'An Independent Baptist Church'

Q/A About Bible Versions

Are not all Bible versions basically the same?

No.  Since the 1880's there have been about 200 Bible versions put on the market.  Today, we get about two new Bible versions every year.  Each new Bible version has a copyright (in order to get the profit) and at least 200 changes have to be made to the text in order to get that copyright.  The KJV has no copyright on the text, meaning anyone can copy it, anywhere and anytimeThe NIV, for example, has 64,567 words taken away (8% of the text) compared to the KJV.  Jack Moorman lists over 300 verses affecting essential doctrines that have been deleted or altered in the newer Bible Versions.  In another companion study, we have shown the many changes that have been made in the newer Bible versions that do affect essential doctrines of the Bible.

Is the King James Bible based upon a different text than other Bible versions?

Yes.  Textual Scholars readily admit that the King James Bible is based upon a text that is different than the Roman Catholic Bibles and all other newer Bible versions, such as the NIV, NASB, etc.  The primary text behind most of the newer Bible versions, known as the Alexandrian text, differs from the text behind the King James Bible in nearly 6000 places, involving almost 10,000 words.  This averages out to about 15.4 words changes on every page, or 7% of the Greek words WHEN Westcott and Hort got down with their work in 1881. The text behind the KJV is known as the Traditional or Antiochian Text. These texts, the one behind the KJV and the one behind the newer Bibles,  are so different that textual scholars can classify manuscripts into these different families. I submit to you that one of these texts has been altered, either the one behind the KJV or the one behind the newer versions!  You cannot differ in nearly 6000 places and be the same!   We have an old saying down in the country, "THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT CANNOT BE THE SAME".

Who was Origen and what are the Alexandrian Manusripts?

About 200 years after Christ, a man named Origen did not believe in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. According to William Grady in his classic book, FINAL AUTHORITY on pages 73-96, Origen did not believe in the deity of Christ; he didn't believe in hell; he did not believe in salvation through Christ's Substitutionary death.  He went to Alexandria, Egypt, where the so-called scholars were in that day.  It was much like Yale and Harvard today where he worked on a new text for the Bible to reflect his views.  He actually thought he was correcting misconceptions about the Bible.  In this Alexandrian text, he altered and deleted hundreds of verses to reflect his views.  His views were so off the wall, he was declared a HERETIC by regional synods in Alexandria, Cyprus, Jerusalem, and later in Constantinople.   The Roman Catholic Church commissioned Jerome to put together a new Bible for the Catholic Church, and he went to Alexandria, Egypt to formulate the Latin Vulgate, which was the Roman Catholic Bible through the Middle Ages. He used the altered text of Origen. This is why the Roman Catholic Bibles of past and present are so different from the King James Bible.

Do the majority of Manuscripts support the KJV or the newer versions today like the NIV, NASB, etc.?

They overwhelmingly support the text behind the King James Bible! Over the years, 5300 old copies or manuscripts have been discovered that were handwritten before the printing press was invented.  These include lectionaries (books containing portions of Scriptures to be read during church services) and other copies of the Scriptures. Over 99% (actually 99.47%) of the copies of portions of the Scriptures we have found back up the text behind the King James Bible, not the newer versions!  5,256 manuscripts are from the Traditional text behind the King James Bible, while only 44 support the Alexandrian text which most of the newer Bible versions are based upon!
This is why the text behind the King James Bible has been called the MAJORITY TEXT in the past!.  

Are not the two Alexandrian Manuscripts, Vaticanus and Siniaticus (Aleph and B) that all newer Bible versions are based upon, really the oldest and the best?

They are not the oldest and certainly not the best.  Dr. Waite has put together a 38 link chain of manuscript evidence that leads historically from the King James Bible back to within 50 years of when John wrote the last Book of the Bible.  The Alexandrian Mss. behind the newer versions date only back to about a few hundred years after Christ.  Just in recent years, papyri have been discovered that backs the KJV which dates back to 180A.D.  This finding has not made it into the text books yet. (I wonder if it will?) The statement is just not true that oldest Manuscript evidence backs the newer versions.   
As far as being the best manuscripts, as they are called in the footnotes of many of our Bibles today, that is just not true.  Herman Hoskier, in his scholarly work CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES shows that these 2 Mss and the others underlying the newer versions are TOTALLY CORRUPT!    He shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the two main Mss. used to make the changes in the newer Bibles from the KJV text, are so corrupt that they CONTRADICT EACH OTHER IN 3000 PLACES IN THE 4 GOSPELS ALONE!   It is absolutely incredible that these two Mss. are called the OLDEST and the BEST manuscripts!
Vaticanus was discovered on a shelf in the Vatican Library in Rome while the Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in a monastery near Mt. Sinai.  They had been discarded because the people handling them knew they were corrupt.

Isn't the KJV based upon a few later manuscripts?

No.  The forerunners to the KJV and the KJV translators themselves had access both manuscript families which were widely available back then.  Remember, the text behind Jerome's Latin Vulgate was based upon these Alexandrian Manuscripts of Origen.  These men rejected these manuscripts of Alexandrian origin because they knew they were faulty and altered.

Did the KJV translators have access to all manuscripts?

As we have shown above, the forerunners who paved the way for the KJV and the KJV translators themselves had access to both major Manuscript families and rejected the Alexandrian text behind the Roman Catholic Bibles as corrupt, according to Samuel Gipp in THE ANSWER BOOK on page 110.   When Westcott and Hort came along in the 1870's to do their new Bible, they revived the old Alexandrian text and used it to correct and update the text behind the KJV, thus giving us the RV, or Revised Version, in the 1880's. This updated Alexandrian text, based mainly upon the two gold dust twins, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, formed the basis for the Nestle-Aland text in 1927 and the UBS or United Bible Society text which is the basic text of all of our newer Bible versions today!  This is why the newer versions differ so much from the KJV.

Is there any evidence that the KJV is superior to all other translations?

Yes.  Dr. Waite in his book, THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE makes an excellent case showing that the KJV used a superior text; it had superior translators; it used a superior word-for-word translating method, and is superior doctrinally because it does not omit or alter hundreds of verses that affect essential Bible doctrines as the newer Bible versions do.

Is the New International Version (NIV) reliable.  

No.  It is based upon the Alexandrian text of Westcott and Hort, and its translators used dynamic equivalence as their translating method and paraphrased. We believe it has a faulty, altered text behind it, and it uses a faulty, inferior translating method. The NIV states in its preface that a word for word translation was not even attempted, rather they wanted to get the THOUGHT across to their translation, which requires the NIV translators to do a certain amount of INTERPRETING what they think the THOUGHT was that God was trying to get across.  The NIV is based upon a faulty text that has been altered.  It uses an inferior translating method of paraphrasing.    Dr. Waite compiled a book on the errors of the New International Version and lists on the cover 6653 REASONS WHY THE NIV IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH.  This can be purchased, along with other material on this entire subject, from his website, www.biblefortoday.org.  The website www.av1611.org also has excellent information on the altered and unreliable NIV.

Is not the NIV easier to read?

Promoters of the NIV have come up with studies they claim show the NIV is easier to read.  However, others have come up with studies showing different results.  Gail Riplinger quotes the FLesch-Kincaid study that shows that the KJV is easier to read than the NIV and other new versions.  This study shows that the KJV reads at a 5th grade level, while the NASB and the NKJV read at a 6th and 7th grade, and rates the NIV at an 8th grade reading level.  Dr. Waite cites a computer study that also rates the KJV as easier to read than the the newer versions.  This is because the KJV has mostly Anglo-Saxson 1 and 2 syllable words (over 95%) while the NIV and other versions have multiple-syllable words.
Even if the NIV was easier to read, it is much easier to misunderstand, because it is based upon a faulty text that has been altered!  When it teaches in 2 Timothy 2:12 that salvation can be lost and a child of God can be disowned that is confusing to Christian;  When it teaches that Jesus sinned in Matthew and Mark, that is confusing.  When it teaches it is DIFFICULT to be saved, this is confusing to the Christian.  

Can People be saved through preaching the from the NIV?

Yes, and many have.  The Word of God is so powerful that even altered versions can evidently be used by the Holy Spirit to show people they must be saved.  Even one verse of God's Word like John 3:16 can be used to lead a person to Christ.  This is not a reason to promote an inferior and altered Bible Version if has changed and deleted many verses on essential Bible doctrines!

Why do so many great preachers use and promote the newer versions?  Could all of these good men be wrong?

I believe it is possible for even good, sincere men to be deceived on particular matters.  We can all be mistaken and wrong on certain things.  We see this happening all the way through the Bible.  All of the best men in the Bible were deceived at one time or another.  Even Mary and Joseph went a day's journey without Jesus and did not know that they were proceeding without His presence.  Paul rebuked Peter in the Book of Acts when he was wrong on a matter.  It is not a shame to be wrong on something, for we all have been at one time or another.  But it would have been a shame to continue in the wrong when we have been shown differently.  Hosea 4:6 says "My people are destroyed for LACK of knowledge".  I sincerely believe that lots of good men of God I admire and learn from, have just not studied this matter of Bible versions thoroughly on their own.  Like myself, for years I had just accepted what other mentors of mine had stated on the matter.  I trusted that they must have studied it thoroughly since they were right on so many other things.  I assume this is what has happened with many great men of God who still promote the newer versions.  Due to a busy ministry schedule, many pastors today do not have the time to study the matter thoroughly and just accept the opinions of mentors or professors they trust, and probably, these mentors have done the same thing.  I don't know this for sure, but it is my guess, because the same thing happened to me.  Several years ago as I was still practicing pharmacy, I was pastor of a small church and had lots of time to study this matter.  I decided to approach the matter of Bible versions with an open mind and no biased opinion.  I purchased every book I could find on both sides of the issue.  I have perhaps 100 books on this issue and I studied them all.  I would not have time to do this today.  In the church I am in now, I am busy almost 24/7.  I am sure this is true of many pastors today who have just not had several months or even years to study the matter as I had.  I really believe that these great men of God would see the issue more like I do if they had the time to study it on their own like I did and have the access to material that I have had.  I am careful not to be too critical of these men because I, myself, looked at the matter much the same way they do until I had the time to study the matter thoroughly.  We should be careful to be kind to people and especially patient with them if they have come to the same conclusion on Bible versions as we have.  I realize that people who believe the King James Bible is the far superior Bible version are in the minority today, but throughout history, the majority has not always been right!

WHY HAVE GREAT MEN OF GOD OF THE PAST PROMOTED THE NEWER BIBLE VERSIONS?

The same answer above would apply, but we must realize great men of the past such as C.I. Scofield and John Rice did not have the years of results to look at as we do with the fruits of the newer Bible versions. I am sure if they had the evidence to look at back then as we do today, they would agree with us on this matter that the newer versions are just bad news.....for modern man!

Is the King James Bible preserved or inspired?

Technically and Biblically speaking, it is the preserved Word of God.  The original manuscripts were the only ones that were 'God-breathed' or inspired in that sense.  However, God promised in Psalms 12:6,7 to preserve His Word down thru the ages so we could have the inerrant Word of God still today as they had it back when It was first written!

Psalms 12:6,7 (KJV) - "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Can a translation be as good as the originals?

Yes, if God is overseeing the process!  This is where the doctrine of Preservation comes in as promised in Psalms 12:6,7.  God told Jeremiah in 51:63 to throw his originals in the river!  God evidently did not think too highly of the originals!  He was, however, to oversee a process by which the very Words were copied and passed on down through the years, even through different languages.  
Otherwise, we don't have the perfect Word of God today, or at least a copy of the Scriptures AS GOOD as what they had back in those first days!  This is one of the key matters that convinced me that one of these textual Mss. families must be the preserved Word of God, otherwise, we don't have the pure, inerrant Word of God today!!!!
I happen to believe that God was certainly able to preserve His Word down thru the centuries so my little boy and two girls can have the inerrant Word of God today just like little boys and girls had the perfect Word of God back when It was first written.  Don't you?
I ask people today "Where is the perfect inspired Word of God?"  They answer, "It was in the original autographs."  I ask, "Where are they today?"  They reply, "We no longer have them".  I ask, "So WHERE is the inerrant Word of God today?"  They say, "Well, we have the Word of God today that is ALMOST perfect" and then they go on to say how well God has guarded His Word down thru the years so that "not a single one of the fundamental doctrines have been affected" in the newer versions today.  HOWEVER, THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE.  As Jack Moorman shows in his masterpiece, several of the clearest verses on essential Bible doctrines have been altered or deleted completely, and I believe this is Satan's attempt to make it more difficult for the new Christian today to grasp and understand the Word of God.

Hasn't the King James Bible been revised? Aren't there changes in these 4 or 5 revisions to the KJV text in the 1600's and 1700's?

Listen to this...the only changes that were made to the text of the KJV in these 4 or 5 revisions that occurred from 1611 to about 1789 were in spelling, punctuation, and correcting errors the printers made.  There was no change made to the text!  The text of the 1611 is the same text that we have today.  I am reading a pamphlet now that claims there 100,000 changes in the KJV in these revisions and that is so misleading!  The pamphlet fails to tell the reader that these changes were in spelling, punctuation, and correction of errors made by the printer during the printing process!!  You see, in the early 1600's words did not have one settled, correct spelling. You could spell a word several different ways. Nor was punctuation in the English language settled.  As we approach the 1700’s, the English language came to have to one correct spelling for a word and punctuation came to be settled.  This why a 1611 KJV looks so much different from a KJV today.  Then too, several printing errors were corrected.  One edition was know as the 'she' Bible and one edition was known as the 'He' bible because one edition had printed the wrong pronoun.  These printing errors were corrected in the future 'revisions', but the original text itself was not changed in these revisions following 1611.  These spelling and punctuation changes are called orthographical and lithographical.

Did not the King James Version contain the Apocrypha at first?

Yes it did.  This was the practice of that day and culture to add these apocryphal books as a historical link between the Old and New Testament as a 'historical' connection during the 400 years between the Old and New Testament.  The KJV translators stated clearly these apocrypha books were not a part of Inspired Scripture, and went to great effort to emphasis this.  The Roman Catholic Bible, however, did just the opposite, and dispersed the Apocrypha books throughout the Bible and considered them as a part of inspired Scripture.  Much like we have a concordance and maps in the back of our Bible, and even study notes, everyone knows these 'extras' are not a part of inspired Scripture.  One fellow wittingly said he believed his Bible from "Genesis to Maps".  Well, I wouldn't go that far.  Of course, he was joking.

What about the Archaic words in the King James Version?

There are over 600 words in the KJV that have changed meaning or have become obsolete.  We have this happen still today.  For example I can remember when "GAY" used to mean being 'happy'...but no longer!   We just need to explain what these words mean.  I have a little pamphlet from Chick publications taped in back cover of my Bible which explains the meanings of these archaic Words.  It is entitled THE KING JAMES BIBLE COMPANION by David Daniels and fits nicely in the back of your Bible.  For example, CONVERSATION in 1611 meant BEHAVIOR and CONDUCT.  Today, it means TALKING TO SOMEONE.  Just because there are a relatively few archaic words that have changed meaning does not mean that we need to abandon the KJV for the altered and inferior newer versions!

Is the New King James Version an improvement over the KJV?

No it is certainly not.  In fact, it is one of the most dangerous and deceiving translations yet to date, because it is implied to be a revision based upon KJV text with 'corrections' and archaic words updated.  The dirty little fact is that countless ALEXANDRIAN readings are substituted and inserted into the New King James Version.  William Grady states on page 304 of his book FINAL AUTHORITY from the preface of the NKJV:
  "It was the editor's conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, then to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."
Imagine now that the NKJV reader must become a textual critic and decide for himself whether certain words should be added to the text or deleted!  Incredible.

With the NKJV supposedly translated from the Textus Receptus (the received text behind the KJV), 774 instances occur where two alternative Greek texts are presented for consideration by the reader!
These are the old Westcott Hort readings of the Alexandrian Text from Egypt.  The preface of the NKJV goes on to say "A special feature of the NKJV is its conformity to the THOUGHT FLOW of 1611 Bible"

 The sad news is the NKJV uses the DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE that the other newer Bible versions used...a type of paraphrasing.  Grady states on page 305 of FINAL AUTHORITY ,

"Conservative estimates of the total translation changes in the NKJV are generally put at over 100,000!  (This is an average of 82 changes for each of the 1219 pages in the NKJV."

The NKJV preface is then bold enough to say, "Every word of the NKJV has been checked against the original in light of increasing knowledge about the Greek and Hebrew languages.  Nothing has been changed EXCEPT to make the original meaning clearer."

You've got to be kidding?

Are there any advantages to using the newer versions?

Yes.  There is a temporary advantage.  You will not be persecuted and ridiculed by your peers if you use and promote the newer versions.  However the poor fool who stands up and states he believes the King James Bible is far superior to the other newer Bible translations is in for a big surprise!  People will wonder what tree you fell out of.....You're a nut!  It has always been amazing to me how King James promoters are promoted as 'trouble-makers' and ones who cause 'dissention' when some of the most hateful and vitriolic accusations are hurled from the 'tolerant' newer Bible version promoters!  It is truly amazed.

What about the Old Scofield and the New Scofield?

The Old Scofield was published in 1909 and then Scofield revised his notes in 1917.  It is based upon the pure KJV text.  Many have found much help in Old Scofield Bible and its notes. Even Mr. Scofield in His Old Scofield Bible footnotes suggests that some passages may be in question with the discovery of the new Alexandrian Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which he calls 'some older Manuscripts'.  Back in that day, men like Scofield and John Rice did not suspect the foul play in these newer Bible versions.  We today have had almost 100 years now to see that these 'Older and better manuscripts' are totally corrupt, and advantage of time these great men did not have. It is therefore, unfair, to say, they promote the newer Bible versions.  I am convinced if they had the perspective and the evidence we now have, they would reject these newer versions completely.  M.R. Dehaan was one of the first of these 'Old Giants' to see the perversion of the new Bible Versions as he states this clearly in his booklet "BIBLE VERSIONS AND PERVERSIONS".   

Now the New Scofield Bible is a far different story.  In 1967, many years after Scofield's death, a revision committee revised the Scofield Bible by not only changing many of Scofield's notes, but also suggesting many Alexandrian textual readings in the text.  Grady notes that a random survey of the New Scofield Bible margins in Philippians alone revealed a total of 29 changes from the King James Bible. Of these, twenty-one (72%) were traced either to the RSV or NASV.  He continues to state that if the reader took the time to examine every margin in the New Scofield Bible, he would discover that approximately 6,560 words have been removed from the true authorized Version and replaced with their generic equivalents.  This total is roughly equal to the five entire books of 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, and the first 3 chapters of Revelation!  
The notes in the New Scofield for Acts 8:12 states that baptism is a SACRAMENT....which is Roman Catholic propaganda and teaching.  Baptism is an ordinance.  A sacrament is a CHANNEL OF GRACE according to the Roman Church by which we achieve salvation.  

How many mistakes are in the King James Bible?  

I believe not a single mistake is in the KJV, unless it was a mistake added accidentally by the publisher who printed it!  If one believes God is able to preserve His Word as He promised in Psalms 12:6,7 then one must believe there are no mistakes or errors in the KJV text.  We certainly have shown the Alexandrian text is not the pure Word of God.  It has been altered.  Do you believe both Bible lines are imperfect?  I happen to believe God was able to keep one line of Bibles pure down throughout history so your children and mine can be assured they have the inerrant Word of God today!

Many have attempt to show alleged mistakes and errors in our KJV but I haven't found one yet, have you?  Dr. Kent Hovind has a section on these so-called Bible Contradictions on his website www.drdino.com which explains every alleged contradiction in the Bible and proves the KJV is not in error at all.  The NIV does have errors, namely in Mark 1:2,3 and 2 Samuel 21:19.  Every Sunday school student knows David killed Goliath and Isaiah doesn't include the quote in Mark 1:2,3 but Malachi does.

Are there any translation errors in the King James Bible?

None have been shown and proven to date and I am convinced there never will be any translation errors shown because I believe God's preserving power oversaw the 1611 translators according to Psalms 12:6,7.  Skeptics have brought up alleged translation errors such as EASTER in Acts 12:4 and 'IT' referring to the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:26, but Dr. Hovind and others show clearly the KJV translators were absolutely right and correct in their translation!

It is certainly an astonishing thing to me that 2 years of Greek in a Seminary can enable preachers today to stand in a pulpit and ridicule the King James Bible and its translators by claiming they made a POOR CHOICE and MISTAKE in translating a certain word and these so called EXPERTS today can CORRECT the King James Bible.  Do we realize that these KJV translators were some the greatest linguistic scholars the world has ever known?  Not to mention the fact God might have just been aiding them in their work as He promised to preserve His Words for us today?

What about the italicized words in the KJV?

The King James translators added certain words to the text of the King James Bible as they translated from Greek and Hebrew to English so the translation was not choppy.  They were men of integrity and put the added words in ITALICS so people could know they were added by the translator to make the transition from one language to another smoothly.  Any involved with translating from one language to another knows the process could leave a choppy translation at times. I personally believe that if God was overseeing the process as He promised to do in PRESERVING His Scripture for us today, He must have approved of these words being added to the text as we switched from one language to another.  I conclude that God wanted those words added as these men translated from one language to another.

Did the KJV translators claim to be inspired?

No, in fact they went out of their way to say so.  However, that doesn't mean that God could not have used these men to preserve His Word for us today, whether they realized it or not.

Aren't today's scholars better equipped to translate?

I am convinced that these men God prepared to translate the KJV were the greatest linguistic scholars the world has ever known. With all due respect, I am now convinced that even the best of translators today can't hold a candle to these men in 1611.  I come to this conclusion after reading the works listed below by Alexander McClure and Gustavius Paine who wrote about these KJV translators. We must remember they didn't have the distractions we have today.  They were not distracted by television, the Internet, and sports and hobbies to the extent our culture is today.  Their life was to study.  In works like THE MEN BEHIND THE kJV by Gustavius Paine and TRANSLATORS REVIVED by Alexander McClure, these biographers note as Samuel Gipp states, "The men on the translation committee of the KJV were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook.  They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives.  Among their company were men who, academically, took a month's vacation and used the time to learn and master an entirely foreign language;  wrote a Persian Dictionary;  invented  a specialized mathematical ruler;  one was an architect; mastered oriental languages; publicly debated in Greek;  tutored Queen Elizabeth in Greek and mathematics; and of one it was said, "Hebrew he had at his fingers end."
When John Bois was only 5 years old, his father taught him to READ Hebrew.  By the time he was 6, he could not only WRITE the same, but in a fair and elegant character.  At age 15, he was already a student at St. John's College, Cambridge, where was renowned for corresponding with his superiors in GREEK.  
Name the 20th Century scholars who could shine the shoes of John Bois.  Or what of Lancelot Andrews, chairman of the New Testament committee at Westminster, who was conversant in 15 languages?  It was said of Miles Smith that he was a VERY WALKING LIBRARY.  For an attitude that was, COVETOUS OF NOTHING BUT BOOKS, his was the privilege of writing the new Bible's preface.  George Abbot entered Oxford at 14 years of age and later became the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Andrew Downes was described by Milton as the CHIEF OF LEARNED MEN IN ENGLAND.  The literary accomplishments of Thomas Ravis at Oxford were representative of the translators as a whole:  Bachelor of Arts, 1578;  Master of Arts, 1581;  Bachelor of Divinity, 1589;  Doctor of Divinity, 1595.  
Having become a fellow at Corpus Christi College at age 17, Dr. John Rainolds was known as a LIVING LIBRARY, A THIRD UNIVERSITY;  Anthony Wood saying of him that he was MOST PRODIGIOUSLY SEEN IN ALL KINDS OF LEARNING;  MOST EXCELLENT IN ALL TONGUES," as well as A PRODIGY IN READING, FAMOUS IN DOCTRINE, AND THE VERY TREASURE OF ERUDITION."
Can any scholar today, no matter how well-intentioned, COMPARE to these scholars?


Who were Westcott and Hort?

They were two esteemed Cambridge Scholars who worked on making a new version of the Bible in the 1870's to replace the KJV. They felt that the discoveries of 2 manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, was the key to restoring the true text of the Bible which must have been missing for some 1500 years!  They chose the readings of these 2 ancient Alexandrian Mss. over the KJV readings and the Textus Receptus behind it practically every time there was a conflict, in fact they made 8,413 changes to the traditional Greek text behind the KJV!  Their Westcott-Hort Text behind all the newer versions in the 1900's when it was revised again as the Nestle-Aland Text or UBS (United Bible Society) text. Westcott and Hort, according to several different biographers and documented evidence, were very liberal in their theology and socialist in their political views. Dr. Waite documents in his book WESTCOTT-HORT DENY THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST clear evidence to that point.  Their liberal theology on many crucial points of doctrine leaves one with no other conclusion that these men were not even saved!  Historical documentation testifies they were both involved in the occult at the same time they working on their new Bible version text.  They were members of the 'Ghostly Guild' which later became known as the infamous Society for Psychic Research.  

Can one find the Fundamental doctrines in the newer versions?

Yes, but you've got to look much harder, because many of the clearest verses referring to most of these essential Bible doctrines have been either altered or removed in the newer versions.  But perhaps worse than that, many verses have been changed to actually cast doubt on fundamental doctrines, or teach just the opposite!  For example, the NIV teaches in 2 Timothy 2:12 that salvation can be lost when it clearly says God can DISOWN His Children.  That is a lie.  We could on and on giving such examples in the newer versions which make it much more difficult for the new Christian to understand essential Christian doctrines.  One thing for sure, the Newer versions are much easier to MISUNDERSTAND doctrinally!  Are we saved by an act of faith (KJV) OR by being FAITHFUL as Galatians 5:22 has been changed to read in the NKJV?  Are we saved by a one-time act of believing (KJV) OR by 'CONTINUING' to believe as the NKJV changes 1 John 5:13 to read?

Many Christian Scholars today claim that no fundamental doctrine is affected in newer versions.  Is this true?

It amazes me....how good Christian men and women can continue to make this claim if they have studied the matter any at all!  Look at the examples we have mentioned so far, but also consider how the strongest verses supporting Christ's deity in 1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:18 and Phil. 2:6 and others have been changed!  Consider how the strongest verse teaching the trinity has been completely removed in 1 John 5:7.  Consider how doubt has been cast on the validity of the last 12 verses of Mark 16 in the footnotes of most new Bibles. This passage is one of the clearest teaching that water baptism is not essential to salvation.  Yet, the newer versions cast doubt on the validity of these verses when 618 of 620 Manuscript witnesses contain them!  Truly amazing.  Only two did not contain them...Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  The clearest verse refuting infant baptism is completely missing in the NIV in Acts 8:37, yet the editors have the audacity to keep the same verse numbering....just no verse 37!  One of the clearest verses teaching that our redemption is through Christ's blood, yet Colossians 1:14 removes the words 'THROUGH HIS BLOOD'. We could go on with hundreds of examples.  

Why weren't all references to Christ's Deity, and other essential doctrines, removed.....if that was truly the devil's intent?  

The devil knew Christians would not fall for that.  The Jehovah's Witnesses tried just that in their New World Translation and the Christians saw what they were doing and rejected it.  I believe the devil's tactic was more subtle.  If he could remove or alter the clearest verses on essential doctrines, wouldn’t that make it more difficult for new Christians to get grounded in the Christian faith?
What do you think?

Is the devil behind the proliferation of new Bible Versions?

Well, with about one new one every 6 months, what do you think, considering what we have shown you so far?

Has the proliferation of Bible versions affected verse memorization?

You bet.  It is more difficult for Sunday School classes to teach the kids verses to memorize when every student has a different Bible version in his lap that reads differently from the person next to him!
Gail Riplinger correctly notes in her book, WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? ..."With the introduction of the new versions, memorization seem to have moved right out the door."

Must we be a textual scholar in Greek to understand the Bible?

Absolutely not.  The Bible is God's Word and can be understand by a little child.  As someone said, "God is not in the business of deceiving housewives, farmers, and factory workers who do not have access to a library of Greek Reference works."  I believe in many cases, people who have taken a course in Greek in Seminary have been hurt more than helped. I am not against education, but one must beware of Seminary Education today.  'Scholar' is mentioned twice in Scripture, and both references are in a bad connotation!  In Malachi, Scripture says 'Scholars have caused my people to stumble"! I believe with all my heart that we have Junior boys in our Sunday school right now who have a better grasp on the overall teaching of the Bible than some seminary graduates! They go to seminary and get ruined by liberal theology and many apostate professors who deny fundamentals of the Word of God! 'I'm not against education, but I believe most seminaries in the United States today do more harm than good.  There are still some good ones, but most good ones are affiliated with a good, solid local church.

What about the nuggets found only in the Greek?

There are many examples where it is a joy to look at the Greek word behind the English word used in the KJV to see the color and meaning of the word the English language might not display.  However, I am afraid too many preachers and Christians expand upon the Greek to impress others of their knowledge and to find fault with the KJV.

Does a Seminary education help one understand the version issue?

I believe that question was answered above.  In most cases, a seminary education today hurts and confuses young men today, and in many cases, destroys their faith. Get an education in a good college affiliated with a good local church.  I received my Bible education foundation by attending a good Bible-based church for all my life, and sat beneath a great preacher, learning from the 3 sermons each week.  My college days at Purdue University Pharmacy School taught me how to study, and my Pastor, Harold Head, taught me how to study the Bible.  My best advice for a young man would be to either attend a good seminary affiliated with a good local church, OR just attend a good church and learn from that pastor, and get your training on the job, so to speak, as you serve in that good local church.  It worked for me.  As Gail Riplinger said, I too believe that the church is dying by 'Degrees', with men going to seminary before they've been to the altar, and many getting their faith ruined while they are at seminary!  It is said when a preacher takes two years of Greek and thinks he can correct the KJV Bible now!  Sad.  The only mention of scholar in the bible has bad connotations.  In Malachi, the 'scholars' led the people astray.   Sometimes, the wrong type of 'scholarship' can lead us all astray!
She notes that the only mention of D.D. in the Bible is in Isaiah 56:10 where it reads, "Dumb Dogs, they cannot bark".  Just make sure we don't let our seminary education ruin us. I say this all due respect, but most people I have met with a 'seminary' degree, are woefully ignorant of Scripture Truth and are about as confused as a termite in a yo-yo....Imagine these poor men trying to teach others? Most of them have an ego bigger than their hat size, and are so puffed up with pride they strut around like a little banny rooster....They hopeless in this condition.......they can't be told a thing because they know it all already!

 One is reminded of a blind man trying to lead another blind man in a dark room.  Very sad.

What about Wycliffe Bible Translators and Bearing Precious Seed translators?

Wycliffe Bible Translators sadly uses the wrong text, the altered Egyptian text behind the newer Bible versions, and they use the faulty method of DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE or 'paraphasing'.  They push the newer versions.

Bearing Precious Seed from Milford, Ohio, on the other hand uses the correct text of the kJV translates into other languages word for word.
We support them financially at our local church as a missionary cause.

DO WE NEED A PERFECT BIBLE IN EVERY LANGUAGE?

No.  God has always given His Word to one people in one language to do one job throughout history......get the gospel out to convert the world.  The word of God today is intact in the English language and preserved in the KKJ.  Good faithful translating work into the some 2000 language groups on earth with no Bible should be done based upon the KJV and does not necessarily God's preservation oversight in the same way the KJV did when it was formed, but I believe God is very much involved in helping these good sincere people, such as at BEARING PRECIOUS SEED, do their translating work.

Do the Gideons print the KJV or newer versions too?

Sadly, the Gideons have fallen to the pressure to print the newer Bible versions. This is the reason we had to stop supporting and promoting the Gideons, who were doing a great work of putting the Bible in hotels, prisons, schools, etc.

Are Bible Codes a miraculous testimony to the Bible?

No I believe not.  Research says they are unreliable and just about anything can be read into these mysterious 'codes' that you want to be read.....  God is not the author of confusion.  What that God wants us to understand He has made clear in the Bible.  

Is it true that the KJV is the only Bible version that does not have a copyright?

Yes.  All newer Bible versions have a copyright, and copyright law states a certain amount of the text or notes or footnotes must be changed in order to get another copyright...in order to make a profit.

Aren't KJV-only people worshipping a book?

No, just loving God's precious preserved Word He has given to us!

Are KJV-Only people, as they have been 'labeled' divisive and some even hateful?

Sadly, some in our KJV group do not follow the Bible admonition of Ephesians 4:15 which says we should always speak the truth IN LOVE.
It is always proper to be KIND.  Some on both sides are not.

Just because people want to take a stand on the Bible version issue does not mean they are divisive.  Division always results when people leave a position they once held.  Division is never caused by correct doctrine, but always caused when false doctrine enters.

However, I have witnessed some of the most vitriolic diatribes made against people who hold to the King James Bible as the Word of God by people on the side of the newer Bible versions that is almost unbelievable!

Should we make an issue out of the Bible Translation issue?

After what you've read, don't you think so?  We should always make a stand for right, no matter what the cost. Be kind, but stand for the Truth!  Be prepared though for face the wrath of those who oppose the KJV Only view.  I have heard situations where some KJV only people are not proper in their attitude and manners, but those who oppose the KJV Only position are just as bad or worse in many cases.  As I have studied this issue for the past 10 years and read hundreds of books on the subject, it astounds me how arrogant and slanderous some of those who oppose the KJV Only view have been.  You will be belittled as an ignorant, second class citizen if you take a stand for the KJV by the Religious elite crowd today!