence separate from and alongside the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. He ignores the Waldensian Romaunt translations and other translations that followed a textual stream akin to the Received Text and distinct from the modern critical text. In his diligent research into the early history of the Bible in the first few centuries following the Apostles, and into the Waldensian Romaunt and the old Latin, Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) concluded that the critical variations from the Received Text which were being introduced in his day and which are found in modern Bibles are reflections of textual corruptions which were introduced by Origen and Eusebius of Cesarea and other editors during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. Nolan concluded that the Received Text underlying the old Protestant Bibles (such as the English Authorized Version) is the text of the Apostles, and that the key omissions (such as those in Mark 16:9-20; Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16) found in the modern versions were introduced by heretics of the second and third centuries, or by those who were attempting to oppose the heretics. Nolan found evidence that the early Latin version called the Italick or old Latin was produced by Bible-believing Christians who were separate from Rome and its growing apostasy, and this biblical witness continued to be maintained in translations made by the Waldenses. The Waldensians, in the 16th century, raised the funds to publish the Olivetan French Received Text Bible, because they recognized that the text underlying it (the same text as used by Luther for German and Tyndale for English) was the one they had used for centuries in the translations which were sought out and destroyed by the Roman Catholic authorities. We have documented this history in our book Rome and the Bible: Tracing the History of the Roman Catholic Church and Its Persecution of the Bible and of Bible Believers (1996, Way of Life Literature). White leaves his readers in the dark about the true lineage of the Received Text, pretending that it was a happenstance thing created by a handful of men in the 16th century and adopted by God’s people largely because of ignorance. This is a gross perversion of history. (We will say more about Erasmus and the Received Text further on.)
WHITE ASSUMES THAT BIBLE EDITORS AND TRANSLATORS ARE ALWAYS SINCERE AND DISCOUNTS THE FEAR THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN CORRUPTED.
From beginning to end of this book, White works from the faulty assumption that differences in the texts and versions are largely based on honest mistakes by sincere transcribers. Consider some examples of this:
“And when textual variants appear in footnotes or in comparison with the KJV, believers can be assured that these things arose not because of some attempt to hide the truth from them, but due to the very understandable actions of scribes down through the centuries who were themselves doing their best to accurately copy those precious manuscripts” (White, pp. 186,87).
“In either case, no malicious intention can be asserted one way or the other” (White, p. 178).
“… there is no logical reason to impute evil motives to these translations” (White, p. 176).
“Whenever one finds a number of different variants, one can be sure that the shorter reading (that of the modern texts) is the best, as it gave rise to all the others that are found in the manuscripts” (White, p. 185).
Of course White cannot prove any of these statements. He does not know who these allegedly sincere scribes were. He cannot even give us their names, yet he pretends he knows the very motives of their hearts!
Note that White accepts the assumption of modern textual criticism that the “shorter reading” is the most accurate, that the longer reading is almost always a later scribal addition. They use this rule, not because they can prove that it is true, but because it conveniently supports the critical text and negates the longer Received Text. This strange theory is exactly the opposite to that which one would assume based on the testimony of Scripture itself. The Bible warns that the devil hates the Word of God, that he has been attacking it ever since his conversation with Eve in the Garden of Eden. In the first century, even as the New Testament Scripture was being given, the Apostles were already hounded by false teachers who were corrupting the Word of God (2 Cor. 2:17). This attack increased tremendously during the next two centuries.
In addition to copies of the apostolic books in the Greek language, within the first century after the Apostles (150 A.D.) there were also translations of the Greek New Testament into Latin and Syriac and possibly other languages. The Latin versions were very important because this language was spoken widely and was very influential. These versions multiplied and many corruptions were introduced. Heretics were busy adding to and taking away from the text, as it pleased them. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864), a diligent researcher into early church history, observed that “the founders of those different sects had tampered with the text of Scripture … in some instances the genuine text had been wholly superseded by the spurious editions” (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, pp. 468,69). They also added extra canonical books to the text in spite of the seal which had been placed on the biblical canon (Revelation 22:18,19). These spurious books included Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Teaching of the Twelve, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, etc. “The heretics of the 2nd century were so many, so brilliant, and so strong, that the fact that Christianity and the pure teaching of the New Testament survived is an impressive proof of their divine origin and authority” (Herbert Miller, General Biblical Introduction, Houghton, NY: The Word-Bearer Press, 1937, p. 141). Miller notes that these heretics rejected some the apostolic writings and mutilated others to suit their fancies and errors. “The convenience of labeling as ‘interpolations’ and casting out anything that did not square with their ideas of what should be, so highly prized in our day, was popular at this time” (Miller, p. 141). Origen (185-254) produced editions of the Bible and writings which influenced later editors, including Eusebius of Cesarea and Jerome. Origen has been called “the Father of Biblical Criticism and Exposition.” Though Origen sought to defend the Scriptures against certain heretics, he himself turned from the Faith once delivered to the saints and introduced many heretical teachings to his followers and many textual corruptions into manuscripts--corruptions which were passed on by his successors and widely disseminated in the heretical atmosphere of that time and place.
Of Origen’s textual efforts, Frederick Nolan makes the following important observation:
“… HE CONTRIBUTED TO WEAKEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW [TESTAMENT]. In the course of his Commentaries, he cited the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, on the former part of the Canon, he appealed to the authority of Valentinus and Heracleon on the latter. WHILE HE THUS RAISED THE CREDIT OF THOSE REVISALS, WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE HERETICKS, HE DETRACTED FROM THE AUTHORITY OF THAT TEXT WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ORTHODOX. Some difficulties which he found himself unable to solve in the Evangelists, he undertook to remove, BY EXPRESSING HIS DOUBTS OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT. In some instances he ventured to impeach the reading of the New Testament on the testimony of the Old, and to convict the copies of one Gospel on the evidence of another: thus giving loose to his fancy, and indulging in many wild conjectures, HE CONSIDERABLY IMPAIRED THE CREDIT OF THE VULGAR OR COMMON EDITION, as well in the New as in the Old Testament” (emphasis added) (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 432-34).
This testimony in regard to Origen is important because subsequent textual editors, Eusebius and Jerome in particular, depended upon Origen’s work. Nolan informs us that the heretical opinions of Origen had spread widely in Egypt. “Under the circumstances, the churches of Egypt were gradually prepared for the reception of a revised text, accommodated to the principles of Origen’s criticism” (Nolan, p. 440). Please remember that Frederick Nolan is no fundamental Baptist. He was writing in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th century. Few men have matched his research into the early transmission of the Biblical text, yet he tells us that Origen was moving away from the pure text of Scripture which had come from the Apostolic hands, and successive editors continued in this direction. When we consider the spiritual condition of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, it is little wonder that they lacked the discernment necessary to recognize and transmit the pure Word of God. Their heretical doctrines warn us that they were controlled by the god of this world (1 Timothy 4:1-4).
Contrast these facts of history with the view White is promoting. Like the textual scholars he is following, many of whom hold the modernistic historical-critical view of the Old Testament and documentary views of the Gospels, White operates from an almost naturalistic view of the transmission of the biblical text. In contrast to this view, we know that the devil has had an active role in attacking the Scriptures. Some might err in giving the devil too much credit for textual and translational variants, but most textual scholars err in giving the devil almost no credit. We also know that a great many of the men involved in the transmission of the text were heretics. This was true not only in the second and third centuries, but throughout the centuries. The Roman Catholic Church represents a wide stream of apostasy from the faith once delivered to the saints, and its scribes and scholars were unregenerate men. The politically dominant form of Christianity from the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries forward was the Roman Catholic Church. It tormented and persecuted Bible believing Christians. It often sought to destroy their Scriptures. It’s monks transmitted manuscripts, but to assume that they were godly, spiritually sincere men is nonsense. We have carefully documented these historical facts in our book Rome and the Bible: Tracing the History of the Roman Catholic Church and Its Persecution of the Bible and of Bible Believers.
WHITE LIGHTLY DISMISSES POWERFUL ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE LED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN TO CLEAVE TO THE RECEIVED TEXT AND THE AUTHORIZED VERSION AS THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD.
White raises some of the arguments supporting the TR and the KJV but, as a rule, he deals with them only in passing and in a light manner. Consider just two of these powerful reasons for believing the TR and the AV is the preserved Word of God: preservation and apostasy.
(1) THE DOCTRINE OF BIBLICAL PRESERVATION REQUIRES THAT WE REJECT THE MODERN TEXTS AND VERSIONS. In the thinking of multitudes of godly men, God’s promise to preserve the Scriptures requires us to reject the text which was discarded and to receive the text which was used by Bible believing Christians and blessed by God. To say that a text which was hidden away and rejected for hundreds of years and not used by God’s people (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is the preserved Word of God is beyond belief. White mentions the argument of preservation in passing, and he dismisses it, almost mocks it, in fact; but he does not answer it.
The Scriptures claim to be the infallible, inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21); it also promises that God would preserve His Word through the centuries (Ps. 12:6,7; 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2; 119:89,152,160; Is. 40:8; 59:21; Mt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; Rev. 22:18,19). The only position in the issue of Bible versions today that leaves one with a Bible preserved in its words and details is that which stands in defense of the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek Received New Testament, and the King James Bible in English. All other positions leave one, to various degrees, with uncertainty and doubt. They leave you dependent upon scholars rather than the testimony of the Word of God itself. Scoff at this if you please, but it is a serious matter.
I have found that the defenders of the King James Bible exalt the doctrine of preservation, whereas modern version proponents rarely mention it. When they do mention it, they put forth the strange position that God preserved the purest Scripture in an obscure monastery (Sinaiticus) and on an inaccessible shelf in the pope’s library (Vaticanus) and in a few other similar places.
Consider Westcott and Hort’s foundational theories of textual criticism, which have powerfully influenced the field of textual criticism in the 20th and 21st centuries. Hort theorized that there was a revision of the Greek New Testament in the 4th century in Syria that produced the Byzantine or Traditional text, and that from that point forward the Traditional text became the predominant text whereas the alleged “original” text as represented by the Vaticanus Codex was put on a shelf and not used in the vast majority of churches for 1,500 years until it was discovered and restored to prominence by the 19th century textual critics. Hort theorized that the readings of the Greek Received Text were not found in the quotations of Christian writers prior to 350 A.D. Frederic Kenyon called this the “corner-stone” of Hort’s theory (Kenyon, Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible, London: Oxford University Press, 1933, pp. 7-8). The reason that this was the cornerstone of Hort’s theory was that he believed it offered irrefutable evidence that the Traditional Text was created by a revision in the fourth century, since (so he said) it does not appear in the manuscript record prior to that.
If these foundational theories of modern textual criticism are correct, it would mean that the New Testament Scriptures were not divinely preserved in any practical sense, that they were preserved only in their rejection and disuse! This is contrary to how the Lord Jesus and the apostles commanded for the Scripture to be preserved in this age, which is by its transmission and usage among the churches, in the context of the discipleship of believers, the training of preachers, and the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Mat. 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:2).
Even though both of the aforementioned Hortian theories have since been modified significantly or proven wrong, modern textual criticism today still believes that the text they consider corrupt was the one in common use from the 4th to the 19th century and that the Alexandrian Greek text that they prefer, as represented by the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, was disused. You can call this view “divine preservation” if you want, but it is a very strange kind of preservation.
Edward F. Hills was a Presbyterian scholar who was awarded a doctorate in modern textual criticism from Harvard. Hills fought a lonely battle for many decades in defending the Traditional Text against its enemies, and he understood the necessity of faith when approaching the Bible text. He called modern textual theories “the logic of unbelief—maximum uncertainty,” and he called faith in the Traditional Text and the King James Bible “the logic of faith—maximum certainty.” I want to quote Hills to demonstrate the “King James Only” view of Bible preservation:
“If we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and defend the New Testament text in the same way that we defend the texts of other ancient books, then we are following the logic of unbelief. For the special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures is a fact and an important fact. Hence when we ignore this fact and deal with the text of the New Testament as we would with the text of other books, we are behaving as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the providential preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not an important fact, not important enough to be considered when dealing with the New Testament text. But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if the Scriptures are not infallibly inspired, how do we know that the Gospel message is true? And if the Gospel message is not true, how do we know that Jesus is the Son of God?
“Modernism has come in by degrees, beginning as early as the 17th century. ... And all during this long period conservative scholars have been combating this monstrous growth of unbelief. Their effectiveness, however, has been greatly impaired by their inconsistency. They have opposed some forms of modernism and favored others. For example, they have fulminated against Old Testament naturalistic higher criticism as satanic, but they have adopted New Testament naturalistic textual criticism as scientific. In short, without at all intending to be such, THEY HAVE BEEN HALF-WAY MODERNISTS.
“Conservative scholars, of course, have always denied this. Many of them still say that they believe in the special, providential preservation of the New Testament text. Most of them really don’t though, because, as soon as they say this, they immediately reduce this special, providential preservation to the vanishing point in order to make room for the naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort. As we have seen, some say that the providential preservation of the New Testament means merely that the same ‘substance of doctrine’ is found in all the New Testament documents. Others say that it means that the true reading is always present in at least one of the thousands of extant New Testament manuscripts. And still other scholars say that to them the special, providential preservation of the Scriptures means that the true New Testament text was providentially discovered in the mid-nineteenth century by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort after having been lost for 1,500 years.
“If you adopt one of these false views of the providential preservation of the Scriptures, then you are logically on your way toward the denial of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. For if God has preserved the Scriptures so carelessly, why would he have infallibly inspired them in the first place? It is not sufficient therefore merely to say that you believe in the doctrine of the special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures. You must really believe this doctrine and allow it to guide your thinking. You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and proceed according to the logic of faith. This will lead you to the Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version, in other words, to the common faith” (Hills, Believing Bible Study, Des Moines, Iowa: 1967, pp. 216-220).
Hill’s (whose textual scholarship excelled that of most of the men today who are promoting the modern versions) simple, down-to-earth, Christ-honoring, Bible-believing logic is too high for many scholars today, including a great many who claim to be Evangelical and Fundamental, but it thrills the heart of many humble children of God. In this context the words which Jesus spoke in Luke 10:21 are appropriate: “...I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
When modern version proponents look at the publication of the Received Text in the 1500s or of the King James Bible in the 1600s, they see weak and error-prone men. When a King James Bible-proponent looks at the same era, he sees the hand of God. Though some defenders of the modern versions claim that they believe in biblical preservation, they hold an unscriptural and inconsistent view.
(2) THE THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY THAT HAS CHARACTERIZED MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM REQUIRES THAT WE REJECT THE MODERN TEXTS AND VERSIONS. The most influential textual scholars have been rationalists who rejected the inerrant inspiration of Holy Scripture. That is a documented fact. I have hundreds of books in my library by textual scholars dating from the 18th century, and I have documented the apostasy underlying the modern textual scholarship in our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy (3rd edition 1997, Way of Life Literature). There are exceptions, of course, but the exceptions do not overthrow the rule. Since James White pretends these ideas are the brainchildren of feverish fundamental Baptists of recent decades, we will quote several men of former times and of other denominational persuasions to demonstrate our point.
Large numbers of King James Bible defenders in 19th-entury Britain understood the theological apostasy associated with the critical Greek texts. I have quoted a number of these men in our history For Love of the Bible. Let me give just one example for our purposes here. In 1819 Henry John Todd, chaplain to the king of England and keeper of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s records, published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible. This work was occasioned by the clamor of some who were wanting to correct the Received Greek New Testament and the King James Bible on the basis of modern textual criticism. This clamoring gradually increased among a relatively small segment of influential scholars through the 19th century and resulted, ultimately, in the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament and the English Revised Version of 1881. Todd understood that modern textual criticism was intimately associated with theological heresy. I searched for Todd’s treatise for five years and finally located it in the British Library. Consider the following important excerpt:
“For when we see men of the most latitudinarian principles uniformly pressing forward this dangerous proposal; when we see the most unbounded panegyrics bestowed on those, who have converted the Mosaic history into allegory, and the New Testament into Socinianism; when we see these attempts studiously fostered, and applauded, by the advocates for this projected [Bible] revision; we must conjecture, that something more is meant than a correction of mistakes, or an improvement of diction. Those doctrines, the demolition of which we know to be, in late instances, the grand object of such innovators when they propose alterations in articles of faith, or correction of liturgical forms, are surely in still greater danger when attempted, by the same men, under the distant approaches of a revision of our English Bible (Todd, A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible, 1819, pp. 79,80).
Todd and a vast number of other 18th- and 19th-century Christian scholars and preachers understood that the field of textual criticism was dominated by and was promoted by those who were infected with theological modernism. Twentieth-century textual criticism has merely built upon this skeptical foundation. James White claims this is the figment of a Ruckmanite’s imagination, but he can only say that by ignoring history. In the early part of the 19th century, the critical Greek text was successfully resisted precisely on the same basis upon which the King James Bible defender today resists the modern texts and versions, but by the end of that same century, it was accepted. Someone might ask, “Why did the Westcott-Hort text eventually prevail?” The answer is not hard to find. Theological rationalism spread like ivy. There is a saying about ivy that describes it growth stages: it sleeps; it creeps; it leaps. That is what happened with modernism. It was planted in the 18th century and slept for some time. It began to creep in the early 19th century; and from the middle to the end of the century it was spreading like wildfire across the Christian landscape. By the end of the century it was so well-entrenched in high places of Christian scholarship in British Protestant and Baptist denominations that it was able to win the day. Not only were many scholars themselves afflicted with modernistic views of the Bible, but a vast number of others, not themselves modernistic in theology, were nonetheless too spiritually weak to boldly resist modernism. Instead, they were quite willing to work hand-in-hand with the modernists, ignoring God’s warnings, “evil communications corrupt good manners” and “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”
We see this in the Baptist Union of Spurgeon’s day. He took his stand and left the Union in 1887, but most of the men who claimed to hold the same view of the Bible that Spurgeon held, nevertheless refused to discipline the modernists or to separate from them. In practice, they were forerunners of the New Evangelicals of our century. Spurgeon described the wretched situation in 1887 England with these powerful words:
“Believers in Christ’s atonement are now in declared union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death. … Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing their union with those who deny the faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ. To be very plain, we are unable to call these things Christian Unions, they begin to look like Confederacies in Evil” (Sword and Trowel, November 1887).
Spurgeon’s battles against modernism within the Baptist Union occurred at precisely the same time that the English Revised Version was being prepared, and the same battle was being fought (and lost) in other denominations, including Anglicanism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Methodism. (An excellent overview of this is found in The Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain Murray, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2nd edition 1973). In other words, apostasy had effectively prepared the way for the modern text and versions. The men we describe in our book For Love of the Bible, who fought earnestly against the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the English Revised Version, understood these facts.
The Trinitarian Bible Society wisely warns: “We must not permit our judgment to be overawed by great names in the realm of biblical ‘scholarship’ when it is so clearly evident that the distinguished scholars of the present century are merely reproducing the case presented by rationalists during the last two hundred years” (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, T.B.S. Article No. 14, p. 13). We would ask James White if the Trinitarian Bible Society, which was founded in Britain in the 19th century as a reaction against modernism, is a fundamental Baptist Ruckmanite cult.
Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar testified: “We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?
Of Westcott and Hort, who produced the Greek text underlying the Revised Version of 1881, Dallas Seminary professor Zane Hodges warned in 1971: “The charge of rationalism is easily substantiated for Westcott and Hort and may be demonstrated from direct statements found in their introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek. To begin with, Westcott and Hort are clearly unwilling to commit themselves to the inerrancy of the original Scriptures. … Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate.” (Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Dallas Seminary, January 1971, pp. 27-35). We don’t agree with Hodges’ support of the Majority text view which differs somewhat from the Received Text; but he has a keen understanding of the rationalism which underlies the modern texts and versions, and his writings have encouraged some men to take a closer look at this subject and to reject the critical Greek text and the modern versions based upon this text. One of these is James Qurollo, Academic Dean and Greek professor, Ambassador Baptist College (900 South Post Road, Shelby, NC 28150. 704-480-0500). Qurollo got his bachelor’s with a major in Greek from Wheaton College in 1964 and his master’s degree in New Testament from the same institution in 1966. He was taught the Westcott-Hort position, but God led him to reject it. His testimony is among the hundreds we have included in our book For Love of the Bible.
For a discerning overview of the theology of Westcott and Hort, see Dr. Donald Waite’s The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort: As Seen in Their Own Writings. Also Heresies of Westcott & Hort. Both are available from The Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.
In continuing to summarize the stream of apostasy underlying the modern texts and versions, consider some of the other translators of the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version, the predecessors of all modern 20th-century English versions. At least three of the translators--GEORGE VANCE SMITH, EZRA ABBOT, and JOSEPH HENRY THAYER--were Christ-denying Unitarians. Abbot and Thayer held influential positions at Harvard Divinity School and taught several generations of students the principles of textual criticism (teaching them to despise the Received Text and the King James Bible). A number of their pupils went on to hold influential positions in this field. An example is Caspar René Gregory (1846-1917). This man, who wrote influential books on textual criticism (Canon and Text of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), was a pupil of Ezra Abbot at Harvard. He also was the son-in-law to Thayer (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, p. 216).
All three of these textual scholars boldly and unequivocally denied the Deity of Jesus Christ and the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture. I have two of Smith’s books in my library, and it is very significant that he gloried in the various changes in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Revised Version (the same changes appear in the UBS Greek Text and the NIV) BECAUSE THESE TEXTUAL CHANGES MADE IT EASIER FOR HIM TO DISPUTE THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST. We believe this Unitarian understood something which James White, for some reason, cannot see.
When a public outcry ensued across Britain because of Unitarian George Smith’s presence on the committee, Westcott and Hort threatened to resign if Smith was not allowed to participate. All of this is carefully documented in our book For Love of the Bible.
Another of the ERV translators, WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH, was dismissed from his professorship of Old Testament at the Aberdeen College by the Free Church of Scotland in 1881 because of his modernistic views. By that time, the “new views” were so entrenched in Anglicanism and Presbyterianism in England that Smith was invited to a professorship at Cambridge and was given a seat on the Old Testament translation committee for the completion of the Revised Version. Some of Smith’s articles appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject of the Bible. These were filled with wicked speculation and unbelief. He denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He denied the accuracy of the Masoretic Hebrew Text. He threw “as much uncertainty as possible over the authorship of the Psalms.”
Another ERV translator, CONNOP THIRLWALL, was known for his attempts to promote German rationalistic theology in Britain. He collaborated in the English publication of books by German heretics Niebuhr and Schleiermacher. During a visit to the British Library in 1997, I located Letters Literary and Theological of Connop Thirlwall (London: Richard Bentley & Sons, 1881). In this one book English Revised Version committee member Thirlwall questioned the canon of Scripture; said the Bible was not accurate in its scientific statements; said it is not important whether or not we believe in the existence of God; questioned the divine inspiration of some of the Psalms; admitted uncertainty as to whether Christ operated on a divine supernatural level in His earthly ministry; claimed that Job 19:25-27 could not possibly refer to Job’s resurrection; questioned the infallible inspiration of the Pentateuch; etc. This is the type of theologian and textual scholar who was warmly welcome within the fellowship of men which produced the English Revised Version and which first brought the Westcott-Hort Greek text to light. It is obvious that it was not the strong Bible-believing crowd in Britain who produced the Westcott-Hort text and the Revised Version.
It was also not the strong Bible-believing crowd who produced the revision on the American side. PHILIP SCHAFF, the head of the American Standard Version committee, was twice brought to trial for heresy while teaching at the Theological Seminary of the German Reformed Church of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. His first public address in America in 1844 “was so Romish, that, when it was translated into English and published, it produced a storm of criticism, and brought forth accusations of Romanizing and Tractarian tendencies” (George Coy, The Inside Story of the Anglo American Revised New Testament, 1973, p. 89). Failing to obtain the dismissal of Schaff from the German Reformed Church seminary at Mercersburg, two Reformed groups (the Reformed Dutch Church and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church) separated themselves from the German Reformed Church “on account of her countenance of these works and their authors” (New Brunswick Review, August 1854). Though Schaff was able to avoid outright dismissal, his liberal views eventually forced him to move. His “broad views” were more at home at Union Seminary. In our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy and also in For Love of the Bible we have given excerpts from The Life of Philip Schaff by his son, David, proving that Schaff was a theological heretic. In fact, he was an early forerunner of the ecumenists of our day who are seeking the unity of all denominations with the Roman Catholic Church.
Following the stream of modern version apostasy down toward our day we come to the REVISED STANDARD VERSION of 1952. This thoroughly modernistic project was accomplished by the theologically heretical National Council of Churches in America. The translators included some of the most notorious Modernists of this century. In our books For Love of the Bible and Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy, we have given excerpts from a number of books written by RSV translators. Consider one example, Clarence Craig, who is representative of the whole. Craig’s heretical position on biblical inspiration can be contrasted sharply with that of the men who produced the text and translations in the lineage of the King James Bible.
“Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book. ... Even on Christian soil it has sometimes been held that the books of the Bible were practically dictated to the writers through the Holy Spirit. ... I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN POSITION. If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility. ... The true Christian position is the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelation” (Clarence T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity).
By the way, it is inconsistent to reject the Revised Standard Version for its modernism while accepting the New International Version because of its supposed theological conservatism. The NIV is founded upon basically the same critical, eclectic Greek text which contains basically the same departures from the Traditional Text as the RSV. Personally, I would reject the NIV on the basis of either one of just two corrupted verses, one in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2) and one in the New (1 Timothy 3:16).
Continuing to follow the stream of apostasy underlying the modern texts and versions, we come to THE EDITORS OF THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, which is the predominant critical Greek text used in colleges and seminaries today. The editors include BRUCE METZGER, CARLO MARTINI, EUGENE NIDA, and KURT ALAND. Not one of these men believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. Martini is an Archbishop in the Catholic Church, the head of the largest Catholic diocese in the world. Metzger works for the National Council of Churches in America and promotes the modernistic historical-critical views of the Old Testament. Eugene Nida is one of the fathers of the destructive modern theories of dynamic equivalency. Kurt Aland, co-editor of the Nestle-Aland Greek text since the 1940s, claims the canon of Scripture is not settled, and he believes the settling of this “question” is a key to the ecumenical unity between churches, denominations, and schools which he desires to see (Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, 1962, pp. 30-33). In our books For Love of the Bible and Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy we have documented the heresies of these men from their own writings.
If we wanted to take the time, we could travel on in this vein of thought to fill many volumes. We could consider the apostasy, for example, of the United Bible Societies and of the major Bible publishers today. I have written a book to expose the heresy and unregeneracy which abides in the UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES. It is called Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Word: A Report on the United Bible Societies, and is available from Way of Life Literature. It reveals the uniting of the Bible Societies with the Roman Catholic Church in recent decades. It reveals the theological modernism of the editors and translators who produced such influential Bible Society translations as the New English Version (British & Foreign Bible Society) and the Today’s English Version (American Bible Society). A look at the very influential THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHERS would fill another volume. We could mention Thomas Nelson’s Roman Catholic publishing division, for instance.
These, then, are the type of men who have led the charge for the critical text. The Bible commands us to mark and avoid such heretics. It would be the greatest form of confusion for God to tell us to separate from the very men who are (allegedly) giving us the pure Word of God today.
In summarizing this issue we quote again from Dr. Edward F. Hills. He recognized the rationalism and unbelief inherent in this system. Every modern version is built upon this rationalistic foundation. In his books he exposed the modernistic influences which led to the development of textual criticism, and he contrasted unbelieving textual scholarship with a Christ-honoring, Bible-believing approach. By the way, Dr. Hills was bitterly persecuted by the scholarly world for rejecting the popular line. Consider the testimony of this brilliant, yet humble scholar:
“Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he must attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Bible Defended, Introduction, 3rd ed., 1979, p. 1).
“... the Bible version which you use ... has already been decided for you by the workings of God’s special providence. If you ignore this providence and choose to adopt one of these modern versions, you will be taking the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same arguments which unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. If you adopt one of these modern versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. This naturalistic textual criticism requires us to study the New Testament text in the same way in which we study the texts of secular books which have not been preserved by God’s special providence” (Hills, Believing Bible Study, Des Moines, Iowa: Christian Research Press, 1967, pp. 226,27).
It is sad that James White cannot understand these important matters, and it is even sadder that he presents the views of men like Dr. Hills in such a shoddy manner that his readers probably will not study Hills for themselves.
BUT MANY SCHOLARS ARE “EVANGELICALS”
Do I hear James White and others protest, perhaps, that the New International Version was produced by “evangelicals” and has produced a strong “evangelical” movement? I do not believe that modern evangelicalism is a biblical movement. It can be demonstrated, in fact, that New Evangelical compromise has paved the way for today’s wholesale acceptance of the modern versions in the Evangelical world. Already in 1952 Billy Graham, New Evangelicalism’s foremost popularizer, accepted a copy of the RSV and told a crowd of 20,000 people: “These scholars have probably given us the most nearly perfect translation in English. While there may be room for disagreement in certain areas of the translation, yet this new version should supplement the King James Version and make Bible reading a habit throughout America” (Graham, cited by Perry Rockwood, God’s Inspired Preserved Bible, nd., p. 15).
Graham’s endorsement of the Revised Standard Version foreshadowed Evangelicalism’s capitulation to the endless stream of modern versions. Graham has endorsed practically every new version to appear on the scene, no matter how flippant and unfaithful, including the Living Bible (which he almost single-handedly rescued from oblivion), J.B. Phillips’ New Testament (Phillips, The Price of Success: An Autobiography, p. 116), and the blasphemous Good News for Modern Man (Today’s English Version) which replaces the word “blood” with “death” in speaking of the atonement of Jesus Christ and which perverts practically every passage on the Deity of Christ.
As New Evangelicalism has gradually leavened the entire Evangelical world over the past fifty years, the modern versions have increased in popularity. Many seem confused by the fact that most Evangelical leaders today give wholehearted endorsement to the critical Greek text as well as to the versions based upon them. “How could all of these men be wrong?” they muse. The answer, which many find difficult to accept but which is based upon historical reality, lies in the fact that New Evangelicalism is a form of apostasy. It is founded upon a willful repudiation of many of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity. It is a pragmatic approach to Christianity instead of simple obedience to the Bible.
The term “New Evangelicalism” was coined by the late Harold Ockenga (1905-1985) to define a new type of Evangelicalism and to distinguish it from those who had heretofore born that label. Ockenga has had a phenomenal influence upon today’s Evangelicalism. He was the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today. In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the position of New Evangelicalism:
“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of Fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. It differed from Fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.”
Ockenga and the new generation of Evangelicals, Billy Graham figuring most prominently, determined to abandon a militant Bible stance. We don’t believe New Evangelicalism was born with Ockenga’s 1948 address. Ockenga merely verbalized a position of neutrality and pragmatism that already existed in the hearts of many Evangelicals of that generation.
Ockenga contended that Evangelicals should practice infiltration rather than separation, meaning they should stay in the apostate denominations and organizations and try to change them from within rather than separate from them and serve God in pure New Testament churches. He contended that Evangelicals should practice dialogue rather than exhortation, that they should not be negative in their message by rebuking error and warning of false teachers publicly and specifically, but should attempt to change the false teachers through dialogue. He taught that Evangelicals should reexamine their idea of worldliness and not be as strict about separating from worldly evils as Bible-believing Christians had been in earlier days.
Ockenga decided that Evangelicals should consider the possibility that modern science was right in some areas in which it disagreed with the Bible. The prime example of this was in the origin of the world. Ockenga did not think Christians should so easily ignore the teaching of evolution as separatists were accustomed to do. He taught that there could be a synthesis between modern science and the Bible.
Ockenga also believed that Christians should aim to meet Modernists and the men of the world on their own scholastic level and therefore contended that Christian leaders should be as well educated in the social sciences and liberal arts as unregenerate scholars and as well-versed in Bible criticism as the Modernists. The idea was that the Christian leader should seek to influence men through human wisdom and scholarship rather than purely though the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word of God as we see in the ministries of the Apostles.
God says, “Walk ye in the old paths,” but the New Evangelical reassesses the old paths. God says, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” but the New Evangelical has removed them one by one. God says, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” but the New Evangelical reasons that such fellowship is necessary. God says, “A little leaven leaventh the whole lump,” but the New Evangelical thinks he can reform the already leavened lump. God says “evil communications corrupt good manners,” but the New Evangelical thinks good manners can uplift evil communications. God says, “I resist the proud but give grace to the humble,” but the New Evangelical thinks the way to reach the world is by meeting them on their own proud territory, matching them scholarly degree with degree.
The Bible warns that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. This is why God requires that His people separate from error. If they do not, they will be devoured by the error. Since 1945 the fearful consequences of apostasy have become evident throughout the Evangelical world.
Evangelicalism’s apostasy is seen in its cozy relationship with Roman Catholicism. There are exceptions, of course, but most popular Evangelical men and organizations have strong sympathies toward the Roman Catholic Church. Endless examples could be given of this. In a series of four books entitled Flirting With Rome: Evangelical Entanglement with Romanism, the author documents this amazing and fearful thing. [These books are available from Way of Life Literature, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277.] The 1994 statement “Evangelicals & Catholics Together,” which was signed by many well-known Evangelicals, called for an even closer relationship between Evangelicals and Catholics. Evangelical publishers are busy putting out books sympathetic to Rome and calling for ecumenical relationships. As early as 1971 Fleming H. Revell published A Prejudiced Protestant Takes a New Look at the Catholic Church by James Hefley. Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, which appeared in 1977, used two Roman Catholic historians as contributing editors. It is no wonder that Rome’s butchery of Bible believers receives small thrift in this Evangelical publication, while Pope John Paul XXIII is praised as having “a deep but traditional piety”! In 1979 Tyndale House Publishers came out with Three Sisters by Michael Harper. This book called for ecumenical unity between Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Roman Catholics. The author stated, “It is my own conviction that a growing unity between the three forces in the Christian world is both desirable and possible” (p. 41). In 1985 InterVarsity Press stirred the ecumenical waters with A Tale of Two Churches by George Carey (who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury). Carey called for the “eventual reunion of the two streams [Protestantism and Romanism] of Western Christendom.” The Foreword to this book, subtitled Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together, was written by J.I. Packer. In 1990 Thomas Nelson published Evangelical Catholics: A Call for Christian Cooperation to Penetrate the Darkness with the Light of the Gospel by Keith Fournier, a Roman Catholic. In 1994 InterVarsity Press came out with the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by two Roman Catholic authors, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. The latter is a Jesuit priest and a professor at Boston College. Moody Press joined its voice in this theme in 1994 by publishing Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. Not to be outdone, that same year the Navigators’ NavPress published House United? Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A Winning Alliance for the 21st Century. The authors are Roman Catholic Keith Fournier and Evangelical William Watkins (a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary).
Most of these books acknowledge that there is doctrinal error in the Roman Catholic Church, but all of them claim that Rome has changed for the better, that Roman Catholicism is not a cult, is not totally apostate. All of them speak of Rome’s heresies in gentle, “understanding” tones rather than labeling them the blasphemies they really are. Let me give you an example. In Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, John Armstrong says, “For centuries the magisterium had insisted that there was no salvation outside the church ... which meant, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. This sometimes caused a decidedly uncharitable response to Protestant evangelicals, who were considered lost outside of Rome and her sacramental system” (emphasis added). To describe Rome’s fearful, bloody, centuries-old persecution of Bible-believing Christians as “decidedly uncharitable” is insanity. Many of today’s Evangelicals want to believe that Rome’s official doctrinal position is not the real position of the so-called Evangelical Catholic today. All of these books call upon Evangelicals to lay aside the age-old divisions and to work hand-in-hand with Romanism in social, religious, and political causes. The cover jacket for House United quotes Pentecostal Vinson Synan’s recommendation of the book: “Keith Fournier is truly a twentieth-century apostle of unity for the Body of Christ.” This unscriptural unity in the so-called Body of Christ is one of the apostate keynotes of late twentieth-century Evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism’s apostasy is also seen in its attitude toward the Bible. The downgrade of the doctrine of biblical inspiration has been plainly documented by Evangelical leaders. Dr. Harold Lindsell, former vice-president of Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, published two volumes on the downgrade of the Bible in Evangelicalism, with particular focus on Fuller Seminary, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible was first published in 1976. The sequel, The Bible in the Balance, came out in 1979. This careful documentation by a man who has been in the inner circle of Evangelicalism’s leadership for many decades leaves no doubt about the fact that the Evangelical world of the last half of the twentieth century is leavened with apostasy.
In 1984 well-known Evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer published The Great Evangelical Disaster. The book’s title leaves no doubt about the thesis. The cover jacket says, “In this explosive new book Dr. Francis Schaeffer exposes the rise of compromise and accommodation, and the tragic consequences of this, within the evangelical church.” The issue which Schaeffer called “the watershed of Evangelicalism” is the inspiration and authority of the Bible. He testified, “Within evangelicalism there are a growing number who are modifying their views on the inerrancy of the Bible so that the full authority of Scripture is completely undercut” (The Great Evangelical Disaster, p. 44).
A more recent exposure of the corruption of doctrine in the Evangelical world is found in No Place for Truth: or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? by David F. Wells, Professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Time magazine described Well’s book as “a stinging indictment of evangelicalism’s theological corruption.” Though Wells is himself a committed New Evangelical, he properly identifies Evangelicalism’s chief problem as its repudiation of biblical separation and its accommodation with the world: “Fundamentalism always had an air of embattlement about it, of being an island in a sea of unremitting hostility. Evangelicalism has reacted against this sense of psychological isolation. It has lowered the barricades. It is open to the world. The great sin of Fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow” (emphasis added) (David Wells, No Place for Truth, p. 129). Wells also made this telling statement which acknowledges precisely where the New Evangelical world is today:
"But in between these far shores [Anglo-Catholicism and Fundamentalism] lie the choppy waters that most evangelicals now ply with their boats, and here the winds of modernity blow with disconcerting force, fragmenting what it means to be evangelical. This is because evangelicals have allowed their confessional center to dissipate" (p. 128).
I BELIEVE A CLEAR CASE CAN BE ESTABLISHED CONNECTING EVANGELICALISM'S APOSTASY WITH ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE CRITICAL TEXT AND ITS VERSIONS. The Fundamentalist who defends the modern versions joins hands with Modernists and New Evangelicals, because this has long been their position and they are the ones doing the vast majority of the “scholarly” writing on this subject.
Pastor Mark Buch (1910-1995) of Vancouver, British Columbia, who was in the Fundamentalist movement since the 1930s and therefore spoke from long, personal experience, gave this testimony to the fact that Evangelicalism has become corrupted: “[EVANGELICALISM] TODAY HAS FALLEN AWAY FROM THE OLD FAITH AND THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF AN EXCEPTION AMONG THEM, IT IS COMMON AND GENERAL. They no longer believe in the veracity, the verbal inspiration of the Holy Bible and they have gone a whoring after all sorts of innovations and foolishness in order to fill their churches...” (In Defence of the Authorized Version, Vancouver: People's Fellowship Tabernacle, 1977, p. 33).
I had the pleasure of meeting with Pastor Buch a few times before his promotion to Glory in 1995. He was a stalwart defender of the King James Bible for 60 years. He started the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle of Vancouver in 1939 and pastored it for 40 years. Buch knew and preached with many of the well-known Fundamentalist leaders of this century, including J. Frank Norris, G. Beauchamp Vick, and Bob Jones Sr. In 1990 Buch’s People’s Fellowship merged with the Bethel Baptist Church to become the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Vancouver. Its pastor is Gordon Conner, a personal friend who continues to hold a standard for the King James Bible and biblical fundamentalism in western Canada.
Buch sat under the ministry of the famous William Aberhart (1878-1943), high school principal, pastor, Bible school dean, radio Bible teacher, and a greatly beloved political leader. For 20 years (1915-1935) Aberhart was the principal of one of the most prestigious high schools in Canada, the Crescent Heights High School in Calgary, Alberta. He was Premier of Alberta from 1935-43, his Social Credit party having been swept into power on a tremendous landslide victory. During those years, he also served as Attorney-General and as Minister of Education. Aberhart also founded the Bible Institute Baptist Church, in Calgary, which was dedicated by the Fundamentalist Baptist leader William B. Riley. The Bible Institute Baptist Church, which seated 1,250 counting the seats in the gallery, was a prominent church in Calgary in those days. Aberhart was a bold defender of the King James Bible as early as the 1920s, and I have one of his booklets on that topic which was given to me by Pastor Buch. The fascinating testimonies of these men are in our book For Love of the Bible.
We digressed somewhat from our subject, but I believe it was worth it. We are looking at the apostasy of modern-day evangelicalism. Consider this summary of the downgrade of the doctrine of inspiration by today’s Evangelical leaders:
My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. Almost all of the literature which is produced in the evangelical world today falls into this category. In the October 1985 issue of Christianity Today, (the very popular and probably most influential voice of evangelicals in America), a symposium on Bible criticism was featured. The articles were written by scholars from several evangelical seminaries. Not one of the participants in that symposium in Christianity Today was prepared to reject higher criticism. All came to its defense. IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT ALL THE SCHOLARS FROM THE LEADING SEMINARIES IN THIS COUNTRY HELD TO A FORM OF HIGHER CRITICISM.
These men claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time they adopt higher critical methods in the explanation of the Scriptures. This has become so common in evangelical circles that IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN EVANGELICAL PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS OF OUR LAND AND ABROAD WHO STILL HOLDS UNCOMPROMISINGLY TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. THE INSIDIOUS DANGER IS THAT HIGHER CRITICISM IS PROMOTED BY THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION (Herman Hanko, The Battle for the Bible, Lansing, IL: Peace Protestant Reformed Church, 1993, pp. 2,3). [Editor: Hanko’s book should not be confused with Harold Lindsell’s book by that same name.]
The author of the above critique is Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, Grandville, Michigan.
Remember these sad facts the next time your hear something about how “thoroughly evangelical” certain modern Bible translators are. Today’s Evangelicals are polluted with the Modernism from which they have refused to separate. A little leaven has indeed leavened the whole lump.
Evangelicalism’s apostasy is not only seen in its relationship with Rome and its downgrade of biblical inspiration, it is also seen in its repudiation of biblical holiness. The old Fundamentalism was staunchly and boldly opposed to worldliness. The New Evangelical crowd rejected this. The result has been incredible to behold. R-rated and PG-13 movies are reviewed in Evangelical publications. Evangelical music groups look and sound exactly like the world. Many Evangelical Bible college campuses have the look and feel of secular colleges. The students wear the same immodest clothing as the world; they drink the same liquor; they dance to the same music; they celebrate the same worldly events; they sympathize with the same politically-correct, pacifistic-feminized-environmentally-sensitive philosophies. Richard Quebedeaux documented this in his 1978 book The Worldly Evangelicals. In describing this in The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer said:
“How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. The last sixty years have given birth to a moral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly we must say that the evangelical world has been part of the disaster. ... With tears we must say that ... a large segment of the evangelical world has become seduced by the world spirit of this present age” (p. 141).
Evangelical leaders today believe in a “concept Bible.” The inspired Word of God is not to be found in one place, but it is scattered throughout the texts and versions. What are we to say to this? I say that in light of the carnal, apostate condition of Evangelicalism, it is not surprising that its leaders and institutions cannot see the truth about Bible versions. A man who thinks the pope is a great evangelist (as Billy Graham does) or that Karl Barth was a great Christian (as many of today’s Evangelical leaders do) or that Robert Schuller is not a heretic (as Christianity Today’s editors do) or that we should yoke together in joint ventures with the National Council of Churches (as the current head of the National Association of Evangelicals does), could not be trusted to give sound advice about Bible versions or any other spiritual matter.
The pure Gospel and the pure Bible have always been held by the minority, the remnant. In light of the prophecies of the New Testament Scriptures which foresee the almost total apostasy of the visible “church” in the last hours of this age, I do not find it strange that the pure Bible is rejected by the majority of those who profess to be evangelical Christians today.
In concluding our thoughts about the connection between apostasy and the modern versions, we quote from Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute. In his 1951 doctoral thesis before the Dallas Theological Seminary graduate school faculty, he made this connection:
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM HAS NOT BEEN PERCEIVED CLEARLY ENOUGH BY MOST. AT PRECISELY THE TIME WHEN LIBERALISM WAS CARRYING THE FIELD IN THE ENGLISH CHURCHES THE THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT RECEIVED WIDE ACCLAIM. THESE ARE NOT ISOLATED FACTS. Recent contributions on the subject--that is, in the present century--following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible. ... Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God (pp. 69,70).
The Westcott-Hort theory has been examined and found wanting. The whole arrogant scheme of putting this study on a purely literary basis, without any acknowledgment of the corruption brought into the text in early days by willful and wicked men, and without any perception of God’s providential preservation of His Word down through the centuries, collapses when subjected to close scrutiny. Men would have seen this in the years immediately after 1881 if they had not been so committed to the liberal trends which were then gathering momentum. ...
IT WILL NOT DO TO MODIFY WESTCOTT AND HORT AND TO PROCEED FROM THERE. THE ONLY ROAD TO PROGRESS IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS REPUDIATION OF THEIR THEORY AND ALL ITS FRUITS. Most contemporary criticism is bankrupt and confused, the result of its liaison with liberal theology. A Bible-believing Christian can never be content to follow the leadership of those who do not recognize the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God (pp. 193,196,197).
Christian students who accept the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God need to interest themselves in the questions of textual criticism. This is not merely an academic matter which is only of passing interest to a few scholarly recluses (p. 204).
(Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951).
Would James White tell us that Alfred Martin is a Ruckmanite fundamental Baptist? Did Martin get his view that the modern versions are founded upon apostasy from Gail Riplinger?
Many other powerful lines of argument are offered by King James Bible defenders, but these are sufficient for me. Any one of the above points, in fact, would be sufficient for me to reject the modern texts and versions and to hold fast to the Received Text and the King James Bible. Multitudes of men who tremble at God’s Word and who have sought the face of God about the Bible, have concluded that the Received Text and accurate translations thereof are the preserved Word of God. I earnestly sought the face of God about this issue more than 20 years ago. I tried to examine the question from every side. If I was biased at that time, I was biased against the King James Bible position, having been taught in Greek class at Tennessee Temple in the mid 1970s that the various texts and versions are equally the Word of God and that the text-version debate was almost a non-issue. I prayerfully read all sorts of books, pro and con, about the KJV, and corresponded with men whom I respected spiritually and scholarly. I am convinced that God guided me to place my confidence in the Authorized English Version. Multitudes of other men can give the same testimony. I know hundreds of them personally. There are exceptions, of course, but I have observed that English-speaking men who are the most zealous for the jots and tittles of God’s Word are Received Text/King James Bible defenders. Men can mistake the guidance of God, of course, but men who have earnestly sought God’s face about an issue and who subsequently believe God has guided them to a certain position cannot lightly give it up.
In conclusion, James White pretends that the great lines of argument which underlie the King James Bible defense are views newly risen and are the property of a modern “King James Only” club. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Each one of these arguments was used widely in the 19th century to defend the King James Bible and its Received Text against the onslaught of critical Greek texts. We have documented this in For Love of the Bible.
WHITE RAISES QUESTIONS AND ISSUES WHICH HE IMPLIES ARE IGNORED BY THOSE HE LABELS “KING JAMES ONLY.”
This is reprehensible because all of these issues have been acknowledged and addressed by defenders of the Authorized Version. In fact, White’s entire book has been answered by Authorized Version defenders who wrote prior to the publication of his book. He simply ignores all of this work, or lightly passes over it as if it were insignificant. Consider some examples of this:
(1) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE RECEIVED TEXT and implies that this is a problem which is not addressed by “King James Only” men and that it is something which cannot be answered from a “King James Only” position. The fact is that Edward F. Hills addressed this in 1956 in his book The King James Bible Defended (Christian Research Press, P.O. Box 13023, Des Moines, IA 50310-0023). Chapter VII of this book (it was chapter VI in the 1956 edition) is titled “The Textus Receptus and the King James Version,” and it contains a detailed look at the various editions of the Reformation era Received Text and how this variety can be viewed in light of the doctrine of Bible preservation.
(2) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND IMPLIES THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM WHICH CANNOT BE ANSWERED FROM A “KING JAMES ONLY” POSITION. The fact is that Dr. Hills addressed this in 1956, and many other Authorized Version defenders have addressed it as well. Dr. Donald Waite has published an exhaustive comparison of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible and the modern editions of the King James Bible (The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version, Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). He has tallied and categorized every change and has shown us exactly what the differences are. He has shown that only a very tiny percentage of the changes affect the meaning of the text in any sense whatsoever and that this is actually a non-issue which is raised as a smokescreen by those who want to draw people’s attention away from the weighty matters of this debate. White admits that “most of the revisions have dealt with small matters of spelling, punctuation, etc.” (p. 79), but then he says of the differences, “Surely they present a sticky problem for the radical proponent of KJV Onlyism. … But once a person has invested the English with inspiration itself, that route is no longer a consistent option.” This is another evidence that White wants to cloud the debate by pretending that most defenders of the King James Bible are on the radical fringe and believe it is directly inspired of God. This is nonsense. In my experience, most defenders of the King James Bible believe it is an accurate translation of the preserved text. They believe that inspiration has to do, first and foremost, with the direct giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles of old. They do not believe that a translation is directly inspired, but that inasmuch as it is an accurate translation of the inspired text, it is therefore authoritative, carrying over into English the inspirational authority of the original text from which it is translated. Further, I contend that my experience is much more extensive than White’s in that I personally know and fellowship with and have communicated through the years with many more King James defenders than he has. Since 1973 I have been preaching and fellowshipping with and studying under and reading after King James Bible defenders. These are my friends and my people. James White was only 11 years old in 1973.
(3) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT AND THE MODERN SO-CALLED MAJORITY TEXT (such as that published by Thomas Nelson in 1982). White says, “It is important that the reader understand that the TR is not identical with the ‘Majority Text,’ even though it is closely related” (White, p. 65). Many Authorized Version defenders have addressed this issue. Jack Moorman, for example, addresses this in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). In this large work (153 pages, 8.5 X 11-inch format) Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Sodom apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. “These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text.” (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, “nevertheless [have] quite substantial support.” Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.
(4) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE ALLEGED LACK OF SUPPORT FOR 1 JOHN 5:7. White largely ignores the powerful arguments which have led Bible believers to accept 1 John 5:7 as Scripture for centuries on end. 1 John 5:7 stood unchallenged in the English Bible for a full six hundred years. It was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the Engish Revised of 1881 omitted it. James White would probably reply, “Sure, Wycliffe translated from the Latin Bible and 1 John 5:7 has always been in the Latin Bible. It was an accident of history. It doesn’t mean anything.” I believe this history means a lot. The fact that the most widely used Bibles through the centuries contained 1 John 5:7 speaks volumes to me. It tells me that God had His hand in this, that it is preserved Scripture. Were the countless preachers, theologians, church and denominational leaders, editors, translators, etc., who accepted the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 of these English Bibles through all these long centuries really so ignorant? What a proud generation we have today! White is correct when he states that long tradition in itself is not proof that something is true, but he ignores the fact that long tradition CAN BE an evidence that something is true, and if that tradition lines up with the Word of God, it is not to be discarded. “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28). There are many reasons for believing 1 John 5:7 was penned by the Apostle John under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but White’s readers are not informed of this fact and are left with an insufficient presentation of this issue.
White ignores the scholarly defense of the Trinitarian passage published by Frederick Nolan in 1815--An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. This 576-page volume has been reprinted by Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. The Southern Presbyterian Review for April 1871, described Nolan’s book as “a work which defends the received text with matchless ingenuity and profound learning.”
White ignores the Christ-honoring scholarship of 19th-century Presbyterian scholar Robert Dabney, who wrote in defense of the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Vol. 1, p. 350-390; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1891, reprinted 1967). Dabney was offered the editorship of a newspaper at age 22 and it was said of him that no man his age in the U.S. was superior as a writer. He taught at Union Theological Seminary from 1853 to 1883 and pastored the College Church during most of those years. He contributed to a number of publications, including the Central Presbyterian, the Presbyterian Critic, and the Southern Presbyterian. His last years were spent with the Austin School of Theology in Texas, a university he co-founded. A.A. Hodge called Dabney “the best teacher of theology in the United States, if not in the world,” and General Stonewall Jackson referred to him as the most efficient officer he knew (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, cover jacket, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977 edition of the 1903 original).
White ignores the fact that it was particularly the Unitarians and German modernists who fought viciously against the Trinitarian passage in the King James Bible. For example, in my library is a copy of Ezra Abbot’s Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v.7 (New York: James Miller, 1866). Abbot, Harvard University Divinity School professor, was one of at least three Christ-denying Unitarians who worked on the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. Abbot was a close friend of Philip Schaff, head of the ASV project, and was spoken of warmly in the introduction to Schaff’s history. According to the testimony of the revisers themselves, the Unitarian Abbot wielded great influence on the translation. Consider the following statement by Matthew Riddle, a member of the ASV translation committee:
“Dr. Ezra Abbot was the foremost textual critic in America, and HIS OPINIONS USUALLY PREVAILED WHEN QUESTIONS OF TEXT WERE DEBATED. ... Dr. Ezra Abbot presented a very able paper on the last clause of Romans 9:5, arguing that it was a doxology to God, and not to be referred to Christ. His view of the punctuation, which is held by many modern scholars, appears in the margin of the American Appendix, and is more defensible than the margin of the English Company. ... Acts 20:28. ‘The Lord’ is placed in the text, with this margin: ‘Some ancient authorities, including the two oldest manuscripts, read God.’ ... Dr. Abbot wrote a long article in favor of the reading [which removes ‘God’ from the text]” (Matthew Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Co., 1908, pp. 30,39,83).
Matthew Riddle’s testimony in this regard is very important as he was one of the most influential members of the American Standard Version committee and one of the few members who survived to see the translation printed. The ASV was the first influential Bible published in America to drop 1 John 5:7 from the text, AND IT DID SO UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A UNITARIAN. White sees no significance to these matters. I see great significance. White, as do most modern version defenders, ignores the direct Unitarian connection with modern textual criticism and with the textual changes pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ which appear in the modern versions. We have exposed this connection extensively in our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy.
White also ignores the scholarly articles defending 1 John 5:7 which have been published since the late 1800s by the Trinitarian Bible Society. He also ignores the excellent defense of 1 John 5:7-8 by Jack Moorman in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse. White also ignores the excellent reply given in 1980 by Dr. Thomas Strouse to D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate, in which Dr. Strouse provides an overview of the arguments supporting the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Received Text. Dr. Strouse (Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University) is Chairman of the Department of Theology, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary (717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464. 888-482-2287, tbcm@exis.net). White also ignores the landmark work of Michael Maynard, author of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Publications, 1855 “A” Ave. #4, Douglas, AZ 85607). It is possible, of course, that he had not seen Maynard’s book prior to the publication of The King James Bible Controversy. Maynard’s book basically summarizes the long-standing defense of 1 John 5:7-8 as it exists in the King James Bible, but White pretends that there is no reasonable defense of the Trinitarian passage.
(5) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF ERASMUS, OF HIS PERSONAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND TEXTUAL WEAKNESSES, PRETENDING THAT THE WEAKNESSES OF ERASMUS DETRACT FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT. This topic has been dealt with frequently by defenders of the Authorized Version. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864), in his 576-page An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament (available in reprint from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108), defended the sixteenth-century text on the basis of faith and theological purity, and he opposed the critics of his day who were disparaging the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in a manner mimicked by today’s modern version proponents. Nolan, in a careful and very technical manner, traced the history of the doctrinal corruptions which were introduced into the text of various manuscripts during the first four centuries after Christ. Nolan devastates the popular idea that Erasmus and the Reformation editors were working with insufficient textual evidence and that they did not know about the readings preferred by today’s textual critics. NOLAN SHOWS THAT THE REFORMATION EDITORS DID NOT FOLLOW THE RECEIVED TEXT BECAUSE THEY LACKED SUFFICIENT TEXTUAL EVIDENCE, BUT BECAUSE THEY CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE TO REJECT THE CRITICAL READINGS. (Contrast this with White’s statement on page 69 that the Reformation editors “used this text by default, not by choice.”) Consider the following statement from Nolan’s book:
“WITH RESPECT TO MANUSCRIPTS, IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT HE [ERASMUS] WAS ACQUAINTED WITH EVERY VARIETY WHICH IS KNOWN TO US; HAVING DISTRIBUTED THEM INTO TWO PRINCIPAL CLASSES, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in the possession of the Greek church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves that HIS OBJECTIONS TO THESE MANUSCRIPTS LAY MORE DEEP; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted” (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 413-15).
The fact is that at least many of the Reformation leaders believed that God had preserved His Word in a certain family of manuscripts which can be called the Traditional or Received Text and it was to this text that these wise men looked when they were searching for the words of God. It was not a decision they made out of ignorance or happenstance. The Reformation editors recognized that the Traditional Text is theologically pure whereas the text represented by Vaticanus and friends is impure. In a word, they did not adopt the Received Text out of ignorance, but out of conviction!
The Trinitarian Bible Society has looked closely at Erasmus in their publications throughout this century, yet James White ignores their research and position.
Dr. Edward Hills dealt with Erasmus in his books, beginning in 1956.
Erasmus is also considered in the books edited by David Otis Fuller (Which Bible?, True or False?).
In his 1951 doctoral dissertation to the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary’s Graduate School, Alfred Martin, then vice President of Moody Bible Institute, said: “A Bible-believing Christian had better be careful what he says about the Textus Receptus, for the question is not at all the precise wording of that text, but rather a choice between two different kinds of texts, a fuller one and a shorter one. ONE NEED NOT BELIEVE IN THE INFALLIBILITY OF ERASMUS, OR HIS SANCTITY, OR EVEN HIS HONESTY; BECAUSE HE MERELY FOLLOWED THE TYPE OF TEXT WHICH WAS DOMINANT IN THE MANUSCRIPTS ... (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 24,25).
Dr. Donald Waite has also dealt with Erasmus and has shown the error of many statements commonly made by modern version proponents and has shown how the Authorized Version defender looks at this question.
Michael Maynard, in his book A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a tracing of the longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity, has dealt extensively with Erasmus in relation to 1 John 5:7 and has debunked some myths commonly promoted about this.
I have also faced the issue of Erasmus in my books. In For Love of the Bible we concluded: “If the critical textual editors of the nineteenth century had believed God, they would have understood that the pure Word of God was not lost! That’s the major point of contention in this entire matter, as I see it. The Word of God was preserved; it was not lost. My confidence is not in Erasmus or in King James I or in John Burgon or in D.O. Fuller. My confidence is in a God who has promised to preserve His Word. And if the Bible which went to the ends of the earth during the greatest era of missionary activity in church history since the apostolic era was not the preserved Word of God, there is no such thing as the preserved Word of God, and this entire matter is merely an exercise in vanity.”
(6) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE MARGINAL READINGS OF THE ORIGINAL KING JAMES BIBLE. White notes that the 1611 KJV contained 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament and 767 in the New. He then says, “The importance of the marginal notes to the KJV Only controversy should not be overlooked” (p. 77). He implies that it is inconsistent for King James Bible defenders to make something of the critical textual notes in the modern versions while ignoring the ones in the original KJV. This is a comparison of monkeys and apples, though. Both the 1611 KJV and the modern versions have marginal notes, but the nature of those notes is very different.
First of all, the marginal notes in the modern versions ARE DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER. The textual notes in the 1611 KJV were not critical or deceitful as are the ones in the modern versions. The marginal notes in the 1611 KJV did not cast continual doubt upon the text, as do those in the modern versions. Consider, for example, the marginal note at 1 Timothy 3:16 in the NIV: “Some manuscripts God.” This is a deception, and those who read this note are led to believe a lie. The fact is that the vast majority of Greek manuscripts have the word “God” in this verse, and only a handful of very undependable ones omit it. In testifying of the marginal notes in the modern versions, Jay Green, a biblical scholar and Bible translator, says, “Deceitful footnotes often throw doubt on the words of the text, such as may be found at Mark 1:1; Romans 9:5, etc. Worse, yet, in other places when words that witness to the Godhead of Christ are removed from the text, seldom is there a footnote to call attention to it. And when there is a footnote purporting to give evidence for the change, a false impression is often given by an incomplete presentation of the facts” (Jay Green, Sr., The Gnostics, The New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, Lafayette, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1994, p. 5). James White, though, pretends that the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV are the same in nature as those of the modern versions and that the “King James Only” crowd is again proven inconsistent.
Second, the marginal notes in the modern versions ARE DIFFERENT IN QUANTITY. James White admits that only 37 of the marginal notes in the KJV New Testament relate to variant textual readings. Even this number is inflated. Allan MacRae and Robert Newman (who are not defenders of the KJV), in their Facts on the Textus Receptus and the King James Version (Hatfield, PA: Biblical School of Theology, 1975), cite 13 marginal notes of variant texts in the KJV. Dr. Donald Waite, in his research into this matter, found only 11 examples of KJV N.T. marginal notes which had anything to do with variant readings. Until we do our own study of the KJV marginal notes, we will lean on Dr. Waite’s research, because we know him and have more confidence in his figures than the other aforementioned men. In contrast, the NIV New Testament has 120 variant footnotes, the NASV New Testament has 133, and the NKJV New Testament has 772 (Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, Why Not the King James Bible!, Bible for Today, 1995, p. 22). Furthermore, many of the marginal notes in the modern versions question entire verses and passages, not just isolated words.
Dr. Waite has a paper on this subject entitled “Marginal Notes in the Original A.V. 1611.” It is item #2822, and is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. 609-854-4452.
(7) WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE THAT DOCTRINES ARE NOT ENTIRELY REMOVED FROM THE MODERN VERSIONS. To my knowledge, no one is saying that doctrines are entirely removed from the modern versions. The typical argument is that key doctrines are weakened and diluted, not entirely removed, yet James White repeatedly makes an issue of the fact that the various doctrines are not removed. For example, of the doctrine of the virgin birth he says:
“Matthew 1:25 is often cited by critics of modern translations as an attempt to deny the virgin birth of Christ. Yet if a modern translation wished to do this, why not remove the parallel occurrence of the term at Luke 2:7 where all the modern translations contain the disputed term?” (White, p. 159).
Modern version defenders like James White appear not to understand the importance and power of repetition and of details, yet this is obviously the reason why the Bible is filled with the same. When the Lord wanted to impress Pharaoh with coming events, he repeated the dream two times (Gen. 41:32). When the Lord wanted to impress Peter that the Gospel was for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, he repeated the vision three times (Acts 10:16). The Lord Jesus Christ often emphasized His statements with the double phrase, “Verily, verily.” In the book of Ezekiel the phrase “they shall know that I am the Lord” is repeated 106 times. The Bible is literally filled with this type of repetition. Does that mean the repetitious details are not important? Hardly! Yet that is precisely what the modern version defenders tell us. For example, in Mark 9, the Received Text and the King James Bible repeats “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” three times (verses 44,46,48). In the United Bible Societies Greek text and in the modern English versions, this statement is omitted from two of those places. It is in verse 48 but verses 44 and 46 are removed. Is this of no consequence? I believe a sermon in which the unspeakably horrible eternal nature of hell is mentioned three times is more potent than one in which it is mentioned only once. Another example of this is in Matt. 4:4 and Luke 4:4. In the KJV both verses contain the crucial statement that man lives “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” The Greek Received Text has both statements. The critical Greek text, though, and the modern versions which follow that text, omit this statement from Luke 4:4. Not important, says White. It is in Matthew 4:4, and that is enough. Nonsense, says the King James Bible defender, it should be in both places because repetition and detail in God’s Word are crucial! That is one of the most important statements in the entire Bible, and it makes sense that the Holy Spirit would repeat it.
King James Bible defenders have made this point many times, but James White has ignored it. Why would the devil (assuming the textual differences were demonic corruptions) remove a verse in one place and leave a similar one in another? Why would he not go ahead and remove an entire doctrine? James White asks this question at various points in his book and seems to think that it is unanswerable, but I find that the answer is rather obvious. It would be almost impossible to entirely remove a doctrine from the Scriptures, but it was not so difficult to weaken certain key doctrines by a whittling down process through textual corruptions introduced by demonically-controlled men (such as Origen) and to dilute the potency of the Scripture overall through this same process. In warfare, a repeating rifle is much more effective than a single shot one! To take the thousands of omissions in the modern texts and translations as lightly as James White does is strange in light of the biblical warnings such as: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).
We conclude this section with an excellent statement on the importance of omissions in the Bible:
“Getting back to the omissions again, some defend them by pointing out that while a text might be missing from one place in Scripture, it is sometimes found somewhere else in Scripture. In other words, in some cases, essential writings were not removed from all passages. ‘So,’ they exclaim, ‘what is all of this fuss about?’ Beyond question, this has to be one of the most reckless attitudes toward Scripture in the Church, and can only belong to those so dulled by compromise and backslidden in heart that they have lost all sense of reality. The Bible is not simply another publication out there on the open market of religious books. It is the very word of God, which God deliberately placed above His own name (Ps. 138:2), and of which even He Himself, will not alter one word (Ps. 89:34). How then can a God fearing Christian justify even the slightest omission from its page? Are they not as much as saying that men have as much right to discard Scriptures as God did to write them down?
“To justify an omission because it can be found somewhere else does not answer the question of why it was removed in the first place. Instead, such a slight of hand explanation openly insults the declared infallibility of God’s Holy Word, creates alibis for its corrupters, and instructs the saints that they can live without all of God’s counsel. It plainly lowers the Bible in status to just ‘another book’ that we can do with as we please.
“However, while the Church’s tolerance for blemished Scripture is high--God’s is not. If He forbids, under the severest penalty, the adding or taking away of a single word of Scripture in Rev. 22:18,19, will He be lenient with those who support translations that have clearly tampered with the Scriptures? Or, will they stand as guilty on the day of judgment for their rationalizing, as the ones who did the tampering in the first place.
“Satan does not have to do much from without when such indifference lies within. It is this very spirit of nonresistance that the spoilers of God’s Word had hoped for and that will encourage them to do even further damage to Scripture. With the unchangeable Word of God now subject to the changeable views of men, what will the next generation of Bibles be like? If we today are willing to give up our most for less, will saints of tomorrow be willing to give up this less for nothing? Surely, paganism lies at the door” (Chick Salliby, If the Foundations Be Destroyed, Fiskdale, MA: Word and Prayer Ministries, 1994, pp. 88,89).
WHITE DOWNPLAYS THE THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY OF WESTCOTT-HORT, IMPLYING THAT WESTCOTT AND HORT WERE TYPICAL ANGLICANS LIKE THE 17-CENTURY AUTHORIZED VERSION TRANSLATORS AND THE 19TH-CENTURY JOHN BURGON.
White says, for example, “It is very common for KJV Only advocates to attack such men as Westcott and Hort for being ‘baby sprinklers,’ yet the KJV was born in the heart of such a system of theology” (White, p. 71). In another place White says: “As the KJV Only movement thrives most in conservative, independent Baptist circles, it is normally enough just to point out that Westcott and Hort were Anglicans, and hence ‘baby sprinklers’ as one harsh KJV Only proponent puts it. … The fact that the KJV was translated by ‘baby-sprinkling’ Anglicans does not seem to bother those who bring up Westcott and Hort, however” (White, pp. 122,123).
I do not doubt that some KJV defenders have made something of the fact that Westcott and Hort practiced infant baptism while ignoring the fact that most of the King James Version translators were infected with the same error, but I have examined practically everything which has been published on this subject and I can testify that White is missing the mark by MILES. The point commonly raised against Westcott and Hort is not their denominational peculiarities but their theological modernism, not their views on baptism but their views on the Bible and on Christ’s atonement and other foundational doctrines. At considerable expense I have collected most of the books which were published by Westcott and Hort, and I can assure my readers that they were infected with the modernism which was sweeping across the world in their day and with the Romanistic sympathies which were prevailing within 19th-century Anglicanism. John William Burgon, a Anglican who was contemporary with Westcott and Hort, strongly affirmed biblical infallibility, while both Westcott and Hort questioned it. Burgon strongly affirmed the biblical view of the atonement, while Westcott and Hort questioned it. Westcott and Hort represented the liberal Romanized wing of late 19th-century Anglicanism, while Burgon represented the staunchly conservative anti-Roman wing. The reader is encouraged to read Burgon’s work on biblical inspiration and his work against Roman Catholicism. The titles are included in the bibliography in my book For Love of the Bible and these out-of-print works can be viewed by microfiche in many key theological libraries.
Furthermore, it is not only fundamental Baptists who recognize Westcott and Hort’s apostasy. Dallas Theological Seminary professor Zane Hodges noted this almost 30 years ago. He also recognized the theological modernism which underlies the field of modern textual criticism, a fact discounted by White. Consider an excerpt from Hodges’ article “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism”--
“The charge of rationalism is easily substantiated for Westcott and Hort and may be demonstrated from direct statements found in their introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek. To begin with, Westcott and Hort are clearly unwilling to commit themselves to the inerrancy of the original Scriptures” (Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, pp. 27-35).
A precise, accurate description of Westcott-Hort’s theological position was also given by the late Presbyterian scholar Bishop D.A. Thompson, who looked carefully into these matters: “Neither of these scholars [Westcott and Hort] had been evangelical and as the influence of the German neology increased they moved slowly and discreetly with the times” (Thompson, The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to Mark, Surrey: The Bible Christian Unity Fellowship, pp. 39-40; reprint of four articles which appeared in The Bible League Quarterly, London, 1973).
While some Evangelicals and even some Fundamentalists have come to the defense of Westcott and Hort and have contended that they were theologically sound, these (perhaps) fail to understand the nature of Westcott-Hort’s theological apostasy. Like many Neo-orthodox and Modernistic theologians, Westcott and Hort did not so much openly deny the doctrines of the Word of God directly; instead they undermined these doctrines with clever doubt, with subtle questioning. Dr. D.A. Waite, who has examined the writings of Westcott and Hort in great detail, testifies: “Westcott’s attack on the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not by any means a direct clash of out-and-and denial, but rather an adroit, skillful, oblique undermining of the bodily resurrection of Christ by means of a re-definition of terms” (Waite, Westcott’s Denial of Bodily Resurrection, The Bible for Today, 1983, p. 8).
Dr. Waite’s views on this matter are not based on a cursory look at Westcott and Hort’s theology. He has examined the writings of these men probably as extensively as anyone speaking on the subject today. Certainly he has given much time and care to this research. No one would claim that a man like Dr. Waite is perfect and that he never makes mistakes. We are only men, but I have found Dr. Waite to be miles more dependable than James White and his crowd. As a background for his book Heresies of Westcott & Hort, Waite studied 1,291 pages of the writings of these men. Based on this research he makes the following charges (among others):
Westcott and Hort held a vague or erroneous position on inspiration, revelation, or inerrancy.
Westcott embraced the heresy of the universal ‘Fatherhood of God.’
Westcott denies that God had to be ‘propitiated.’
Westcott taught that men could be ‘divine’ in some way.
Westcott espoused ‘evolution’ in various ways.
Westcott had a heretical theory of man’s sinfulness and depravity, believing in man’s perfectibility in various ways.
Westcott and Hort failed to affirm the personality of the Devil, calling him only a ‘power.’
Westcott and Hort denied that Heaven is a place, speaking of it as a ‘state.’
Westcott believed that the ‘redemptive efficacy of Christ’s work’ was to be found ‘in his whole life’ rather than in his death.
Westcott questioned the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Westcott and Hort denied the deity of Jesus Christ.
Westcott explained away some of the miracles of Christ.
Westcott and Hort denied or gave a false meaning to the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ.
Westcott and Hort had a false and heretical view of the vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
For a discerning overview of the theology of Westcott and Hort, see Dr. Waite’s The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort: As Seen in Their Own Writings. Also Heresies of Westcott & Hort. Both are available from The Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.
WHITE DENIES A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN WESTCOTT-HORT AND THE MODERN VERSIONS.
White says, “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work” (White, p. 99). I have heard other modern version defenders imply that Westcott and Hort are irrelevant to the subject of the biblical text because “no textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual criticism.” This position ignores the real issue, which is the fact that Westcott and Hort represented the signal departure from the Received Text that is represented today in the popular theories of textual criticism. Westcott and Hort built upon the foundation established by their predecessors, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Westcott and Hort adapted the textual theories of these men into their own unique blend. While today’s textual scholars do not admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by the latter. Consider the following quotation by Ernest Cadman Colwell, a textual scholar who has published a number of widely used grammars and text books, including A Beginners Reader-Grammar for New Testament Greek (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), A Greek Papyrus Reader, with Vocabulary (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), A Hellenistic Greek Reader (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), and Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969).
“THE DEAD HAND OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT LIES HEAVY UPON US. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, though a glorious one. But HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—AND STILL SHAPES—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language” (emphasis added) (Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1965, p. 370).
White is failing to acknowledge a fact which modern textual authorities such as Colwell do acknowledge—that Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of textual criticism. To deny their influence is similar to denying the influence of Darwin on contemporary evolutionary thought. Many planks of Darwin’s theories have been discredited, but Darwin and his theories are important because of their key, pivotal role in the field.
Consider another quote, this one from Dr. Zane Hodges:
“MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY ‘ADDICTED’ TO WESTCOTT AND HORT. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate. The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts” (emphasis added) (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).
Zane Hodges is not a Ruckmanite fundamental Baptist, but he is more honest about the influence of Westcott and Hort upon modern textual scholarship than James White.
White and many others attempting to discredit King James Bible defense also claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because (as they say) “the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B.”
This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 in significant departures from the Received Text. For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH--48, UBS--45). Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH--193, UBS 185). Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH--221, UBS--212). An extensive comparison of the TR against the WH text, the Nestle’s Text, the UBS text, and key English versions was done by the late Everett Fowler and can be seen in his book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, available from Bible for Today.
The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible Societies’ text differ only in relatively minor points. Both represent the same TYPE of text with the same TYPE of departures from the Received Text.
The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the TR in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from it. It is a very significant text and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something.
WHITE DOWNPLAYS THE THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY OF ORIGEN.
White says, “Another common claim made by those who defend the KJV is that the Alexandrian texts have been corrupted by ‘heretics.’ They point to men like Origen (A.D. 185-254) who did things and believed things that most modern fundamentalists would find more than slightly unusual, and on this basis make the very long leap to the assertion that the manuscripts that come from the same area must be ‘corrupt’” (White, p. 44).
Note that the word “heretics” is in quotation marks. In other words, White would have his readers believe that it is only the “King James Only” crowd that identifies Origen and his followers as heretics, that this is another example of the alleged ignorance of the fundamental Baptists who make up a large percentage of King James Bible defenders today. In a footnote connected with the previous statement, White goes even further to cast aspersion upon those who would identify Origen as a heretic:
“Indeed, it might be difficult for them to find anyone in the ancient church, even around Antioch and Byzantium, who would look a whole lot like a modern fundamentalist Baptist. Even the most conservative of the ancient Fathers, like John Chrysostom, would provide KJV Only advocates with numerous reasons to object to his theology, beliefs, and practices” (White, pp. 50,51, footnote 24).
Fundamental Baptists do not look to men such as Chrysostom as “fathers.” We don’t have “fathers,” for the Lord Jesus Christ forbade us to call men fathers (Matt. 23:9). We don’t need some second century “church father” who was himself influenced by the apostasy of his day and about whom we have only a very incomplete record. We have the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles. We have the infallible Scriptures which have been preserved unto us. We have the faith once delivered to the saints. In the second and third centuries the apostasy was already taking form which would lead in the fourth and fifth centuries to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The leaven of heresy was permeating through many of the churches, and many of those who are called “fathers” by Protestants and Catholics were heretics. Further, we don’t use a meaningless term like “the ancient church.” What church does White mean by that term? In the early centuries there were churches which were apostate and which were rejecting the apostolic faith, and there were churches which were not and which were standing fast in the apostolic faith. What church does he mean? The man needs to read some good Baptist histories like that of John Christian and Thomas Armitage to get his ecclesiology and church history straightened out. The fact is that many of the “fathers” of the church, so called, were persecuting the Bible-believing churches of that day. Augustine is an example of this.
Further, the evidence that Origen himself was a heretic of the highest order is overwhelming, and it does not come from the pens of fundamental Baptists. Origen paved the way for Arianism by teaching that the Logos was subordinate and inferior to the Father, that there was a difference of essence between the Father and the Son. He believed in the “deity” of Christ, but not as it is defined biblically. This is precisely the heresy which was raising its ugly unitarian head and influencing Biblical scholarship and textual research in the last half of the 19th century. What a coincidence!
“Origen is described by Mosheim (in his Com. de Rebus Christ, Vol. II, p. 144) as ‘a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.’ While he gained, amidst the superstitious contemporaries who then gave character to Eastern Christianity, a splendid reputation for sanctity, as well as learning, his character was evidently dishonest and tricky, and his judgment most erratic. … As a controversialist, he was wholly unscrupulous” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 383).
Origen taught baptismal regeneration and “evidently had no clear conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith” (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 65). This is an important fact, because it means that the gospel Origen taught was a false gospel, and he therefore was under God’s curse (Galatians 1). Origen believed in purgatory and claimed that all men would eventually be reclaimed through the purgation of sin after death. This is a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement to wash away all sin of the believer. He taught that even the demons and Satan would eventually be restored (Berkhof, p. 75). Origen taught the pre-existence of man. He believed the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by the Father through the Son. Origen “disbelieved the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 383). Origen’s “opinions on the Trinity veered between Sabellianism and Arianism. He expressly denied the consubstantial unity of the Persons and the proper incarnation of the Godhead” (Dabney, I, p. 384).
Origen championed the method of Bible interpretation known as allegorizing, by which the literal meaning of Scripture is rejected for a “deeper meaning” discovered by the interpreter. Such a method makes the mind of the teacher authoritative over the plain meaning of Scripture; because if the plain sense of Scripture is not the true meaning, it is impossible to determine exactly what it does mean, and every man is therefore left to his own devices. Origen’s voluminous commentaries contain a wealth of fanciful interpretations, abounding “in references to apocryphal works and heretical revisals of Scripture” (Frederick Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, p. 367). “His reputation as the great introducer of mysticism, allegory, and Neo-Platonism into the Christian church, is too well known to need recital. THOSE WHO ARE BEST ACQUAINTED WITH THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN OPINION KNOW BEST, THAT ORIGEN WAS THE GREAT CORRUPTER, AND THE SOURCE, OR AT LEAST EARLIEST CHANNEL, OF NEARLY ALL THE SPECULATIVE ERRORS WHICH PLAGUED THE CHURCH IN AFTER AGES” (Dabney, I, p. 383).
I don’t believe James White should have put the word “heretic” in quotation marks when referring to Origen! Earlier we noted Origen’s destructive influence upon many Bible editors and translators who came after him. For White to imply that Origen was not an apostate and that his influence was not as harmful as King James Bible defenders argue, is indefensible.
WHITE DOWNPLAYS THE EVIDENCE THAT SOME OF THE INFLUENTIAL MANUSCRIPTS TRACE THEIR CORRUPTIONS TO THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES.
White says, “Another common claim made by those who defend the KJV is that the Alexandrian texts have been corrupted by ‘heretics.’ They point to men like Origen who did things and believed things that most modern fundamentalists would find more than slightly unusual, and on this basis make the very long leap to the assertion that the manuscripts that come from the same area must be ‘corrupt’” (White, p. 44).
In spite of White’s claim to the contrary, there is strong evidence linking many manuscripts preferred by modern textual critics with the heresies of the first few centuries. First of all, there can be no doubt that the manuscripts preferred by modern textual editors (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) were rejected by God’s people through the centuries. The vast majority of existing manuscripts represent a different type of text, the type found in the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation. Westcott and Hort tried to account for this Traditional or Majority text with their Syrian recension theory—a theory for which there is absolutely no evidence in history and a theory which Westcott-Hort’s successors have dropped. The fact is that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent a corrupted text which was rejected by God’s people, and the evidence supports the conclusion that these manuscripts were created by heretics during the second and third centuries. White would have his readers believe that this idea is a “long leap” and he implies that it is something which was dreamed up in recent years by fundamental Baptist King James Bible defenders. We could quote many important 19th-century Bible scholars who saw the connection between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and early century heresies, but three should be sufficient to prove the point. These were Burgon, Miller, and Nolan.
John Burgon (1813-1888) knew as much about the writings of ancient church leaders as any man who has lived in the past few centuries. He held several high degrees from Oxford University and was one of the foremost biblical scholars of his day. His biographer said, “Burgon was in this country [England] the leading religious teacher of his time, who brought all the resources of genius and profound theological learning to rebut the encroachments of Rationalism by maintaining inviolate the integrity of the written Word of God as the Church has received it” (Edward M. Goulburn, John William Burgon: Late Dean of Chichester, 1892, Preface, p. vii). F.H.A. Scrivener called him “that grand scholar” (cited by Edward Miller, Preface to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. viii), and called Burgon’s work defending the ending of Mark 16 “brilliant.” He was a first-rate textual scholar, the equal to any man alive at the time. He made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went. He visited the Vatican Library in 1860 to examine the Vaticanus. In 1862 he traveled to Mt. Sinai to inspect manuscripts at St. Catherine’s. Edward Hills notes the purpose of these travels: “Being driven by the desire to get to the bottom of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day, Burgon devoted the last 30 years of his life to disprove them. Believing firmly that God had providentially preserved the true text of the New Testament, he set out to discover how the depraved and corrupt readings developed. This required him to travel widely” (E.F. Hills, “A Biographical Sketch of the Life of Burgon,” Unholy Hands on the Bible: Vol. 1, Jay Green, ed., p. xix).
Burgon personally collated hundreds of Greek manuscripts. Another of his amazing textual achievements was his index of New Testament citations of the “church fathers” of antiquity. This index contains the fruit of his labors in analyzing the extant writings of ancient church leaders to determine what Scriptures they possessed. The index is in the British Museum and consists of sixteen thick manuscript volumes containing 86,489 quotations. Modern-day textual scholar Wilbur Pickering testifies that “Burgon’s scholarship in this facet of the total field has never been equaled” (Wilbur Pickering, “Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Criticism,” True or False?, p. 217).
Consider Burgon’s view of the direct connection between early century heretics and the modern critical Greek text:
We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Heschius in Egypt, ‘revised’ the text of the N.T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom there must have been a vast number in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we know for certain, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated gospels which anciently abounded ... and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of ancient Christendom must have exhibited a text which was even scandalously corrupt.
‘It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,’ writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [Scrivener], ‘that THE WORST CORRUPTIONS, TO WHICH THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS EVER BEEN SUBJECTED, ORIGINATED WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER IT WAS COMPOSED: that Irenaeus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus’ (Scrivener, ‘Introduction,’ p. 453).
And what else are codices ABCD [Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.] but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Dr. Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy? (John Burgon, “The Greek Text,” The Quarterly Review, Vol. 152, July & October 1881, pp. 321,22).
Edward Miller (1825-1901), another textual scholar of the highest caliber, presented the following position in his 1886 book entitled A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament:
“Now there are various reasons for supposing that B [Vaticanus] and Aleph [Sinaiticus] were amongst these fifty manuscripts [created by Eusebius for Constantine in A.D. 330-340]. ... These manuscripts are unrivalled for the beauty of their vellum and for their other grandeur, and are just what we should expect to find amongst such as would be supplied in obedience to an imperial command, and executed with the aid of imperial resources. ... They abound in omissions, and show marks of such carelessness as would attend an order carried out with more than ordinary expedition. And even the corrector, who always followed the copyist, did his work with similar carelessness to the scribe whom he was following. ... There is therefore very considerable foundation for the opinion entertained by many that these two celebrated manuscripts owe their execution to the order of Constantine, and show throughout the effects of the care of Eusebius, and the influence of Origen, whose works formed the staple of the Library of Pamphilus, in the city where they were most likely written. Such was probably the parentage, and such the production of these two celebrated manuscripts, which are the main exponents of a form of Text differing from that which has come down to us from the Era of Chrysostom, and has since that time till very recent years been recognized as mainly supreme in the Church” (Edward Miller, A Guide to Textual Criticism, 1886, pp. 82,83).
Note that textual scholar Edward Miller said there is VERY considerable foundation for the opinion entertained by MANY that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus witness to textual corruptions introduced by Origen and Eusebius. Was Edward Miller a Ruckmanite fundamental Baptist?
Finally, note the following statement by the aforementioned textual scholar Frederick Nolan:
“The works of those early writers lie under the positive imputation of being corrupted. THE COPIES OF CLEMENT AND ORIGEN WERE CORRUPTED IN THEIR LIFE TIME; THE MANUSCRIPTS FROM WHICH TERTULLIAN’S WORKS HAVE BEEN PRINTED ARE NOTORIOUSLY FAULTY; AND THE COPIES OF CYPRIAN DEMONSTRATE THEIR OWN CORRUPTION, by their disagreement among themselves, and their agreement with different texts and revisals of Scripture. It is likewise indisputable, that these fathers not only followed each other, adopting the arguments and quotations of one another; but that they quoted from the heterodox as well as the orthodox. They were thus likely to transmit from one to another erroneous quotations, originally adopted from sources not more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture. ... New revisals of Scripture were thus formed, which were interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts and fathers. NOR DID THIS SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION TERMINATE HERE; BUT WHEN NEW TEXTS WERE THUS FORMED, THEY BECAME THE STANDARD BY WHICH THE LATER COPIES OF THE EARLY WRITERS WERE IN SUCCESSION CORRECTED” (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 326-332).
Neither Burgon nor Miller nor Nolan were fundamental Baptists, and they were not members of some illusive “King James Only” club. These men analyzed the primary evidence as diligently as any men living today. In fact, as noted, no man living can match the research which John Burgon conducted into the writings of early church leaders. THESE TEXTUAL SCHOLARS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SINAITICUS AND VATICANUS REPRESENT THE SAME TYPE OF TEXT WHICH WAS PRODUCED THROUGH CORRUPTIONS INTRODUCED BY ORIGEN AND HIS FOLLOWERS.
It is amazing that this position is so consistently slighted in today’s textbooks on textual criticism, and by James White in particular. His implication that this view is the figment of the imagination of fundamental Baptists is laughable.
WHITE ALLEGES THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT AND THE MODERN CRITICAL TEXT IS NOT VERY SERIOUS.
White downplays the differences and gives statistics from Westcott and Hort to prove his point (p. 39). The fact is that Dr. Donald Waite has personally and painstakingly compared the Westcott-Hort text and the United Bible Societies text with the Received Text word for word, and he has published his findings. He does not base his conclusions on someone else’s statistics. He charges Westcott and Hort and other modern version proponents, such as the editor of the New International Version, with misstating the facts. Waite writes, “Hort’s 1/1000th of the Greek N.T. that he thought could be called ‘substantial variation’ would be 140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647 pages). This would be a little over one half a page in the Greek New Testament. This is extremely wide of the mark of truth! … The truth of the matter is that there is a 7% difference ... This would be 45.9 pages. This is a most serious error” (Waite, The Four-fold Superiority of the King James Bible).
Dr. Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible since 1971. He obtained a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952; an M.A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition from Dallas Seminary in 1955; and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. He holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts, and has taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for over thirty-five years in nine schools. In 1971 he founded the Bible for Today (BFT) ministry and has since produced over 900 studies, booklets, cassettes, and VCR’s that he distributes through BFT, along with hundreds of titles by other men on a wide variety of subjects. In 1992 he published his excellent book Defending the King James Bible, presenting the four-fold superiority of the KJV: Superior texts, translators, technique, and theology. Dr. Waite has assisted Bible believers tremendously by putting back into print many of the important 19th-century volumes on Bible texts and versions. Contact Bible for Today for a list: 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. (800) 564-6109 (orders), (609) 854-4452 (voice), (609) 854-2464 (fax), BFT@juno.com (e-mail).
White ignores the research of men such as Waite. When he cites them, it is only to give a shallow perspective on their work.
White says, “The KJV’s text is but one example of one ‘stream’ within a larger river. It doesn’t matter what translation you use, that truth remains true all the same” (White, p. 120).
This is one of the mantra’s of those who defend the modern versions, but it is a false statement. The truth of God has been given in WORDS. The Lord Jesus Christ said that man lives by every word of God (Matt. 4:4; Lk. 4:4). The words of the Received Text and the words of the critical Greek text are not the same and they do not express exactly the same truth. For example, 1 Timothy 3:16 in the KJV and 1 Timothy 3:16 in the NIV do not express the same truth. The KJV and the NIV do not express the same truth about fasting, because “fasting” is removed from most key passages in the NIV. We have given many examples of this in our book Modern Bible Versions and in the article on “Bible Versions” in the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity. Pastor Mickey Carter of Haines City, Florida, expressed this matter well in the title of his 1993 book “Things That Are Different Are Not the Same” (Landmark Baptist Church, Haines City, FL).
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 Nestlé'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! If the Received Text and the King James Bible, with its “longer” text, represents a corrupted text, it should be rejected completely. If, on the other hand, the texts containing the vast omissions is the corrupted text, it should be rejected completely. It is impossible that both are the preserved Word of God. If one is, the other isn’t. It is not truth in general that we need; it is the very words which express that truth.
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; Lk. 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 12 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 12 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 45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing. This is a huge portion of Scripture which is affected by textual changes, and yet White claims there is no serious problem. I don’t agree, and I will not be brow beaten into submission by men who seem to be infinitely patient with the corruption of the biblical text. I am not impressed with their broadmindedness in this matter.
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. In a sense, all of the differences affect doctrine--the doctrine, at the very least, of that particular verse or passage. 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, a defender of the modern versions, 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."
At least Lewis is honest enough to admit that he believes the KJV is inadequate and inferior and doctrinally corrupt. We agree with him 100% that there are serious doctrinal differences between the versions. A choice must be made. The idea that all of the texts and versions are somehow equal is nonsense.
We also acknowledge the happy fact that there is a general overall 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 pure text. A swordsman of old did not think a dull sword and a sharp sword, or a weak sword and a strong sword, were the same. 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 not for a moment does this mean that the changes made in these and other new translations are not significant.
WHITE DENIES THAT THE MODERN VERSIONS WEAKEN THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST’S DEITY.
White dedicates an entire chapter, “The Son of God, the Lord of Glory,” to denying that the modern texts and versions weaken the doctrine of Christ’s deity. He concludes that not only do the critical Greek text and key modern versions NOT undermine the deity of Christ, but he makes the claim that the New International Version and the New American Standard Version are actually stronger in their witness to Christ’s deity than the King James Bible. White states,” Some KJV Only advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ” (White, p. 196). How can he make such a statement? Is he right? No, he has done what he charges “KJV Only” folk with doing. He has twisted the facts to fit his point.
On page 197 he has a chart which compares passages on the deity of Christ in three versions (the KJV, NIV, NASV). He includes 12 passages--John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5-6; Colossians 1:15-17; 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1. He claims that the NIV has a clear testimony to Christ’s deity in 11 of these and omits one, whereas the KJV has a clear testimony in only six, is ambiguous in five, and omits one.
White’s chart reminds us of some of those produced by Mrs. Gail Riplinger in New Age Bible Versions. If you consider only the material presented in the chart, the author’s case is demonstrated without question. The problem comes when we analyze the chart carefully to see whether or not the author is presenting all of the facts and whether or not they are presented properly. Upon examination, White’s deity of Christ chart falls flat on both counts.
First, White errs in considering only part of the evidence.
There is no doubt that the 12 passages which White presents are SOME of the key passages on Christ’s deity (except, possibly for 2 Peter 1:1), but many other important passages are completely ignored, so that the results of his comparison are grossly and wrongly skewed in favor of the NIV. The following is a list of White’s passages with the addition of many others which should have been included. Those preceded by asterisks are weaker in the New International Version.
** MICAH 5:2 -- The NIV says Christ had an origin: “…out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The KJV, on the other hand, supports Christ’s eternal Godhead with the translation: “…yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” On the basis of this one verse I would reject the NIV.
MATTHEW 1:23; 3:3; 22:43-45 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. By the way, let me emphasize that I am not saying the NIV is translated as accurately as the KJV in these various verses. I am merely saying that in general some of these verses in the NIV are sound in their witness to Christ. On the other hand, I believe it is impossible that the NIV is truly sound even apart from the textual problems, because it admittedly uses the method of translation called dynamic equivalency. It is a “thought” translation rather than a “word” translation, and that is a great error. I want to know what the words are that God gave for me, not just the general thoughts or broad equivalency as expressed by some translator. The King James Bible is an accurate and literal word translation, and as such it is far superior to the New International Version, even with the textual problems aside.
**MATTHEW 8:2
MT. 8:2 KJV: “And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him…”
MT. 8:2 NIV: “A man with leprosy came and knelt before him…”
Eleven times in the Received Text and the King James Bible the Gospels tell us that Christ was worshipped (Mt. 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9,17; Mk. 5:6; Lk. 24:52; Jn. 9:38). This is indisputable evidence that Jesus Christ is God, because only God can be worshipped (Ex. 34:14; Is. 42:8; Mt. 4:10; Acts 14:11-15; Rev. 19:10). The NIV removes one-half of this unique witness to Christ’s deity, changing “worship” to “kneel before” in Mt. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20; Mk. 5:6. In the Received Text the Greek word (proskuneo) is the same in all eleven verses. It is the key New Testament word for “worship.” It appears 58 times in the Greek New Testament and is always translated “worship” in the King James Bible. The modern version defender will argue that there is no serious problem here, because Christ is still worshipped in six of the verses. I don’t agree with this evaluation. In fact, I consider such an argument very strange indeed, because the man who truly loves the words of God cares about the details of the Bible and is concerned deeply about the omission of things. For many years I have noticed that defenders of the modern versions have a strange lackadaisical attitude toward the details of the Bible. As we have noted earlier, the repetition is in the Bible for a purpose. It is not inconsequential fluff.
**MATTHEW 9:18
MT. 9:18 KJV: “… behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him…”
MT. 9:18 NIV: “… a ruler came and knelt before him…”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 15:25; 20:20; Mk. 5:6.
** MATTHEW 15:25
MT. 15:25 KJV: “Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.”
MT. 15:25 NIV: “The woman came and knelt before him. ‘Lord, help me!’ she said.”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 20:20; Mk. 5:6.
** MATTHEW 20:20
MT. 20:20 KJV: “20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him…”
MT. 20:20 NIV: “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons, and, kneeling down…”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 18:26; Mk. 5:6.
** MARK 5:6
MK. 5:6 KJV: “But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him.”
MK. 5:6 NIV: “When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him.”
This is one of the five passages in which the KJV says Christ was worshipped but the NIV says He was not. See also Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20.
LUKE 1:17, 32, 76; 2:11 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
**LUKE 2:33,43
LK. 2:33 KJV: “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
LK. 2:33 NIV: “The child’s father and mother marveled about what was said about him.”
LK. 2:43 KJV: “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.”
LK. 2:43 NIV: “After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.”
By changing “Joseph” to “the child’s father” and “his parents,” the NIV weakens the testimony of Christ’s virgin birth somewhat, compared with the reading of the KJV and the Received Text. While it is true that the NIV plainly says that Christ was virgin born (Mt. 1:18-20), the KJV backs up that testimony with the added witness of Lk. 2:33,43, whereas the NIV does not.
JOHN 1:1; 5:17-18,23; 8:56-59; 10:30-33; 14:9; 20:28 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** JOHN 1:27
JN. 1:27 KJV: “He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.”
JN. 1:27 NIV: “He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”
By removing the phrase “is preferred before me,” the NIV weakens this wonderful testimony to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Evangelist Chuck Salliby notes: “Each little expression such as ‘is preferred before me,’ like so many pieces in a puzzle, was designed to make its own contribution to the completed picture of Christ on the Bible page--His Person, works, character, incomparableness, etc. Yet, they are systematically left out wherever possible in the NIV. This is indeed a strange practice. While a secular book generally exaggerates the depiction of its main character, the NIV depreciates that of its own” (Salliby, If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 21).
** JOHN 3:13
JN. 3:13 KJV: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
JN. 3:13 NIV: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.”
The King James Version witnesses to the Godhead and omnipresence of the Lord Jesus Christ in this verse, but the NIV, in deleting the crucial phrase “which is in heaven,” destroys this witness. At least 99.5% of all Greek manuscript evidence contains the phrase in question. Only two papyri, four uncials (particularly the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and one cursive manuscript omit it.
** JOHN 6:69
JN. 6:69 KJV: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”
JN. 6:69 NIV: “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
The KJV, following the Received Text, contains in this verse one of the most precious testimonies to the Deity of Christ. This testimony is emasculated in the NIV.
** JOHN 9:35
JN. 9:35 KJV: “… Doest thou believe on the Son of God?”
JN. 9:35 NIV: “… Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
The KJV witnesses to Christ’s deity in this verse, but the NIV, following the critical Greek text, does not.
** ACTS 3:13
ACTS 3:13 KJV: “.. the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus…”
ACTS 3:13 NIV: “… the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus…”
The KJV exalts Christ as the Son of God in this verse, whereas the NIV, following a different text, makes him a servant. Christ is called the Son of God or God’s Son 126 times in the New Testament, whereas he is called “servant” (in the KJV) only once, and that is in Matt. 12:18, which is a quotation of Isaiah 42:1.
ACTS 10:36; 20:28 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** ROMANS 9:5
ROM. 9:5 KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
ROM. 9:5 NIV: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
The NIV is sound in its witness to Christ in the text, but it undermines the text with a footnote which reads: “or, ‘Christ who is over all, God be forever praised.’” Bible scholar/translator Jay Green, Sr., notes: “The NIV footnote is a gloss preferred by those who do not believe that Christ is co-equal with God in essence and attributes. When the Revised Version (1881) inserted it, Burgon quoted 60 patristic fathers as using this verse to prove the Godhood of Christ. And the Unitarians have stated that the only two verses that needed to be changed to destroy the doctrine of the Trinity are Romans 9:5 and 1 Tim. 3:16” (Green, The Gnostics, p. 51). James White claims that the King James Version is ambiguous in this verse, but the KJV follows the Greek almost word for word and gives an accurate and clear translation in English. The verse does not say that Christ is blessed of God forever; it says He is GOD blessed for ever. It is one of the most powerful statements to the Godhood of Christ in the Bible, and it is plain for anyone who has ears to hear. As noted, 19th-century Unitarians who were on the Bible translation committees for the Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901) understood this and they did not like the KJV translation as a result. Godly English commentators of generations past had no problem with this verse as it stands in the King James Version. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) is an example. He saw this verse in the KJV as “a very full proof of the Godhead of Christ; he is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever.” We do not accept White’s charge that the KJV is weak here in regard to Christ’s deity. Every passage must be interpreted in the context of the wider testimony of Scripture, and when we do so with the KJV in Romans 9:5 we see that Christ is both God and that He is blessed of God. That is exactly what the rest of the Bible says! It speaks of the mystery of the Trinity.
** 1 CORINTHIANS 15:47
1 COR. 15:47 KJV: “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.”
1 COR. 15:47 NIV: “The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.”
By omitting the words “the Lord,” the NIV, following the critical text, obliterates a powerful reference to Christ’s deity, whereas the Received Text and the King James Version give a unique and unequivocal testimony that Jesus Christ is God.
** EPHESIANS 3:9
EPH. 3:9 KJV: “… which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:”
EPH. 3:9 NIV: “…which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.”
The KJV in this verse exalts Jesus Christ as the Creator of all things, whereas the NIV, by removing the crucial phrase “by Jesus Christ,” obliterates this witness entirely.
** PHILIPPIANS 2:6-7
PHIL. 2:6,7 KJV: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
PHIL. 2:6,7 NIV: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
The KJV is stronger in its witness to Christ’s deity and much clearer in every way because of its careful and literal translation of the Greek. The NIV says Christ was in very nature God but clouds the testimony by its wording that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” and that he “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant.” The NIV in this passage leaves Christ’s Godhead during his incarnation in doubt, whereas the KJV does not. The age-long theological battles pertaining to the Deity of Christ are very complex and involve many facets of Christ’s preexistence, nature, earthly character, and future status. The Gnostics were willing for Christ to be a god and creator, but not the very God. Origen, for example, accepted that Jesus was deity but not that He was co-equal in the Trinity with the Father. He wrote, “Christ is inferior to the Father who is the God. The Son is divine in a derivative sense, for he gains his deity by communication from the Father, ‘the only true God, who is preeminent as the single source or foundation of deity” (quoted from Jay Green, The Gnostics, the New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, p. 1). The Jehovah’s Witnesses admit that Jesus is the Son of God and “a” God, but not Jehovah God. The Unitarians admit that Jesus was “divine” but not that He was Almighty God. The Mormons admit that Jesus is a god, but not that He is Jehovah God or that He and the Father God are one. Others admit that Christ is God but not that He was eternally the Son of God. Still others acknowledge that Christ was God in eternity past but that He laid aside His deity in His incarnation. This is a view which is allowed by the rendering of Phil. 2:6,7 in the NIV.
Only an accurate translation of the preserved Text can secure the doctrinal victory in these fierce and complex theological battles so that God’s people have a proper understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ. I repeat, no English translation is more Christ-honoring than the King James Version.
COLOSSIANS 1:15 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
COLOSSIANS 1:19 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** COLOSSIANS 2:9
COL. 2:9 KJV: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
COL. 2:9 NIV: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
The term Godhead in the KJV is more powerful and effective than the NIV’s rendering of “deity.” Jay Green wisely notes: “While the lexicons give both deity and Godhead as the meaning of this Greek word (theothtos), keep in mind that there are many deities in this world, but only one true Godhead, which identifies Christ as being one in essence with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit” (Green, The Gnostics, p. 37).
1 TIMOTHY 1:15-17 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** 1 TIMOTHY 3:16
1 TIM. 3:16 KJV: “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.”
1 TIM. 3:16 NIV: “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.”
In this verse the KJV, following the Received Text, gives probably the clearest reference in the entire Bible that Jesus Christ is God. The NIV, following the critical Greek text, omits the word “God,” rendering the verse almost meaningless.
** 1 TIMOTHY 6:14-16
1 TIM. 6:14-16 KJV: “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”
1 TIM. 6:14-16 NIV: “to keep this commandment without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”
The KJV in this passage is unequivocal in its testimony that Jesus Christ is God. The NIV, though, by adding the word “God” to verse 15, creates doubt about whether or not this doxology refers directly to Christ.
TITUS 2:13 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** HEBREWS 1:3
HEB. 1:3 KJV: “”Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
HEB. 1:3 NIV: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”
The KJV is stronger in its witness to Christ in this verse. Jay Green, Sr., Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Bible, notes the important difference between the KJV and the NIV in this passage: “The new versions present the Son as a replica of God, not co-equal with God, not one in essence with God the Father and God the Spirit, but only a copy, a representation, an imprint, a stamp. The word xarakter is defined by Thayer as ‘that which has actual existence … real being … the substantial quality, nature of a person’ (#5287, Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 644)” (Green, The Gnostics, p. 32).
** HEBREWS 1:8
HEB. 1:8 KJV: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”
HEB. 1:8 NIV: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.”
The KJV clearly presents Christ as the eternal God in this verse. The NIV, though, by saying Christ’s throne “will last forever,” instead of “is forever,” leaves room for the false doctrine that Christ had a beginning. When combined with the NIV’s perverted rendering of Micah 5:2, it teaches this very heresy.
2 PETER 1:1 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.] We will say more about this verse later in this study.
** 1 JOHN 3:16
1 JOHN 3:16 KJV: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
1 JOHN 3:16 NIV: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”
By replacing “God” with “Christ,” the NIV removes this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead.
** 1 JOHN 4:3
1 JN. 4:2-3 KJV: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
1 JN. 4:3 NIV: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”
By removing the phrase “Christ is come in the flesh” from verse 3, the NIV weakens the testimony of this passage as compared with the KJV and allows room for the ecumenical philosophy that says everyone who “loves Jesus” is of God. False spirits will “acknowledge Jesus,” but the Jesus they acknowledge is a false Jesus (2 Cor. 11:3). One can argue that since the NIV has the phrase “confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” in verse 2 and omits the phrase only in verse 3, there is no significant problem. I am sure James White would say this, but my reply is that we are comparing the KJV with the NIV in key passages touching on Christ’s deity to see which translation is stronger overall, and there is no doubt that the NIV in this passage is somewhat weaker than the KJV.
** 1 JOHN 5:7
1 JN. 5:7 KJV: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
1 JN. 5:7 NIV: Omitted
This verse in the KJV is a powerful witness to the Deity of Jesus Christ as an equal member of the Godhead. The NIV, though, omits the verse and has no witness whatsoever. We are taking a simple survey through the New Testament to see which of the English translations is more honoring to Jesus Christ, the KJV or the NIV, and the KJV is winning hands down.
1 JOHN 5:20 -- Both the NIV and the KJV are sound in their witness to Christ. [See explanation under comments on Matthew 1:23.]
** REVELATION 1:8, 11
REV. 1:11 KJV: “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
REV. 1:11 NIV: “which said: ‘Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
By removing “the beginning and the ending” from verse 8 and “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” from verse 11, the NIV, following the critical Greek text, seriously weakens this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead. As it stands in the Received Text and the KJV and any other faithful TR translation, the Almighty of verse 8 is directly and unquestionably identified as the Lord Jesus Christ of verse 11, but this association is broken by the omissions in the critical Greek text. Modern version proponents like to point out the fact that the critical text adds the word "God" in verse 8, but that does not change the picture in the least. Verse 8 as it stands in either the Received Text or the critical text speaks of Almighty God. But the Received Text continues on to plainly identify the God of v. 8 with Jesus Christ of the following verses, whereas the critical text does not. The overall effect of the modern version rendering of Revelation chapter one is to seriously weaken its testimony to Christ‘s deity as compared with the King James Bible.
CONCLUSION: Twenty-four out of the above 44 key passages on the deity of Christ are weakened in the NIV. That means that more than one-half of the key testimonies are weakened or removed in the New International Version. Not one of these testimonies are omitted from the KJV; and, in our estimation, not one of these passages in the KJV is weak in its testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ. By taking into consideration a wider range of passages touching on the Deity of Christ, a much different picture is given from that which appears in James White’s book.
Second, White also errs in overstating and twisting that part of the evidence that he does consider.
For example, he claims the KJV is ambiguous in four key passages--Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Tit. 2:13; and 2 Pet. 1:1. Having examined the passages carefully, we believe he is misstating the case in all four instances. Consider 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV and the NIV:
2 PETER 1:1
2 PETER 1:1 KJV: “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:”
2 PETER 1:1 NIV: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:”
The King James Version also included a marginal reading with this verse: “our God and Saviour.” The KJV translators apparently believed the verse could possibly be translated both ways, though they preferred “God and Saviour Jesus Christ” and put it in the text. Commentator Albert Barnes notes that Erasmus also supposed “that it may be taken in either sense.” Thus we see that many of the best Greek scholars have believed the verse can rightly be translated in two different ways in Greek. This being the case, the King James Bible is again found to be more accurate and precise than the NIV, because it gives both: one in the text and one in the margin.
Further, both the KJV text rendering and the KJV marginal rendering witness that Christ is God. The KJV text, “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” is in itself a powerful and irrefutable witness to Christ’s Deity. In this expression Christ is put on the exact same footing as God as the source of the sinner’s righteousness. We receive righteousness from God and from Christ. If Christ were not God, such a statement would be absolute blasphemy. Who is righteous but God? Among men there “is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). Who can impart righteousness to a sinner except God?
Barnes also warns that the translation “our God and Saviour” “though certainly not a violation of the laws of the Greek language, is not so free from all doubt as to make it proper to use the passage as a proof-text in an argument for the divinity of the Saviour.” James White, though, includes this verse as one of the 12 most significant verses on the Deity of Christ in the entire New Testament. This is because he seemingly has an agenda to promote the New International Version and to make the King James Bible look inferior.
Turning to Colossians 2:9 and Titus 2:13, we see no ambiguity or lack of clarity pertaining to the deity of Jesus Christ in the KJV.
COLOSSIANS 2:9 KJV: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
TITUS 2:13 KVJ: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
For centuries the KJV rendering of these passages has been used by Bible-believing people to teach and defend that Jesus Christ is God. For example, Albert Barnes says that to interpret Titus 2:13 in the KJV to refer to Christ’s deity “is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox,” and, “That it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he [Christ] was divine, to one who had no theory to defend.” We agree with this assessment. The alleged ambiguity of this passage in the KJV has been in the minds of false teachers. The problem has not been with the KJV’s translation of the verse but with the failure of heretics to rightly divide the Word of God by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Now, though, in these recent and allegedly more enlightened times, when Bible scholarship has supposedly progressed beyond that of centuries past, we have men claiming that the KJV is unclear in these key passages. This is pathetic.
We have already looked at Colossians 2:9 and have seen that the KJV translation of “Godhead” is more powerful and effective than the NIV’s rendering of “deity.”
ROMANS 9:5
ROMANS 9:5 KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
ROMANS 9:5 NIV: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (Footnote: Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!)
What about Romans 9:5? We have already seen that though the rendering in Romans 9:5 does appear at first glance to be clearer in the NIV as a testimony to Christ’s deity, IT LOSES ITS SHINE WHEN THE NIV’S FOOTNOTE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
Whereas the KJV marginal notes strengthen the Deity of Christ, those in the NIV often degrade it. The NIV footnote effectively undermines the rendering given in the text and greatly confuses the issue. To say, then, that the NIV’s translation here is a more effective testimony to Christ’s deity than that of the KJV is, in our estimation, nonsense. The NIV translation of Romans 9:5 contains much “dynamic equivalency” and paraphrasing. The phrase “human ancestry” is an example. The KJV gives an exact rendering of the Greek in this verse basically word for word, whereas the NIV gives a loose approximation. The KJV reads as it does in Romans 9:5 PRECISELY because it is faithful to the Greek.
This brings us to an important point. Ambiguity in itself does not mean that a translation is an inaccurate rendering of the Greek text. One mark of an excellent translation, in fact, is its precise handling of ambiguity. If the Greek or Hebrew is ambiguous, that means the Holy Spirit has made it so for a purpose. If a translator renders such a passage by interpreting or making a “dynamic equivalency” it to remove the ambiguity instead of accurately translating it, he will rob the readers of part of the meaning. An example of this is in Psalm 12:6,7. The Hebrew text allows the reader to interpret the pronoun “them” in verse 7 as referring both to the “word” of verse 6 and to the people of the previous verses. The King James Bible translation of this verse allows the same double interpretation. In most modern versions, though, such as the NIV, verse 7 is translated in such a way that it cannot possibly be applied to the words of verse 6, thus completely destroying the application of this important passage to the doctrine of biblical preservation.
Returning to Romans 9:5, the KJV translation of this verse follows the Greek text precisely. If there is ambiguity, it is also in the Greek. Every passage must be interpreted in the context of the wider testimony of Scripture, and when we do so with the KJV in Romans 9:5 we see that Christ is both God and that He is blessed of God. That is exactly what the rest of the Bible says! The “ambiguity” in the Greek and in the English speaks of the mystery of the Trinity. Hallelujah!
Consider another example of White’s misstatement of the evidence. In his chart on page 197 he claims that the KJV omits one witness to Christ’s deity which he claims the NIV and the NASB contain. This is in John 1:18. Consider the following comparison of this verse in the NIV and the KJV--
JOHN 1:18
John 1:18 KJV -- “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
John 1:18 NIV -- “No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”
It does appear, at first glance, that the NIV is superior in this verse in its witness to Christ’s deity in that it reads “God the only Son.” The KJV, on the other hand, has “the only begotten Son.” What White does not explain to his readers is this: In the King James Bible, following the Received Text, John had introduced the term “only begotten Son” four verses prior to verse 18, and he has connected this unique term directly to Christ’s eternal deity in verse one. Thus, one who reads the King James Bible or any other faithful Received Text Bible is made to understand that the phrase “only begotten Son” is a direct reference to Christ’s eternal Godhead. This phrase appears in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9. In each of these verses the NIV changes this important doctrinal phrase “only begotten” to “one and only,” which is not even a true statement. Jesus Christ is not God’s one and only Son (born again believers are sons of God--Heb. 2:10), but Christ is the only begotten Son. We thus disagree with White’s assessment of this passage, and reject his claim that the KJV omits Christ’s deity from John 1:18. In reality, the modern versions, including the NIV, have perverted the doctrine of Christ by removing the key phrase “only begotten” in all five verses in which it should appear. John 1:18 in the NIV, by its erroneous dynamic equivalency translation, teaches false doctrine.
Third, White errs in claiming that the vast omissions pertaining to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ does nothing to weaken the doctrine of His deity.
One of the characteristics of the critical Greek text and the modern versions which follow it is the widespread omission of names and titles belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. The aforementioned Everett Fowler spent many years diligently comparing the Received Text with the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the Nestles Greek Text, and the Bible Societies’ Greek Text, and several popular modern English versions. In 1976 Fowler obtained the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Received Text, and he began his comparisons. Eventually he published his findings in the book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. One section of this excellent work lists “Omissions of Names of Our Lord God.” The omissions affect the reading of 101 verses. There are 221 omissions of the various names of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Westcott-Hort text, 230 in the Nestles’ text, 212 in the Bible Societies text. The modern English versions follow this pattern. The American Standard Version of 1901 has 198 of these omissions of the names and titles of the Lord Jesus Christ and the New American Standard Version of 1973 has 210 omissions.
Many men of God believe the Westcott-Hort text and the modern translations weaken the Scriptures' testimony of the deity of Jesus Christ through this barrage of significant omissions pertaining to His name and title. The flippant dismissal of this as insignificant by James White and other modern version defenders is strange.
Fourth, White errs in failing to acknowledge exactly what King James Bible defenders say about the witness of the modern versions to Christ’s deity and some other key doctrines.
As noted earlier, King James Bible defenders do not claim that the modern versions OMIT key doctrines. They claim that the modern versions WEAKEN some of them through a barrage of often relatively minor (in themselves) changes and omissions. I have studied the Bible in various versions for a quarter of a century, and I am convinced that this charge is accurate. (I was prejudiced AGAINST the King James Bible in my early years, and only through prayerful study did I become convinced that the Received Text and the King James Bible were the preserved Word of God.) I have attempted to defend the doctrine of Christ’s Godhead many times through various modern versions which were possessed by people with whom I was dealing. This has happened frequently in the county jail ministry, for example, during the past six years. From time to time someone will attend our Bible studies who has a Jehovah’s Witness or some other background which undermines Christ’s deity. They often have a modern version, and in my experience it is easier to defend their perverted doctrine from the modern versions than it is from the King James Bible. It is no accident that the Jehovah’s Witnesses choose to publish the Westcott-Hort Greek text. They, and their Unitarian friends who also deny Christ’s Godhead, understand that which White claims is not true: that the modern critical text provides the best support for doctrinal heresy.
Fifth, in regard to the issue of whether or not the modern critical Greek text weakens the doctrine of Christ, White errs in ignoring the testimony of 19th-century Bible defenders.
A large number of men of God in the 19th century, who fought against the critical Greek texts that were then being introduced, saw in them an attack upon the deity of Christ. I have documented this in my book For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the Received Text and the King James Bible from 1800 to Present. I believe this is a very significant point, and it is one that James White completely ignores, because he persists in his delusion that this issue is one which has been raised solely by some “King James Only” cult of recent decades. Consider a couple of examples of the many which could be given.
The first example is Frederick Nolan (1784-1864). In 1815 he published An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, subtitled “in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin.” As the title suggests, this 576-page volume was a defense of the text underlying the Authorized Version. Nolan said, “... it shall be my object to vindicate those important passages of the Received Text which have been rejected from the Scripture Canon, on the principles of the German method of classification” (p. 43). Among the several passages that he thus vindicated are 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7.
Nolan defended the sixteenth-century text on the basis of faith and theological purity. In particular, Nolan was defending the TR against the text and theorizing of J. Griesbach. Nolan saw the hand of God guiding the sixteenth-century textual editors, and he understood that the Received Text is theologically superior to the critical texts. In a careful and very technical manner this Bible scholar traced the history of the doctrinal corruptions which were introduced into the text of various manuscripts during the first four centuries after Christ. Of course, James White and his modern version defender friends pretend that such a view is the delusion of late 20th-century King James Only cultists. Nolan would be amazed.
“The works of those early writers lie under the positive imputation of being corrupted. The copies of Clement and Origen were corrupted in their life time; the manuscripts from which Tertullian’s works have been printed are notoriously faulty; and the copies of Cyprian demonstrate their own corruption, by their disagreement among themselves, and their agreement with different texts and revisals of Scripture. It is likewise indisputable, that these fathers not only followed each other, adopting the arguments and quotations of one another; but that they quoted from the heterodox as well as the orthodox. They were thus likely to transmit from one to another erroneous quotations, originally adopted from sources not more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture. ... New revisals of Scripture were thus formed, which were interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts and fathers. Nor did this systematic corruption terminate here; but when new texts were thus formed, they became the standard by which the later copies of the early writers were in succession corrected” (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, pp. 326-332).
Nolan connects this textual corruption with manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which contain readings at variance with the Received Text. In his Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Nolan detailed the overwhelming textual authority which supports various key passages which were in the Received Text but which are disputed by the modern versions.
The amazing thing is that these facts, which were understood by the Reformation editors and confirmed by wise scholars in the nineteenth century, are scoffed today, even by many supposed Evangelical and some Fundamentalist scholars. James White is only one example. Why? BECAUSE THESE EVANGELICALS AND FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE NOT DEPENDING ON THEIR OWN SCHOLARSHIP BUT UPON THE RATIONALISTIC SCHOLARSHIP OF THE PAST TWO CENTURIES.
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-98) is another example of those who were opposing the theories of modern textual criticism in the United States a century and more ago. We gave an overview of Dabney’s life and ministry earlier in this study. He boldly withstood the apostasy which was creeping in on every side in this day. His biographer called him “a soldier until death, at war with much in his age.” We can say amen and praise the Lord to that attitude!
Dabney understood the theological corruption of the critical text, and he traced these corruptions to second- and third-century heretics. He understood that scholarship is not synonymous with wisdom and spiritual discernment. He knew the fickleness of modern scholarship. He knew that the modern theories of textual criticism are founded upon conjecture and rationalism, not absolute truth and biblical faith. We do not agree with all of Dabney’s conclusions on textual matters, but the fact remains that his analysis of modern textual criticism is devastating and it definitely was contrary to that of James White. It is crucial to understand that the modern English versions are translated from a Greek text which is built upon discredited theories. Consider an excerpt from one of his articles on this subject which noted the doctrinal nature of the textual battle:
“The following list [of doctrinal corruptions in the critical Greek text] is not presented as complete, but as containing the most notable of these points. ... the Sinai and the Vatican MSS. concur in omitting, in Matthew vi. 13, the closing doxology of our Lord’s prayer. In John viii. 1-11, they and the Alexandrine omit the whole narrative of Christ’s interview with the woman taken in adultery and her accusers. The first two omit the whole of Mark xvi., from the ninth verse to the end. Acts viii. 37, in which Philip is represented as propounding to the eunuch faith as the qualification for baptism, is omitted by all three.
.”.. in Acts ix. 5,6 ... the Sinai, Vatican and Alexandrine MSS. all concur in [omitting ‘Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said...’ from the passage.]
“In 1 Tim. iii. 16 ... the Sinai, Codex Ephremi, and probably the Alexandrine [omit God]...
“In 1 John v. 7 ... all the old MSS. concur in omitting the heavenly witnesses...
“In Jude 4 ... the MSS. omit God.
“In Rev. i. 11 ... all three MSS. under remark concur in omitting the Messiah’s eternal titles...
If now the reader will glance back upon this latter list of variations, HE WILL FIND THAT IN EVERY CASE, THE DOCTRINAL EFFECT OF THE DEPARTURE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT IS TO OBSCURE OR SUPPRESS SOME TESTIMONY FOR THE DIVINITY OF THE SAVIOUR....
“The significant fact to which we wish especially to call attention is this: that all the variations proposed on the faith of these manuscripts which have any doctrinal importance, should attack the one doctrine of the Trinity; nay, we may say even more specifically, the one doctrine of Christ’s deity. ... Their admirers [of the favored manuscripts supporting the critical text] claim for them an origin in the fourth or fifth century. The Sabellian and Arian controversies raged in the third and fourth. Is there no coincidence here? Things do not happen again and again regularly without a cause. ... And when we remember the date of the great Trinitarian contest, and compare it with the supposed date of these exemplars of the sacred text, the ground of suspicion becomes violent. ... THESE VARIATIONS ARE TOO NUMEROUS, AND TOO SIGNIFICANT IN THEIR EFFECT UPON THE ONE DOCTRINE, TO BE ASCRIBED TO CHANCE. ... there are strong probable grounds to conclude, that the text of the Scriptures current in the East received a mischievous modification at the hands of the famous ORIGEN, which has not been usually appreciated. ... He is described by Mosheim ... as ‘a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.’ ... HIS REPUTATION AS THE GREAT INTRODUCER OF MYSTICISM, ALLEGORY, AND NEO-PLATONISM INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, IS TOO WELL KNOWN TO NEED RECITAL. Those who are best acquainted with the history of Christian opinion know best, that Origen was the great corrupter, and the source, or at least earliest channel, of nearly all the speculative errors which plagued the church in after ages. ... HE WAS STRICTLY A RATIONALIST. ... HE DISBELIEVED THE FULL INSPIRATION AND INFALLIBILITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely. ... THE KEY-NOTE OF ALL ORIGEN’S LABORS WAS THE EFFORT TO RECONCILE CHRISTIANITY AND THIS ECLECTIC PAGAN PHILOSOPHY INTO A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY....
“... SOMEBODY HAS PLAYED THE KNAVE WITH THE TEXT ... We think that [the reader] will conclude with us that the weight of probability is greatly in favour of this theory--that the anti-Trinitarians, finding certain codices in which these doctrinal readings had been already lost through the licentious criticism of Origen and his school, industriously diffused them, while they also did what they dared to add to the omissions of similar readings” (R.L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871, reprinted in Discussions Evangelical and Theological, 1890, pp. 350-389 ).
We see that Robert Dabney, upon examining the same textual changes which later appeared in the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881 and which appear in the modern English versions today, concluded that they were deliberate and damnable doctrinal corruptions. We think Dabney would be amazed to hear James White say that this conclusion is the product of the feverish imagination of an allegedly anti-intellectual fundamental Baptist “King James Only” crowd which has arisen only in recent years! As we have seen, this is nonsense. For those who want to know the truth of the matter, we have offered a list of recommended resources at the end of this article.
Sixth, White errs in ignoring the witness of a wide range of modern versions.
In attempting to prove that the modern versions do not weaken the doctrine of Christ’s deity, White focuses almost exclusively upon the New International Version and the New American Standard Version. Though he does mention in passing that some modern versions are weaker in this area, he does not give the reader the complete picture. Let’s go back and examine key Christology passages in a wide range of the newer popular modern versions. We will use the following six translations: The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), New Living Translation (NLT), Today’s English Bible (TEV), God’s Word: Today’s Bible Translation (TBT), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson (highly recommended by such well-known men as J.I. Packer, Warren Wiersbe, and Michael Card). All of these versions are widely distributed and influential and have been recommended in “evangelical” circles. The Today’s English Version, for example, has sold millions of copies is the most popular Bible text in England and Australia
ACTS 20:28
KJV: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
NRSV: “… to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”
TBT: “’And now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God’s flock--his church, purchased with his blood--over whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders.’”
TEV: …Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the sacrificial death of his Son.”
TBT: “Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to be shepherds for God’s church which he acquired with his own blood.”
CEV: “…Be shepherds to God’s church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son.”
MESSAGE: “… God’s people they are--to guard and protect them. God himself thought they were worth dying for.”
The KJV powerfully demonstrates the deity of Christ by showing that the blood that was shed on Calvary was God’s blood. On the other hand, the NRSV, the TEV, the CEV, and The Message completely remove this powerful witness to Christ’s deity.
ROMANS 9:5
KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
“NRSV: “to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”
NLT: “Their ancestors were great people of God, and Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.”
TEV: “they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.”
TBT: “The Messiah is descended from their ancestors according to his human nature. The Messiah is God over everything, forever blessed. Amen.”
CEV: “They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of Jesus Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen.”
MESSAGE: “They had everything going for them--family, glory, covenants, revelation, worship, promises, Christ, who is God over everything, always. Oh, yes!”
James White claims that Romans 9:5 in the KJV is ambiguous and that it does not plainly present the deity of Christ. The fact is that the KJV follows the Greek text precisely. An examination of an interlinear Greek-English Bible will demonstrate this. If there is ambiguity, it is also in the Greek, and an accurate translation can do nothing more than follow its underlying text. In fact, there is no problem with the KJV translation of Romans 9:5, and we do not accept White’s charge that the KJV is weak here in regard to Christ’s deity. Every passage must be interpreted in the context of the wider testimony of Scripture, and when we do so with the KJV in Romans 9:5 we see that Christ is both God and that He is blessed of God. That is exactly what the rest of the Bible says! It speaks of the mystery of the Trinity. The doctrine of Christ’s deity is completely removed, though, from the Today’s English Version and the Contemporary English Version.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:47
KJV: “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.”
NRSV: “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.”
NLT: “Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven.”
TEV: “The first Adam, made of earth, came from the earth; the second Adam came from heaven.”
TBT: “The first man was made from the dust of the earth. He came from the earth. The second man came from heaven.”
CEV: “The first man was made from the dust of the earth, but the second man came from heaven.”
MESSAGE: “The First Man was made out of earth, and people since then are earthy; the Second Man was made out of heaven, and people now can be heavenly.”
The KJV tells us that Christ is the Lord from heaven, but by omitting the words “the Lord,” all of the modern versions, following the critical text, obliterate this powerful reference to Christ’s deity.
PHILIPPIANS 2:6-7
KJV: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
NRSV: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross.”
NLT: “Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in a human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross.”
TEV: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God. Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like man and appeared in human likeness. He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death--his death on the cross.”
TBT: “Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, death on a cross.”
CEV: “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. He gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. He gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross.”
MESSAGE: “He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn’t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death--and the worst kind of death at that: a crucifixion.”
The King James Bible most perfectly presents the mystery of Christ’s incarnation in this key passage by its precise rendering of the Greek text. On the other hand, several popular versions detract from the doctrine. The TBT claims that Christ became like other humans. This is very weak and allows for false doctrine pertaining to Christ’s humanity. The CEV claims he gave up everything. That poor translation allows for the false doctrine that Christ laid aside His Godhead. The Message says that Christ merely had “equal status” with God.
COLOSSIANS 1:15
KJV: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:”
NRSV: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
NLT: “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation.”
TEV: “Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things.”
TBT: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
CEV: “Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation.”
MESSAGE: “We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen.”
The KJV perfectly and beautifully presents the doctrine of Christ’s eternal Godhead here, but some of the modern versions do not. The NLT claims that He merely existed before God made anything, which means He might not have been eternal. The CEV claims He is exactly like God, but this could mean He is not God but that He is only like God. The weak rendering in The Message could mean many false things.
COLOSSIANS 1:19
KJV: “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.”
NRSV: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.”
NLT: “For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ.”
TEV: “For it was by God’s own decision that the Son has in himself the full nature of God.”
TBT: “God was pleased to have all of himself live in Christ.”
CEV: “God himself was pleased to live fully in his Son.”
MESSAGE: “So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding.”
The King James Bible, with its precise rendering of the correct Greek text, contains a lovely testimony to Christ’s Godhead in this verse. Many of the modern versions muddy this testimony. To say that God lived in Christ is not the same as saying that in Christ was all the fullness of God. The difference is subtle, but real. Those who know the subtilty of false doctrine, understand how important these distinctions are. The KJV, correctly following the Greek, says nothing about God living in Christ. God could live in Christ, in the sense taught by New Agers and many false teachers, without Christ Himself being Almighty God. The modern versions, by their less precise rendering of the Greek, provide more fertile ground for the dissemination of error.
COLOSSIANS 2:9
KJV: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
NRSV: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
NLT: “For in Christ the fullness of God lives in a human body.”
TEV: “For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity.”
TBT: “All of God lives in Christ’s body…”
CEV: “God lives fully in Christ.”
MESSAGE: “Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly.”
The KJV translation is a clear and marvelous testimony to the doctrine that Jesus Christ is fully God. The other translations, though, have problems of various sorts with this passage. The NRSV rendering of “deity” is less clear and powerful than the KJV’s “Godhead.” Some, such as the Unitarians and Modernists, who deny Christ’s Godhead claim they believe in his “deity” as they falsely define it. The Message rendering is typically weak and almost meaningless. The TBT rendering is very strange. How would “all of God” live in Christ’s body? God is omnipresent. The TEV, likewise, through its lax paraphrasing, presents strange doctrine. Does the full content of divine nature live in Christ’s humanity?
1 TIMOTHY 1:15-17
KJV: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
NRSV: “But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”
NLT: “This is a true saying, and everyone should believe it: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--and I was the worst of them all. But that is why God had mercy on me, so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe on him and receive eternal life. Glory and honor to God forever and ever. He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.”
TEV: “This is a true saying, to be completely accepted and believed: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I am the worst of them but God was merciful to me in order that Christ Jesus might show his full patience in dealing with me, the worst of sinners, as an example for all those who would later believe in him and receive eternal life. To the eternal King, immortal and invisible, the only God--to him be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.”
TBT: “This is a statement that can be trusted and deserves complete acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the foremost sinner. However, I was treated with mercy so that Christ Jesus could use me, the foremost sinner, to demonstrate his patience. This patience serves as an example for those who would believe in him and live forever. Worship and glory belong forever to the eternal king, the immortal, invisible, and only God. Amen.”
CEV: “’Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.’ This saying is true, and it can be trusted. I was the worst sinner of all! But since I was worse than anyone else, God had mercy on me and let me be an example of the endless patience of Christ Jesus. He did this so that others would put their faith in Christ and have eternal life. I pray that honor and glory will always be given to the only God, who lives forever and is the invisible and eternal King! Amen.”
MESSAGE: “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. I’m proof--Public Sinner Number One--of someone who could never have made it apart from sheer mercy. And now he shows me off--evidence of his endless patience--to those who are right on the edge of trusting him forever. Deep honor and bright glory to the King of All Time--One God, Immortal, Invisible, ever and always. Oh, yes!”
This passage in the King James Bible, particularly taken in combination with the KJV translation of 1 Tim. 6:14-17, is an unequivocal testimony that Jesus Christ is the only wise God. The paraphrasing in the NLT and the CEV completely remove this testimony. The TEV does the same thing by adding the word “God” in verse 16 with no Greek authority, thus introducing an apparent distinction between Jesus Christ and God. The CEV and the Message are so loosely paraphrased that it is difficult to understand what they are saying, but their testimony to Christ’s deity is certainly not clear in this passage.
1 TIMOTHY 3:16
KJV: “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.”
NRSV: “Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.”
NLT: “Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ appeared in the flesh and was shown to be righteous by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and was announced to the nations. He was believed on in the world and was taken up into heaven.”
TEV: “No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven.”
TBT: “The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory.”
CEV: “Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human. The Spirit proved that he pleased God, and he was seen by angels. Christ was preached to the nations. People in this world put their faith in him, and he was taken up to glory.”
MESSAGE: “This Christian life is a great mystery, far exceeding our understanding, but some things are clear enough: He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible Spirit, was seen by angels. He was proclaimed among all kinds of peoples, believed in all over the world, taken up into heavenly glory.”
The King James Version, by following the God-honored Received Text, contains in this verse one of very plainest references in the Bible to Jesus Christ as God. The modern versions, following the critical Greek text and on scant and undependable authority, omit the word “God,” rendering the verse almost meaningless, and certainly robbing it of any clear reference to the Deity of Jesus Christ.
1 TIMOTHY 6:14-16
KJV: “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”
NRSV: “to keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will bring about at the right time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.”
NLT: “that you obey his commands with all purity. Then no one can find fault with you from now until our Lord Jesus Christ returns. For at the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No one has ever seen him, nor ever will. To him be honor and power forever. Amen.”
TEV: “to obey your orders and keep them faithfully until the Day when our Lord Jesus Christ will appear. His appearing will be brought about at the right time by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. He alone is immortal; he lives in the light that no one can approach. No one has ever seen him; no one can ever see him. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.”
TBT: “I insist that, until our Lord Jesus Christ appears, you obey this command completely. Then you cannot be blamed for doing anything wrong. At the right time God will make this known. God is the blessed and only ruler. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the only one who cannot die. He lives in light that no one can come near. No one has seen him, nor can they see him. Honor and power belong to him forever! Amen.”
CEV: “Promise to obey completely and fully all that you have been told until our Lord Jesus Christ returns. The glorious God is the only Ruler, the Kings of kings and Lord of lords. At the time that God has already decided, he will send Jesus Christ back again. Only God lives forever! And he lives in light that no one can come near. No human has ever seen God or ever can see him. God will be honored, and his power will last forever. Amen.”
MESSAGE: “Keep this command to the letter, and don’t slack off. Our Master, Jesus Christ, is on his way. He’ll show up right on time, his arrival guaranteed by the Blessed and Undisputed Ruler, High King, High God. He’s the only one death can’t touch, his light so bright no one can get close. He’s never been seen by human eyes--human eyes can’t take him in! Honor to him, and eternal rule! Oh, yes.”
In this beautiful passage the King James Version offers a powerful, unequivocal witness that Jesus Christ is God. Every statement in verses 15 and 16 is identified directly with the “our Lord Jesus Christ” of verse 14. The NRSV, on the other hand, rewords the passage to make it possible that the rest of the passage does not refer directly to Christ. It is not as clear as the KJV. The NLT changes the passage completely so that it no longer refers to Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords, etc., but to “almighty God.” The TEV, TBT, and CEV do the same thing. The Message is even worse. All of these pervert the passage doctrinally.
TITUS 2:13
KJV: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
NRSV: “while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
NLT: “while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.”
TEV: “as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ will appear.”
TBT: “At the same time we can expect what we hope for--the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
CEV: “We are filled with hope, as we wait for the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
MESSAGE: “This new life is starting right now, and is whetting our appetites for the glorious day when our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, appears.”
The KJV presents Jesus Christ as the great God and our Saviour. The other versions also present Christ this way. It is the only key passage we have found in which all of the popular English versions present the Deity of Christ properly.
HEBREWS 1:3
KJV: “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
NRSV: “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
NLT: “The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven.”
TEV: “He reflects the brightness of God’s glory and is the exact likeness of God’s own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word. After achieving forgiveness for the sins of mankind, he sat down in heaven at the right side of God, the Supreme Power.”
TBT: “His Son is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact likeness of God’s being. He holds everything together through his powerful words. After he had cleansed people from their sins, he received the highest position, the one next to the Father in heaven.”
CEV: “God’s Son has all the brightness of God’s own glory and is like him in every way. By his own mighty word he holds the universe together. After the Son had washed away our sins, he sat down at the right side of the glorious God in heaven.”
MESSAGE: “This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God’s nature. He holds everything together by what he says--powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God.”
The KJV has a lovely testimony to Christ’s Deity and to the Trinity. He is the express image of God’s person yet he sat down on the right hand of God in Heaven. None of the other versions are as precise and accurate as the KJV, and all of them omit the very important phrase “by himself” in reference to His atonement.
HEBREWS 1:8
KJV: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”
NRSV: “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.”
NLT: “But to his Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal power is expressed in righteousness.”
TEV: “About the Son, however, God said: ‘Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever! You rule over your people with justice.’”
TBT: “But God said about his Son, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice.’”
CEV: “But God says about his Son, ‘You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice.”
MESSAGE: “But he says to the Son, ‘You’re God, and on the throne for good; your rule makes everything right. You love it when things are right; you hate it when things are wrong.’”
This is one of the most important verses teaching the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and the KJV translates it beautifully. All of the translations allow for the Son to be called God, but the NRSV, TEV, TBT, and CEV change the direction of God’s statement. Instead of addressing His words to the Son, they have Him speaking about the Son. The alleged “dynamic equivalency” rendering of this verse in the NLT, the TEV, the CEV, and the Message is almost childish.
1 JOHN 3:16
KJV: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
NRSV: “We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us--and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.”
NLT: “We know what real love is because Christ gave up his life for us. And so we also ought to give up our lives for our Christian friends.”
TEV: “This is how we know what love is: Christ gave his life for us. We too, then, ought to give our lives for our brothers!”
TBT: “We understand what love is when we realize that Christ gave his life for us. That means we must give our lives for other believes.”
CEV: “We know what love is because Jesus gave his life for us. That’s why we must give our lives for each other.”
MESSAGE: “This is how we’ve come to understand and experience love: Christ sacrificed his life for us.”
The KJV has an unequivocal testimony that Jesus Christ is God. The one who laid down his life for us is called God. By replacing “God” with “Christ” or “he,” all of the other versions remove this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead.
REVELATION 1:11
KJV: “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
NRSV: “saying, ‘Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”
NLT: “It said, ‘Write down what you see, and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
TEV: “It said, ‘Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
TBT: “saying, ‘Write on a scroll what you see, and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
CEV: “The voice said, ‘Write in a book what you see. Then send tit to the seven churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
MESSAGE: “’Write what you see into a book. Send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.’”
By removing “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” from verse 11, all of the modern versions, following the critical Greek text, seriously weaken this powerful reference to Christ’s Godhead. As it stands in the Received Text and the KJV and any other faithful TR translation, the Almighty of verse 8 is obviously the Lord Jesus Christ of verse 11. Modern version proponents like to point out the fact that the critical text adds the word "God" in verse 8. But consider the whole picture: Verse 8 in the critical text omits "the beginning and the ending." Verse 9 omits "Christ" two times. Verse 11 omits "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." The overall effect of the modern version rendering of Revelation chapter one is to weaken its testimony to Christ‘s deity as compared with the King James Bible.
Seventh, White errs in claiming that heretics who corrupt Bibles would always corrupt every key doctrinal passage.
He says, “If there was an effort on the part of modern translations like the NIV or NASB to downplay the deity of Christ … [s]uch a bias would be exhibited throughout a translation, and such is simply not the case” (White, p. 197). This is a false statement. Heretics do not necessarily attempt to corrupt every single passage, and to demonstrate this I will not go back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I can demonstrate this with a modern example, the Today’s English Version (TEV). As demonstrated in the previous study, the TEV weakens the doctrine of the deity of Christ in many key passages--but not in every one of them. There are passages even in the Today’s English Version which teach Christ’s deity. This is interesting because its key translator, Robert Bratcher, denied that Jesus Christ is God. As early as 1953, Bratcher, then a Southern Baptist missionary in Brazil, Bratcher stated the following: “Jesus Christ would not enjoy omniscience. That is an attribute of God … Jesus did not claim He and the Father to be one--which would be absurd” (Bratcher, O Jornal Batista [The Baptist Journal], July 9, 1953). In a letter to Julius C. Taylor, July 16, 1970, Bratcher confirmed what he wrote in 1953. Bratcher also denies the blood atonement of Jesus Christ and believes that the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is “willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty” (Bratcher, Baptist Courier, April 2, 1981, reporting on Bratcher’s speech to the Southern Baptist Life Commission in Dallas, Texas). Bratcher began working with the American Bible Society (ABS) in 1957 and was the chief translator for the Today’s English Version, which was completed in 1976. After his public comments in 1981, the American Bible Society came under widespread attack and began losing support. Bratcher was therefore forced to resign from the ABS, but it was a mere shell game to deceive ABS supporters. Bratcher was hired by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and the American Bible Society continues to help pay his salary through its massive grants to the UBS; the Southern Baptists, in turn, continue to help fund Bratcher’s work through the large SBC grants to the American Bible Society!
In spite of the fact that its chief translator denies the Godhead of Jesus Christ, the Today’s English Version does not COMPLETELY remove the deity of Christ; it merely weakens it. That is precisely what the critical Greek text does and all of the modern versions that follow that text.
IN CONCLUSION, WHAT IS THE FRUIT OF WHITE’S APPROACH?
James White does an excellent job of tearing down faith in the Authorized Version and the Received Text, but what does he offer in its place? If I accept White’s position, (1) I am dependent on modern scholarship to determine for me the correct text. (2) I am left without an established biblical authority. White makes light of this type of viewpoint, but he can make light all he wants, as far as I am concerned. I don’t believe at this point in history that we are still groping around searching for the preserved Word of God. I believe the preservation of Scripture was progressive to a certain extent, just as the revelation of Scripture was progressive. There were the long centuries we call the dark ages and the middle ages, during which the Roman Catholic Church held sway over the civilized world. During those centuries, the history of the Bible was clouded by horrible and continuous persecution. Multitudes of Bibles and Scripture portions were destroyed by Rome. The literary records of entire groups of separated Christians were wiped from the face of the earth. We will not know the details of the transmission of the Scripture during those centuries until we get to Glory and can search Heaven’s libraries, although we do know that many Scriptures were used during those centuries which were similar to the Received Text. The history of the transmission of the biblical text does not become perfectly clear until the 15th and 16th centuries. Since then we can trace the history quite plainly, because we have the necessary records. We certainly see a progression in the history of the English Bible. From 1380 or 82, when the first English Bible was published, until 1611, the English Bible was in a state of transition and perfecting. From that point until the end of the 19th century, only minor changes were made in the English Bible, largely spelling and grammatical changes. We believe we can see the hand of God in all of this. The perfecting period was over, and the distribution period had begun. During the centuries following the publication of the Authorized Version, the English Bible was distributed to the four corners of the world and wielded an influence among nations which has never been equaled. Many books have been written to document this phenomenon.
What fruit does White’s approach produce in his readers’ minds? -- questioning, doubt, uncertainty, confusion. He will not agree with this assessment, I am certain, but I believe this is precisely the fruit of his approach to this issue. I saw it in my own life, when I briefly entertained the modern version position years ago.
On the other hand, what is the fruit of the approach that accepts the Received Text as the preserved Word of God and the AV and other excellent Reformation translations as accurate translations thereof? The fruit of such an approach is faith, confidence, a settled text, an ability to preach and teach dogmatically. That is the fruit I have experienced in reading men like Edward F. Hills and D.O. Fuller. This is the fruit of my own writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. I am willing to stand before the Lord and to give account for causing my readers to have confidence in the Authorized Version and in the textual family that it represents. I would not want, though, to stand before Him and to give account for causing people to have doubt and uncertainty and confusion, and for leaving them without a settled biblical standard in these last days.
Edward F. Hills put it well when he stated that the modern critical approach gives maximum uncertainty, while the Received Text approach gives maximum certainty. No position can answer every question. No position can deal conclusively with every problem. But one position leaves one adrift upon the unsettled waters of modern textual scholarship, and the other position leaves one with a dependable Bible. That might be too simple and practical for some men, but I like it just fine!
May God richly encourage you and bless you with confidence in His Preserved Scriptures in these troubled times, my friend. We need to be about the Father’s business while it is day.
SUGGESTED MATERIALS ON THE SUBJECT OF BIBLE VERSIONS
COUNTERFEIT OR GENUINE? MARK 16, JOHN 8? edited by David Otis Fuller. 1978, 230 pages.
FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS by David Cloud. 775 pages. Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143.
FOR LOVE OF THE BIBLE by David W. Cloud. 1995, 460 pages. Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143.
THE MODERN BIBLE VERSION HALL OF SHAME by David Cloud. 292 pages. Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143.
THE GNOSTICS, THE NEW VERSIONS, AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST by Jay P. Green, Sr. 1994, 113 pages.
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills. 1984, 280 pages.
THE REVISION REVISED by John William Burgon. 1883, 549 pages.
TRUE OR FALSE? edited by David Otis Fuller. 1973, 305 pages.
WHEN THE KJV DEPARTS FROM THE “MAJORITY TEXT” by Jack Moorman. 1988, 154 pages.
- Receive these reports by email
- www.wayoflife.org
______________________
Sharing Policy: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our expensive literature and foreign church planting ministries. Way of Life's content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, O Timothy magazine, FBIS articles, and the free eVideos and free eBooks. You are welcome to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You may also post parts of reports and/or entire reports to websites, blogs, etc as long as you give proper credit (citation). A link to the original report is very much appreciated as the reports are frequently updated and/or expanded. Things we do not want copied and distributed are "Store" items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print editions of our books, electronic editions of the books that we sell, the videos that we sell, etc. The items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we use the income from sales to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy. "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18). Questions? support@wayoflife.org
Goal:Distributed by Way of Life Literature Inc., the Fundamental Baptist Information Service is an e-mail posting for Bible-believing Christians. Established in 1974, Way of Life Literature is a fundamental Baptist preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. Brother Cloud lives in South Asia where he has been a church planting missionary since 1979. Our primary goal with the FBIS is to provide material to assist preachers in the edification and protection of the churches.
Offering: Offerings are welcome if you care to make one. If you have been helped and/or blessed by our material offerings can be mailed or made online with with Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or Paypal. For information see: www.wayoflife.org/about/makeanoffering.html.
