Pastors Note: The information in this Article is compiled from five articles that I wrote for the Missionary Baptist Herald. Each article had introductions and statements connecting them to the previous writing. I have tried to edit them for better clarity and hope they make sense. I believe the abandonment of the King James Authorized Version of the Bible is one of Satan’s greatest tools in these last days and thus the motivation for writing them.

    I Corinthians 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment". The issue of division has plagued the church from its conception. In every age division has been Satan’s greatest tool to attempt to destroy the Lord’s church. In these last days he has found a new medium to produce this separation. I speak of the new translations of the Bible. There are new translations arriving at record paces. The last count I had heard, there are 120 new translations. The scripture just quoted says we are all to speak the same thing in the church. While I am sure the text was not addressing the new translations, it certainly was confronting the issue of division that is caused by not speaking the same thing. Everything we do in God’s church is Bible based. If we cannot read the word of God and find the same words, is there not division? When I am sitting in a class or a message is being preached, if the scripture is being read from a translation other than the KJV, I get frustrated and just close my Bible. How can you follow in the reading when the same thing is not being spoken? If there were no other reason than confusion, that would be enough to point to the use of one translation in the church. I Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

    The issue is much bigger than just confusion. There are two different Greek texts that have been used for the 120 translations, the Textus Receptus and the Westcott & Hort text. 119 have used the Westcott & Hort and only one (KJV) is translated from Textus Receptus. Hummmmm, that sounds familiar. Only one church in the beginning with a promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against her, now over 4,000 different brands. Only one Bible in beginning with the promise, Ps.12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

    I am not an expert in all the issues that surround the Bible version controversies. I have used a KJV bible since I was saved in 1959, and it has been my friend. I have memorized scriptures from it and hid them in my heart. Until a couple years ago I had no problem with others who chose to use different versions. My thinking was that the main difference between them was that the newer translations had just gotten rid of the "thee’s" and "thou’s" and tried to make them a little more readable for our contemporary language. Then I found myself dealing with an individual who had some doctrinal difficulties and one thing that he was very adamant about, was the use of the New International Version of the Bible. Could there be a connection? This prompted me to do some investigation into the differences in the versions.

    When I began to investigate I had no idea which, the KJV or the NIV, was the best. I knew I preferred my old bible but I was not shut out to the possibility that the NIV might be a better translation. I was certainly surprised to find the controversy that raged on this issue. In fact, I was surprised to find that it wasn’t just an NIV - KJV controversy but all of the newer versions where being questioned by those holding the KJV only position. The next thing I noticed was that some very scholarly men and women were involved in the debate. I think, because I have very strong leanings to the conservative side, it became clear pretty quickly, that the support for the NIV and other newer translations was mainly held by the liberal scholars. I was still not ready to discard the possibilities on this basis. There would have to be evidence that was convincing and overwhelming to conclude there was sufficient reason to hold one above the other.

    I was so ignorant when I began this study that I thought the original manuscripts were available to the King James translators. I knew nothing of Textus Receptus, Codex Aleph, B, D, and C., the papyrus fragments, unicals, magiscules, cursives, and lectionaries. I had no idea who Westcott & Hort were or anything about their Greek text. When I began to consider the issues, I realized that all of the information was being taken from old manuscripts that were written in Greek and Latin, things not available for me to examine for myself. Therefore, I knew I would have to rely on others to provide the information and try to come to conclusions based on that. I have said all of this to let you know that I am not an expert on this subject and I am not the one to show up at the debates, as one of the debaters.

    There is one thing I have learned over the years, since my new birth, the Bible is God’s Word and it is perfect and true in every way. I often question the interpretations of men concerning the teachings, but without question believe the bible to be an inerrant book. I have found in my studying that God is very logical and methodical in everything He presents to us. There are no contradictions in His book and He always provides the information that will help us make right conclusions. There is a vast amount of information concerning the preservation of His word given to us in the Holy Scriptures. The issue under consideration is not a debate about whether the Bible is God’s word, we are not arguing with atheists who would conclude that you can’t use the book to prove that it is written by Him. I believe our first approach to this issue should be based on what the Bible says about its preservation by God. In fact, it may be the only defense the average layman will be able to make. I confess to you, because the information takes such a vast amount of expertise in many different areas, I feel an inadequacy to defend on any ground except the Bible proofs of a preserved word. Because God is so logical, we should be able to make logical conclusions based on the information given us by His Word.

    God makes a promise of preservation of scripture in Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." I believe it is scriptures like this that must make us look at the version controversy. I believe the question falls back on God, is He able to preserve His word for every generation? Did man have the power to mess up His pure words and keep them from true believers for the first 1800 years? Did God use men like Westcott and Hort to bring His pure words back into existence for just those who have lived in the last 118 yrs? The assertion made is not that the King James Version of the Bible is an inspired translation, but that it is the preserved word from God to the English speaking.

    The reason for considering this subject is not to cause division among God’s people, but to educate. We desire only to encourage each other in God’s truths. Is this a "Big" issue? I think it is! I am at least sure that my lack of conviction on this issue in the past was due to ignorance about how corrupt the other translations are. Again let’s look at the Bibles conclusion about its content.

    When God says in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Which "ALL" was He talking about? The ones that are in the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, LIV, GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN, NEW JERUSELEM BIBLE, KJV, or which of the 120 English translations? Doesn’t it make sense that they can’t all be right when they are so different? If all of the scriptures where inspired by God, then we would not want to miss one of them. Could God have put such time and effort in preparing a Bible for us, taking approximately 1500 years and forty different writers to give us the complete inspired inerrant bible, and then let the foolishness of man lose it and mess it up so that we could not have the real thing today?

    The correct bible will have only the word of God, nothing more, nothing less. Paul, by the inspiration of God, makes it clear as he writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." The bible is not the words of men, they are preserved words. I do not believe the KJV is an inspired translation, but I do believe that God let the KJV translators translate his preserved words. I do not think that Erasmus was inspired when compiling the Greek text that has come to be known as the Textus Receptus. What I believe is God has preserved His words because He promised that He would.

    There is no doubt God has preserved His word for the world. I do not believe that He has only preserved it in English. I believe God has His truth translated in other languages around the world. I do however, believe that the KJV is the English bible that God has preserved His truth in.

    One thing is clear, the new versions are different and it is not just a changing of the "thee’s" and "thou’s" When words are added, changed, or taken out we are back to a clear violation of God’s word. If one of the newer versions is the preserved word then this same accusation could be made of the KJV. Deuteronomy 4:2 "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." Deuteronomy 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." These scriptures seem so clear concerning the tampering with the inspired words of God in any way. I believe these biblical issues being addressed must bring us to the conclusion that there will only be one true preserved word in any given language. How then can we determine which version God has used to preserve His word? It would seem at this point, concluding that God’s promise to preserve His word is true, we must look at the origin of the versions issue.

    We now consider the Greek texts used for the translations. The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus, and the other 119 English translations primarily from the Westcott & Hort Greek text although Nestle’s and the eclectic text of the United Bible Societies have been used as well. The issue really goes to a Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort text as Nestle’s and the eclectic text are based on the same manuscripts and much of the judgement calls on text are referred back to Westcott & Hort. There are some very large differences in the manuscripts that Desiderius Erasmus used for his text, (textus receptus) and the ones that were used by Westcott & Hort. Erasmus had 5300 different manuscripts that he began with and found 95% of those to be in complete harmony leaving him approximately 5,000 manuscripts to work with. Westcott & Hort had, as its principle manuscripts for their Greek text, Codices A; B (Vaticanus); Aleph (Sinaiticus); C; D, the most relied upon where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Dean John William Burgon, in 1860, wrote in the preface of his book "Revision Revised" (on pg. 18, he was siting his objection to these five codices as the source of the new evidence for changing the scriptures), "My only object in them all was to prove that Codices A, B (Vaticanus); Aleph (Sinaiticus). C; and D; yield divergent testimony; and therefore, so habitually contradict one another, as effectually to invalidate their own evidence throughout. This has never been proved before. It can only be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of exactly tabulating the result".

    Codex Aleph and Codex B seem to be the main manuscripts that the Westcott and Hort text relied upon and revisionist used as final authorities in the making of modern versions. Because these two were so important to the changes that have taken place we have to look at these two to form some conclusion as to which translation is best. In fact, these two manuscripts are the ones that are referred to in the modern bibles as "the oldest and best manuscripts". The thing that was most surprising to me, in my investigation on this subject, was to find that these two manuscripts contradict each other in 17,000 places throughout their text. The differences in the four Gospels alone amount to 3,036+; Matthew 656+, Mark 567+, Luke 791+, John 1,022+. I have a great deal of information on these two manuscripts as to their corruption but I will not include at this time as I know I have already taken too much space. I might also add that there is a great deal of information about the corruptness and motives of Westcott and Hort. They did not believe in the Genesis account of creation, (probably not surprising seeing that codex B (vaticanus) left the first 49 chapters of Genesis out), they were both members of a spiritist group that believed in talking to the dead, they were great admirers and supporters of Darwin and his theory of evolution, in all of the writings in their personal biographies a testimony of salvation is never given. The list goes on concerning these fellows but I would say again the issue is really not about the translators, ect., but about whether God has preserved His word and that could have been done through infidels and heretics of all types.

    What is the motivation for new translations? Could it be money? What was King James motivation for the English version? Could it have been political? I understand that men will use anything they can for their own gain, it is the very nature of the flesh. I do not believe the publishing house’s purpose in printing Bibles is to promote God but rather to make a profit. It is a business with them, pure and simple. There is also no doubt in my mind that King James’ purposes were not that He really loved God and wanted to make sure all of God’s people were provided with a pure version of the Bible. I would not argue that his intent was to do something that would give him greater control over the people. I do not even believe that Erasmus was that great a person, but I do believe that God uses people, sometimes even the ungodly, to accomplish His goals. The history of the Lord’s true church through that time from Christ until the Reformation was simply a trail of blood. His churches neither had the resources or the expertise to do translation of a bible into English. God used those with the resources and the scholarship in languages to perform His will.

    The profit issue of the Bible publishers reveals the motivation for new translations continuing to come on the scene. They make much more from the new translations because of their copyrights. I have a Quick Verse Bible software program on my computer. The KJV comes as part of that program, it does not cost Parson’s to include that in their program. If you want any of the copyrighted versions on that program, they cost $10 for each version you want. Fortunately for me, I did not want any of the other versions, saving me big bucks, (haha). There is a lot of money involved in the copyrighted versions but I still believe the issue goes beyond the publishers. Satan said to Eve in the Garden of Eden, "Hath God said......" The deception of what God’s word was, began there in the garden. I believe this deception is increasing in even a greater way in this present age.

    Let’s look at a scripture that is left out of most of the new translations. Remember God’s promise to preserve His word in every generation? This is a very important issue, if this is an added verse or a left out verse. I believe it will put the final nail into the coffin of the new perverted bibles. It ought to convince every bible believer to stay away from these books that have discarded God’s pure words. We don’t need these story books that have been compiled by liberal religionist. I John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Why would Satan want this verse out of the Bible? Hummmm, that’s a tough one. Maybe it had something to do with it being one of the clearest scriptures in the Bible revealing that God is a Trinity. You probably thought that the only bible that left that verse out was the Jehovah Witnesses, "New World Translation". There actually are quite a few that have left it out and, of course, the most popular, NIV is at the head of the list. Because most don’t think there is any big deal about the different versions the idea that scriptures are missing never crosses their mind.

    Many of the newer versions make a statement where they say, "the oldest and best manuscripts do not include this verse." That statement refers to the Siniaticus and Vaticanus that Westcott & Hort used for their text. As has already been stated, these two texts are corrupt with over 17,000 contradictions to each other.

    The opponents to the KJV say that Erasmus did not have enough evidence to include 1 John 5:7 in his text. Erasmus did not take lightly his job of compiling an accurate text. There is a great deal of evidence for pre-16th century existence of the "Johannine Comma" as this scripture is referred to in the consideration of it’s existence. Erasmus was going to exclude it at first, then a friend in Dublin at the University there produced an Eastern text with the Johanine Fragment, as it is called, and Erasmus included it. Since then, other manuscripts have been found with it. It is found in two Greek Manuscripts, the Montfort MS in Dublin University Library and the Codex WIZANBURGENSIS of the 8^th century. The chief manuscript authority is found in the Latin versions and it is found, with few exceptions in all the codices of these, both in the Vulgate and in the Old Latin. Among ancient writers who refer to all or allude to the disputed words are Tertullian and Cyprian and later Latin authors.

Listed below are a list of pre-16th century sources.

1. 200- Tertuillian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp 907-908)

2. 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: "and the three are One" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

3. 350 - Priscillian cities the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

4. 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

5. 350 - Athhanasitus cites the verse (Gill)

6. 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Chruch", Vol. I, p. 146)

7. 450 - 530 several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

a. Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)

b. Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)

c. Fugentius (MPL , vol. 70, col 1373)

8. 550- Old Latin ms r has the verse

9. 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse.

10. 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse

11. 800 - Jerome’s Vulgate includes the verse

12. 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin

13. 1200-1400 Waldensian Bibles have the verse

14. 1500 - ms 61 has the verse

    I would again say that I don’t feel all the evidence for the producing of witnesses for this verse are needed when one accepts by faith that God would not leave us without a pure version of the Bible. As I said at the beginning of this series of articles, I am not an expert and there are others who could do a much better job, but I have made my attempt to encourage all to find unity on the issue of the Bible we will use.