Session 6 – Bible versionsIn this session we will look at (what I

consider) an in house debate for Christians

The question of which English Bible version to use has been a question many Christians

have had in their walk. Many believe the KJV Bible is the best version (and only version

Christians should use)

Much information is taken from aomin.org from Dr. James White

Degrees of King James Onlyism

1. "I Like the KJV Best"

This view simply thinks the KJV of the Bible is a good version and they like it the most typically because they grew up using it

2. "The Textual Argument"

This group believes the text that underlies the KJV version (majority text) is the more

accurate manuscript tradition

3. "Received Text Only"

This view narrows down the previous one to the

manuscripts used in the Textus Receptus

by Desiderius Erasmus

Many believe these texts were supernaturally (or providentially) preserved and that other Greek manuscripts not used

in this compilation may be flawed

4. "The Inspired KJV Group"

This group believes hat the KJV of the English Bible is divinely inspired and is as

accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew

manuscripts themselves This group often rejects any other translations even off the same Greek

manuscripts, because God was only inspiring those who compiled the KJV, not others. The KJV Bible should be the only English version

5. "The KJV As New Revelation"

This group believes that the KJV Bible is New or Advanced Revelation from God

They believe that the KJV can correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts

They believe that the KJV Bible should be the standard by which all other Bible are

translated (in English and other languages)

What’s the case for the KJV?

Many who exclusively use the KJV Bible believe that there is some kind of conspiracy

to change the Bible in the other modern English Bible versions

They claim that the modern versions are based on corrupt manuscripts of the Bible

that distort the message

We will address this topic broadly, because we don’t have time to go into details on every

point that would be made (on either side)

Compare:

What are these changes in modern versions they are talking about?

1 Timothy 3:16, KJV: “without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was

manifest in the flesh….”

Look what the NASB says:

1 Timothy 3:16 NASB: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was revealed in the flesh,”

And Compare TheseReference Modern Vers. KJV

Matthew 4:18 he Jesus

Acts 19:10 the Lord the Lord Jesus

1 Cor 9:1 Jesus Jesus Christ

2 Cor 5:18 Christ Jesus Christ

Acts 16:31 Lord Jesus Lord Jesus Christ

2 John 3 Jesus Christ Lord Jesus Christ

Still not convinced there is a significant different in the Bibles?

Get out a modern Bible version and look up John 5:4 (It’s a trick BTW)

John 5:4: “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the

troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

Why did they take this out?

Understand though, it goes both ways

John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

Look what the KJV says:

John 1:18 (NIV): “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is

himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”

Now the modern version

In another instance the KJV Bible aligns itself with the Jehovah Witnesses NWT (although KJV was written earlier) in John 14:14 and ignores Jesus receiving prayer to himself

John 14:14 (ESV): ”If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

John 14:14 (KJV): If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Which one is correct? If we pray to Jesus that would support his deity

Another comparison you won’t hear about: Revelation 1:8 (KJV): “I am Alpha and

Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and

which is to come, the Almighty.”

We hear modern translations take out the deity of Christ? Look what they say here:

Revelation 1:8 (NRSV) “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Is there a conspiracy going on here? Are the new translations (sometimes called “New

World Translations”) out to destroy the Bible and the deity of Christ?

First understand, we are not saying we need all the versions we have today, there are

TONS of English Bible versions and some of them are not great

But believe it or not there isn’t a big conspiracy out there with the modern Bibles

Why do these translations differ with one another? Why are there differences?

We will be looking at the New Testament, which is where most the debate is

The KJV/ NKJV NT’s are based upon a 16th century Greek text known today as the

“Textus Receptus.” Modern translations are based upon the Nestle-Aland Greek

text of this century.

The “Textus Receptus” represents what is called the “Byzantine” family of manuscripts.

These “Byzantine” type manuscripts make up 80% of the extant Greek texts in our

possession.

Even though they make up the majority of the Greek texts that we have, they do not account for many of the texts in the first

millennium of church history

That means this text (Majority Text that the Textus Receptus came from) represents the

later ecclesiastical copying

Understand, even though the TR came from the Majority Text, it disagrees with the majority text in about 1800 places on

average, so they are not identical

The other popular text type would be the Alexandrian text, which represents a smaller,

but earlier group of texts

II III IV V VI VII VIII IXII III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Alexandrian Manuscripts Byzantine Manuscripts

What was the “Majority Text” during the First Millennium? Alexandrian

The “Textus Receptus” was created by the work of a

Roman Catholic priest and scholar who had the nickname

“Prince of the Humanists,” Desiderius Erasmus.

Erasmus printed and published the first edition of the Greek NT in 1516. The 3rd

edition of his text was particularly influential

A total of five editions came from him; after him, Stephanus (1555) and Beza (1598) edited the work, and it was used by

the KJV translators for their NT (1604-1611).

Modern translations are based upon a different text that draws from a wider variety of sources than the TR, including manuscripts

unknown in the days of Erasmus.

Some of the papyri manuscripts used in the modern Nestle-Aland 27th edition date to as

early as AD 125.

Because these sources in the modern translation are older, there are less of them around (the further back you go, the fewer

manuscripts have survived)

Keep in mind, the “differences” between the manuscript traditions is minor, there is no

doctrinal differences

If one applies the same rules of exegesis to the TR and the NA 27th edition, the results

will be the same. The variations do not change the message.

One problem we have when looking at this topic is the double standard that is used by the KJV only group. They claim the NIV, ESV,

NASB, etc. have changed the Bible… But what is the assumption all along?

That the KJV is the standard

We believe that the KJV of the Bible should be put under the same test as the other

versions of the Bible

The question is not “what does it say compared to the KJV”, but “what does it say

compared to the original manuscripts”

Our goal should be to look at the manuscripts that we have, and see what

reading has the strongest evidence for the being the original reading

Most likely this was a marginal note, an explanation, written in an early manuscript

and accidentally inserted into a later copy by a copyist who thought it was a part of the

original text.

How about John 5:4? (Angel and Water)This passage is not only omitted by P66, P75, a, B and others, but even in the manuscripts where it does appear, there are a number of

variants within the text, and some give special markings to the passage

How about John 1:18?

The earliest manuscripts of John, P66 and P75 (papyri manuscripts dating around AD 200), as well as two of the earliest uncial

manuscripts, a and B, (i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) all read “unique God”

or “the only Son who is God.”

The bulk of later manuscripts read “only-begotten Son.” The KJV, following the TR,

reads this second way

Here the Alexandrian texts join with a large portion of the Byzantine texts in containing

the word “me.”

In the same way, there is no “conspiracy” at John 14:14 (prayer to Jesus)

But a part of the Byzantine tradition does not contain the word, and this part underlies the TR. The Majority Text contains the reading

“me” at this point, demonstrating that the TR is not identical to the Majority Text.

Likewise, Revelation 1:8, and the reference to “the Lord God” is another example of

where the TR even departs from the entirety of the Byzantine manuscript tradition.

The vast majority of texts, including the later ones, contain this reading.

There is a reason for this, Erasmus rushed getting his project done and only used one manuscript when doing revelation (and his

work becomes the basis for the KJV)

Here’s One of the “Big Ones”

Colossians 1:14KJV NIV

in whom we have redemption

through his blood, even the forgiveness of

sins.

in whom we have

redemption, the forgiveness of

sinsDid later versions take the blood out?

It is on the basis of passages such as this that KJV Only

folks have identified the NIV as the “bloodless Bible.” But

is such a charge true, accurate, and honest?

First, any person studying the passage might note that Ephesians and Colossians contain parallel passages. The parallel to Colossians 1:14 in Ephesians is found at Ephesians 1:7

Ephesians 1:7KJV NIV

In whom we have redemption through

his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

according to the riches of his grace;

In him we have redemption through

his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's

grace

The question is, if they are trying to hide the blood part of things, why include it here?

In reality the KJV here contains a reading that goes against not only the ancient

manuscripts, but against the vast majority of all manuscripts, including the Byzantine.

The earliest manuscript to contain the added phrase is from the 9th century. All of four

manuscripts, all dating long after the original writing, contain the reading.

Understand, that is four out of thousands and thousands of manuscripts

One of the most obvious problems is in Revelation 16:5. Even our hymns have been impacted by this textual variant. All Greek

manuscripts, of whatever type, agree in reading as the NASB:

“And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things;”

The key phrase is “O Holy One.” Compare the KJV:

“And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast,

and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.”

Theodore Beza made a “conjectural emendation” at this point: that’s a change in

the text that has no manuscript support.

He felt that the text made more sense if it read “and shalt be” than “O Holy One,” and

he thought the Greek words were similar enough in form to explain it.

Which KJV do you have? And which one should be the “standard” we are to use?

Almost all KJV’s are actually the 1769 Blayney Revision of

the AV, not the 1611. But, there are different kinds of

KJV’s. The two most prevalent are the Oxford and Cambridge types. How can you tell which you have? Look at Jeremiah 34:16:

Oxford Edition Cambridge Edition

But ye turned and polluted my name,

and caused every man his servant, and every

man his handmaid, whom he had set at

liberty at their pleasure, to return,

and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and

for handmaids.

But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his

servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at

liberty at their pleasure, to return,

and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and

for handmaids.

Clearing up some misunderstandings and common arguments used

All the new versions create confusion

This can certainly be true at times, we don’t have to debate this point. This, however, has absolutely no bearing on if the KJV version is

the best and most accurate or not

There are many versions of the Bible that are not needed today, and we don’t support all

modern day Bibles

Keep in mind, the King James Bible was not the only version of the Bible when it came

out, there were many others versions

Not only that, but when the KJV was translated there were Bibles before that

which were widely accepted, and you had the same situations where people were not happy about a new version coming out

Other English Bibles like the one translated by Wycliffe and Tyndale existed

KJV has long term acceptance

KJV activists often point out that the KJV Bible has been the reigning English translation for

400 years, and has become the standard (which means it has to be the best)

Understand, other Bible versions have more seniority than that. The Latin Vulgate was the Biblical standard for 1100 years, almost three times as long as the KJV, that didn’t make it

the best translation ever done

Alexandria was corrupt

Many argue against manuscripts that came from Alexandria because many heresies had

their origins in this place

There were corrupt church fathers who had bad interpretations of scripture

They are correct to say some heresies came from the area of Alexandria, and that there were some (atleast one) church father who

was very “off” in his teachings

But keep in mind, that was everywhere! The Church at Byzantium was not perfect, and many heresies came about in that area too

The most notable would be the Arian heresy (Arius) which said that Jesus Christ was not

God (but a created being)

The most outspoken opponent to the heresy was Athanasius, who came from… You

guessed it, Alexandria

Vaticanus is stored by Catholics

Somehow in the minds of many KJV Only advocates this makes the manuscript less

valuable and corrupt

Keep in mind this manuscript outdates the modern Roman Catholic Church

(Catholicism as we’d know it)

And also keep in mind that the primary source behind the KJV Bible is Erasmus, who

is a notable Roman Catholic at the time

Siniaticus discovery

Often critics point out that this manuscript (which is used for modern day translations)

was found by a trash can and was considered junk by the monastery

That is historically false. The first hand account of it’s discovery records that the monks kept it in a closet wrapped in red

cloth, and that it had been used for hundreds of years

It comes down to this, do you want what the apostles wrote, the original, or are you okay

adding stuff if it sounds “better”

There are many more arguments that we could go over in this debate, KJV only

advocates often bring up the question “Has God preserved His Word for us today?”

The answer would be yes, but it has nothing to do with an English translation of the Bible

done in 1611

When it comes to apologetics, it’s almost suicide to accept the KJV Onlyism

To say that the Alexandrian manuscript tradition is corrupt that underlies the

modern Bibles we have today, is to say that we really don’t have good manuscript

evidence for the Bible for hundreds of years

This textual criticism and examining all the manuscripts we can is what gives us the

confidence we have

Jude 1:3B: “…ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto

the saints.”

Memory Verse