King James Version Document


The following article originally appeared at the URL

Please note I am not in agreement with this author's anti-Critical Texts, anti-Alexandrian manuscripts view.

Additionally, the author of the following essay confuses "higher learning" (meaning higher textual criticism) with lower textual criticism. Lower textual criticism was used not only in the making of the KJV but also in Bible versions that are based partially on codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The quotations of the Church Fathers that the author cites in support for the longer ending of Mark are not conclusive; there is no absolute proof that the Fathers were quoting from manuscripts containing such passages.

I thoroughly reject the author's contention that "99 percent of all professing Christianity believes that the sinner's soul is saved when the 'Baptismal Waters' are applied," since the Bible does not teach this, and hence, most Christians would not believe it. The Bible states that we are saved by the grace of God by faith alone in Jesus, not by being baptized.

As for the author's comment that "the Received Text remains the same" this is blantantly untrue. There is no single one "Received Text," and various editions of it came out through the centuries, with differences among them.


Several years ago, after teaching in a Bible Conference with several other "Grace" preachers, I was accosted by a young lady who wasted no time labeling me as a "false teacher" and claimed that I was a wolf in sheep's clothing and claimed in no uncertain terms that I did not believe the Word of God.

She vehemently denounced me as an unbeliever and inferred (well actually it was an outright prognostication) that I was lost and headed for hell. (I tried to verbally agree with her that if I got what I deserved I most surely would go to Hell, but I could not get a word into the conversation/lecture).

She was so boisterous and loud in her denunciation that I was, for a moment, left speechless! (Imagine that! But truthfully, I was embarrassed for the Gospel's sake, for there was an unconverted couple witnessing this ruckus). I did not know what particular part or point of my theology had agitated her so greatly so as to produce such a vivid display of acrimony.

At first I was sure she was attacking me for my unorthodox, hyper, ultra, heretical views on dispensational theology (I am used to that now and am not ruffled very easily over that matter anymore).

The young lady continued on in her vituperation and denouncements and informed my hearers that I had revealed my "true colors" and continued to restate her case that I most certainly did not believe the Word of God. I finally butted in and was quick to affirm to her that I most certainly did believe the Bible to be the very inspired word of God. "No, you do not, nor possibly could, for I heard you make reference that you teach from a copy of The New Scofield Reference Bible, and not the 1611 edition of the King James Version."

Finally, when she took another breath, I interrupted (kindly, I would like to think) and tried to explain to her that my New Scofield Reference Bible was the basic King James text which had been edited and updated, (according to my understanding) to better communicate the same old grand truths within the context of the language in which we actually communicate with each other in this century.

I thought this was a reasonable thing to do because there is an abundance of archaic phraseology which was commonly used in the English Language, five centuries ago, but they no longer convey the same meaning now as it did then. In fact some of the words like "let" and "letteth" which means "allow" actually meant to hinder in Shakespearean times. This made no impact on my critic.

She again started in and said that my New Scofield Reference Bible was of the Devil, because IT HAD BEEN EDITED TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL 1611 KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE. Before I could get one word in, she dogmatically stated that any English Bible which is not the 1611 Edition of the KJV, is of the Devil.

Finally, when her wrath was vented and she slowed down (not much, mind you, but enough so that I could share some impute into the conversation.
Now, at this point I want to make an honest declaration. I am not a very smart man. I had a learning disability in my youth which I never outgrew.

As a result of knowing my limitations and lack of genuine scholarship I felt/feel totally inadequate to deal with these matters with men I honestly believe to be in the genius category.

I shared this trepidation with the young lady, and then related some rather common facts that I had learned through my reading. I proceeded to share with her some important historical facts which I thought would be helpful to help settle some of the dust of our present "confrontation".

There was another reason I wanted to bend over backwards in being "gracious". We "Grace" people, too many times really fall down on the job of walking grace as well as we are talking grace. Besides this, I have heard of this conflict between good brethren who love the Lord, and I must admit, I must be really dumb, because I just to not understand the data which drove some people (like the young lady who stayed on my case like Grant did Richmond!

I then (praying for calmness) shared with that beautiful lady that neither one of us owned a copy of the 1611 Edition of the King James Version, and that, according to her theory, we both had a "Devil's Bible". She, still fuming and huffing, quieted down, and listened to me as I explained the following historical facts.

In 1604, King James V1 of Scotland became King James 1 of England, and subsequently, the Head of the Church of England (Anglican). He, in an attempt to be a "peace-keeper" between various religious factions, commissioned 54 Biblical language scholars to produce an English translation of the Bible which could be read by the common people.

That edition of the Bible was called the Authorized Version of the Bible (i.e. authorized by the Church of England, better known in the USA as the
Episcopal Church).


But that was, by no means, the end of the story of the beloved KJV. In the year 1629, (eighteen years after the original 1611 KJV) the Authorized Version (for various reasons) went through yet another revised edition.

One of the reasons for that, was because it was realized that many minor language changes were necessary to more accurately represent the meaning of the manuscripts they used as a basis for their translation. But that STILL does not end the story! This same process was repeated in 1638 and finally in 1762.


Between the 1611 edition and the 1762 edition of the Kings James Version (a difference of 151 years) there were thousands of changes and editions made, and I, for one, thank God for those changes!

When I was in Graduate School, one of my professors allowed me to borrow a reproduction of the book of Romans which had been copied from a 1611 edition of the A.V.. To my shock, I had a great deal of trouble reading it.

I explained these matters to the "ruffled" young woman that she actually held in her hands was a 1762 edition of the King James Version of the Bible (which had been updated, edited, and revised, on at least four different occasions since the publication of the 1611 edition), NOT THE 1611 EDITION AS SHE ERRONEOUSLY SUPPOSED.

So, her hard and fast judgment against me for not using "God?s only Bible", the 1611 KJV, applied equally to her.


There is abundant confusion concerning the seeming unending stream of various translations of the Holy Scripture (most of which I find offensive), within the Christian community. That is a fact which cannot be denied.

I really hate to be general in my comments about a group, mainly because I know that what one particular person in a group believes, does not mean that everyone in that group believes the same thing. I said that in order to say this.

I talked to a man who believes that the KJV English Version of the Bible is the Inspired Version of the Bible and is inerrant. He explained to me that the infallibility of the 1611 edition of the KJV is the only Bible God recognizes in this day.

He even said that it is wrong to go back even to the Received Text and clarify some points of doctrine, because the Received Text, (once it was used to produce the KJV), lost it's effectiveness in God's sight (as hard as I have tried, I still do not understand how this amazing phenomena transpired).

Some, we have recently heard, actually claim that the italicized words in the KJV are inspired of God, IN SPITE OF the collective word from those 54 scholars that those words were supplied by them (in italics so the reader would know that those words were added by them to help "clarity" (to their way of thinking) to the text. These are their words, not mine.


"Let's go out the back door."

"Hey, they don't got no back door."

"Well, where do you suppose they want a back door!"

Most everyone recognizes those lines from Country comedian Wendy Bagwell, described the time he (allegedly) visited a "Snake Handling Church". For many people it has always has been easier to laugh at that practice than attempt to explain it.

Most Christians know that the practice of "snake handling" is supported from the last verses of Mark chapter sixteen.

Part of those most "troublesome" (to me) verses read this way.

"And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; "they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God? And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen." MARK 16:17

Quite frankly, I am sure that most of us have had our "bouts" with this difficult passage and scratched our heads concerning it.

What is really embarrassing for a young believer is to have those verses shoved under their noses, and hear something like this. "O.K. If you really believe the Bible to be true and literal, then let me see you go out a get a barrel of snakes and "Have at it".

I know, because that is exactly what happened to me just weeks after my conversion. I honestly wished, at that time, that those verses were not in the Bible.

Knowing as little about the Bible as I did, I knew that this sort of thing did not "fit" my world, saved or not! (In a sense I am like my grandmother and my wife in that I am only afraid of two kinds of snakes- live ones, and dead ones!)

It was not long before I got a Study Bible, and guess what? It explained away those verses as easy as pie. It is widely claimed that those last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark were bogus, i.e. were added, many years later to the original Bible.

I checked around with other Bibles, and sure enough, as far as I checked, I got the same answer---THOSE VERSES WERE ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, somewhere in the third-fourth Century AD. The note in the New Scofield Reference Bible is typical, but is, we believe, far more objective to both sides of the controversy than the average viewpoint.

"Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; others have them with partial omissions and variations. But the passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century." New Scofield Reference Bible, Mark 16:9

Wow! It seemed as if my wish came true. (i.e. the wish that those verses "were not really there"). Consequently, I noticed that every time this "question" came up, most every fundamental pastor, smoothly whipped out the standard answer for this "Bible Believers Dilemma". "Oh. You see, we do not have to be concerned about those verses, because those verses were added to the otherwise reliable manuscripts. That, we are told, is why we do not really count them as being part of the real Bible."

While this so called "answer" thrilled me at first, it soon began to vex and gnaw at me, even though I could not actually figure out what it was that was bothering me.

I bounced this issue about for months and finally it hit me. What was SO wrong was not a matter of "higher learning" at all. It was a matter of common sense and simple LOGIC. The idea that someone would add those verses was illogical and irrational to me. I could clearly understand the temptation to REMOVE THOSE "TROUBLESOME" verses, but I could not imagine or ever understand why, a couple of centuries later, ANYBODY would have the audacity or desire to add such "obvious absurdities" to the Word of God ESPECIALLY when there was no current, verifiable evidence of such phenomenon being witnessed in any Christian groups.

Such a "theory", I thought, is beyond ludicrous- it is vintage absurdity! That was when I was convinced that the Received Text, even though it was not the oldest of the manuscripts, was the more reliable one.

The bulk of the following information comes from some of the material I found in the "notes" section of the Companion Bible. Whenever one gets into a discussion concerning this controversy , the first thing which is brought up is the matter of Manuscript Authority.

So here is a little background. First, each student should be advised that there are THREE major manuscript families (plus almost 3,000 partial anuscripts).

The two latest manuscript discoveries, Vaticanius, and the Sinaitcus, are popularly thought to be "SUPERIOR" manuscripts for they are the earlier Manuscripts, which are often carelessly referred to as the "better" Manuscripts, simply because they are dated earlier.

There is also the TEXTUS-RECEPTUS, or the Received Text and it is the version which the more conservative translations have used. The King James Version, or as is most commonly known, the "Authorized Version", is the one which contains the disputed text of Mark 16.

Only in those two LATEST
Manuscripts, i.e. the Vaticanius, and the Sinaitcus, are the MISSING verses in question found. Of all the others (consisting of some eighteen uncials and some SIX HUNDRED CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS which contain the Gospel of Mark), THERE IS NOT ONE MANUSCRIPT WHICH LEAVES OUT THESE LAST TWELVE VERSES."

We adamantly affirm that those last verses of Mark are genuine and cast our lot with the Received Text.
Apart from the Manuscripts, there is heavy evidence from the early VERSIONS of the Bible which treat the questioned verses as being part of the original Scripture.

Of all the Versions, the Syriac, and the Curetonian Syriac are the oldest. These two versions are older than any Greek Manuscripts in existence, and BOTH CONTAIN THESE DISPUTED TWELVE VERSES OF MARK. In the Latin Versions, we come to the fruits of Jerome's works (AD 382).

JEROME HAD ACCESS TO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OLDER THAN ANY NOW EXISTING, and they include THESE TWELVE "disputed" VERSES. But, according to our sources, this version, popularly known as the VULGATE, was but a revision of the Vetus Itala, which is believed to belong to the second century, and IT CONTAINS THESE DISPUTED TWELVE VERSES.

The Gothic Version (AD 350) also contains them. So, it is obvious, when all the manuscripts are compared, that the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are two manuscripts which have been "adjusted" by pulling out unnecessary" "embarrassing" verses, the Received Text is the one which contains and retains the purity of the revelation which God has given to His people.


Whatever one's attitude of the Church Father's "contribution" or lack thereof, is not the issue at this point. Frankly, as we have expressed elsewhere, we are not impressed with the writings of the Church Fathers (yes, we have read them all thank you and they will starve any seeking heart which attempts to feed on most of those lost souls).

But from the prospective we now approach them, not to , (i.e. the verses they quote) rather than what they thought about those particular verses, they prove to be a valuable contribution concerning the "high" controversy" about the "last twelve verses of MARK."

The fact is (as the Scofield note we quoted above) that many of the Early "church fathers" quoted these last twelve verses, some going back to the first century.

This brings us to a logical question; If the "church fathers" quoted these disputed 12 verses, back in the first century, but they were not added to the Bible till the fourth century (as the liberals would have it), HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE.

Now, here is a list of several of the writers, who quoted from those twelve verses. PAPIAS (about AD 100) refers to verse 18 (as stated by Eusebius). JUSTIN MARTYR (AD 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. C.45). IRENAEUS, (AD 180) quotes and remarks on v.19.

There is a great summarization of all this information is in the 168th Appendix, in the back of the Companion Bible, from where most all this information is found, (plus) much more. This information, all considered together, presents the unmistakable case that these twelve verses are not really disputed at all.

They were never "added to" the Bible, but rather, they were "taken out" of some Bibles, by scribes who did not witness the phenomena which was described in the text, in their day.
We here offer the summary given on these verses, AND THEIR IMPORTANCE, as they are summarized in the COMPANION BIBLE.

"We should like to add our own judgment as to the root cause of the doubts which have gathered round these verses. They contain the promise of the Lord, of which we read the fulfillment in Heb.2:4.

The testimony of "them that signs and wonders, and diverse miracles, and gifts of PNEUMA HAGGIS (i.e. spiritual gifts), according to His own will." The Acts of the Apostles records the fulfillment of the Lord?s promise in Mark 16:17,18; and in the last chapter we find a culminating exhibition of "the Lord's working with them" (v. 3,5,8,9).

But, already, in 1 Cor. 13:8-13, it was revealed that a time was then approaching when all these spiritual gifts should be "done away", That time coincided with the close of that dispensation by the destruction of Jerusalem; when they that heard the Lord could no longer add their confirmation to the Lord's teaching, and there was nothing for God to bear witness to.

For nearly a hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem there is a complete blank in Ecclesiastical history, and a complete silence of Christian speakers and writers. So far from the Churches of the present day being the continuation of Apostolic times "organized religion", as we see it today, was the work of a subsequent and quite an independent generation.

When later transcribers of the Greek manuscripts came to the last twelve verses of Mark, and saw no trace of such spiritual gifts in existence, they concluded that there must be something doubtful about the genuineness of these verses.

Hence, some may have marked them as doubtful, some as spurious, while other omitted them altogether.

A phenomenon of quite an OPPOSITE kind is witnesses in this present day. Some (believers in the twelve verses), earnest in their desire to serve the Lord, but not ".....rightly dividing the Word of Truth" as to the dispensations, look around, and, not seeing these spiritual gifts in operation, determine to have them (!) and are led into all sorts of more than doubtful means in their desire to obtain them.

The resulting "confusion" shows that God is "not the author " of such a movement." The Companion Bible, Appendix 168, pg.190

It is clear from the historical evidence, and the information available to the field of Textual Science that those verses were REMOVED from the text quite early because they were most certainly absent from the historical scene.

Because of a failure to recognize the dispensational change in God?s dealings with mankind by raising up the Apostle Paul, and in so doing instituted "the dispensation of the Grace of God" (Eph.3:1), those well meaning (we are sure) scribes ELIMINATED those versed so that they would better "fit" into this present dispensation.

Although that is not my sentiment now, I must admit that was my view in my infancy in the Lord. Thus all the confusion concerning this controversy is a failure to recognize the clear Biblical revelation of the Revelation of the Mystery revealed to and through the Apostle Paul, i.e. a failure to "rightly divide" the Word of Truth.

Besides the "snake handling" controversy contained within these verses, there is also some of the strongest fuel which supports the notion that water Baptism is essential to salvation for believers of this present age. Mark 16:15 -17

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;...."

When one considers that 99 percent of all professing Christianity believes that the sinners soul is saved when the "Baptismal Waters" are applied (either by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring), it is not difficult to understand just how and why these verses are interpreted as they are.

They are taken at face value (which, indeed, they should be) and, for the most part, are understood to teach the heresy, i.e., according to all responsible Evangelicals that Baptismal Regeneration is a fact of this present dispensation (i.e. being born again) through the means of Water Baptism!

That's right, heresy, for that belief is a result of not understanding the glory of the "One Baptism" (Eph.4:5) which is declared to be the only baptism for this present age i.e. the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." This is the baptism of which Paul spoke to the Body of Christ.

It is that Baptism that "saves" us (Gal. 3:27), identifies us with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Rom 6,?

It is that Baptism in which we "put on Christ" Gal. 3. In Col. 3, Paul, tells us we have all (men and women believers in Christ) been circumcised and Baptized. Simple knowledge of the physiology of the human body is enough to convey that the circumcision mentioned here is NOT a physical circumcision for it was/is to the women and men who make up the Body of Christ.

The text is very clear; this Circumcision was performed "without hands" i.e. it is a spiritual circumcision, just as we were Baptized by the Spirit "without hands" i.e. a spiritual Baptism."

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead...". Col. 3:10ff
All that we have said is spoken from a sincere, and concerned heart to strengthen the Lord's people in the firm conviction that we do indeed have the very precious word of God within our reach, just as God haspromised.

He not only gave His Word, but He has also promised that He would preserve His word.

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Isa.59:60


1.THE KJV 1611 EDITION CONTAINS THE APOCRYPHA- A while back I had a financial windfall ($35.00) and decided to buy a reproduction of an actual 1611 version of the Bible. When I read through it, and thumbed my way around in it, I was reminded of something quite profound, something I had known, but somehow had forgotten.

Contained in the 1611 edition of the AV there are some extra books that are not found in the present day KJV editions. The books to which I refer are the books known most intimately by Roman Catholic scholars as the Apocrypha.

Often, many Protestants are charged with "taking" this section of the Bible out of their Bibles. The fact of History is that these books were not "taken out" of the Bible by Protestant leaders, but were rather ADDED to the Bible by the Church of Rome. This move was decided by the Council of Trent (which lasted, for twenty five years) in the 1500's.

What is so amazing to me is that the young lady who thought I was going to Hell because of the Reference Bible I use (and the camp from which she hails) does not insist on having the Apocrypha in their Bibles if that is indeed "God's only Bible" for today.

Now honestly I am not trying to be cantankerous or be a pain to my brethern. I just do not get it. If there is a battle cry that communicates that the only acceptable Bible is the 1611 KJV, then why is there not a demand for those Apocryphal books to be included in it, SINCE THEY APPEARED IN THE 1611 EDITION?

I just would love to have an explanation for this question, for as said before, I do not want to antagonize anyone I would like one of you dear brothers, or sisters to answer this, and the following questions.

That is a living reality in my own soul. This is clearly stated many times in the Word. Note such a reference.

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, says the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, says the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Isaiah 59:21

From the depths of my soul I do believe that God has not left His people without a witness to His will and ways. Not one generation can complain can make a claim of being without the testimony of God.

Therefore, it SEEMS TO ME, that if we were to "take a stand" on an English Version of the Bible, like the KJV, then that irrevocably states that until that particular version was completed, God had failed to preserve His word for all those preceding years.

That means (as far as my pea sized brain can relate) that in 1604, when King James first commissioned those 53 scholars to translate the Bible God had NO testimony of His word. Now, do not let that awesome fact be argued away and frivolously dismissed. I believe that is exactly the conclusion one would have to adopt if the argument for KJV infallibility is accepted.

Will I argue for the impeccability of the Received Text. Yes. But will I argue for the infallibility of the KJV, (which those very men gave it two MAJOR editions) NO, (not yet anyway) not until I discover some new data which would compel me to be persuaded of that view.

But the blessed fact remains, God HAS preserved, in the Received Text, i.e. His word which we still have today. While our English language has, and continues to change so drastically through the past five hundred years, the Received Text remains the same.

I do not mean to sound like I am addicted to trivialities and so fastidious that I am hung up on details, but here goes. When we read the descriptions of the various pieces of furniture in the Tabernacle and read about the "Candlestick", in the Revelation, something ought to tell us that there is something wrong.

It is true that the ancient Egyptians used candles as early as 3000 BC, but there is no record that the Israelites ever used candles. In every instance in the OT, and the NT it should be translated "Lamp Stand". By translating the "Lampstand" as "Candlestick", provides that translation turns those particular passages with a classic anachronism.

It is like placing a grandfather clock on stage in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Now I do not think I am being rude and obstreperous in bringing this matter up. I would appreciate hearing from some one who can explain this.

4.THE Holy Spirit IS A PERSON, NOT AN "IT". - Here, I ask my disagreeing brethren to try and understand what I am saying, just as I am earnestly desiring to know what they are saying.

It seems to me that if we were to argue the case for infallibility for our English versions, (so it seems to me) we will be defending an indefensible, and illogical argument.

Take, for instance, the wording of Romans 8:16 "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" To argue that this verse is infallible, it could be used as an argument that the Holy Spirit is not Deity.

The Holy Spirit would be understood to be an IT instead of a Him. This is the same thing the Jehovah's Witnesses do in John 14, which eliminates the pronoun "HIM" and make it render "IT".

Would not any student of the Word be offended at any reference to Christ as an "it". So should we be just as passionate about the Holy Spirit's honor.

5.A prime example of the limitations of the Authorized Version is to remember that the editors who oversaw the project were all devout members of the Anglican Church, which had a strong, biased view concerning the word Baptism.

When King Henry the V111 broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, he carried over with him an almost identical view of infant Baptismal Regeneration whereby the soul of the Child is "saved" when the Baptismal waters are SPRINKLED on an infant.

When those Anglican scholars came to the Greek word BAPTISMA they were faced with a dilemma. Should they faithfully translate BAPTISMA? as "immersion" or "to dip", and contradict the teachings of the Anglican Church, or to simply side step the issue by simply transliterating the word (transliterate, meaning to reproduce the word into the language by rendering a phonetic duplication).

Well the sad fact of history is that they most certainly DID NOT TRANSLATE THE WORD.

Instead they masterfully side-stepped the controversial issue, by TRANSLITERATING the word and not translating it. That means that they did not translate baptisma, they merely phonetically reproduced it so that English readers could read it as BAPTISMA, which, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words means "to dip".

He says "......consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion. . . .was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another.... Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl.." Vine, pg.97?

Thus the bias, (and political pressure, from the State Church of Great Britain) which those 54 translating scholars experienced, caused them to avoid the faithful translation of this word meaning "to immerse", (which, they feared would have immediately associated them with the Anabaptists) they skirted the issue, even though the Greek manuscript (the Received Text) demanded and deserved a more faithful treatment than which those translators gave it. The only faithful translation was, "to immerse" or "to dip."

What those translators did was to avoid giving the word it's true translation, but rather to lend to it an ambiguous, and nebulous meaning so that anyone could read "their" perceptions into it. That is isogesis, reading meaning into the text, rather than exegesis which extracting meaning from the text.

The proper translation of the Greek (and Hebrew) is Lampstand, not Candlesticks! And the list of such instances goes on. Does this mean we do not have a perfect Bible?

No, not if we recognize that the perfection lies in the manuscripts from which the translation came. Some contest that once the translation was "effected" in 1611, the faithful manuscripts from which it was translated then became worthless. I God gave His word to His people, and preserved that revelation by His providential care for ALL GENERATIONS.

From the very beginning which is the foundation of good English (Spanish, French, Italian, Russian etc.) translation, not a denominational product of those words.

6. The KJV claims to be the Word of God.- The young lady I referred to in the beginning of this letter attempted to prove her point that the KJV actually claimed to be the Word of God.

She opened her Bible and read these words: " 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." 2 Tim 3:16.

In reading that verse to me, she looked like she had delivered the ultimate coup de grâce. I could hardly believe that she believed she had delivered the death blow to my claim of faith in the Word of God.

I simply opened my Bible, meeting her on her own ground and read 2 Timothy 3:16 our of my "touched up" version of the KJV and compared it to her "touched up KJV" but to no avail.

Please, dear brother, when you answer this letter I beg you to offer arguments that are worthy of soldiers of the cross to consider these matters.

Sadly, we have seen some (not all) people make the KJV the first and foremost concerns which becomes THE basis of fellowship.

It is considered (by some) as THE doctrinal matter, when they claim that the 1611 KJV is the only Bible God recognizes and blesses. If that is true then think about the implications of that statement- If true, it means that for 1600 years GOD DID NOT PRESERVE HIS WORD; it means that until the year 1611 God had left His people in the dark without a written witness like He promised.

If it indeed be defended as a point of doctrine, then it is an ADDED doctrine which did not exist for 1600 years. What is the difference between this and the addition of the apocrypha at the council of Trent?

When that addition was accepted, then it was found necessary for a new doctrine to be "created" to go along with it. That new doctrine proclaimed that anyone who did not believe the Apocrypha was to be damned.

Let us not back ourselves into a similar corner with an indefensible position. Let us, instead of claiming infallibility for the KJV (a position which its own translators made no such claim), have the grace to champion the Manuscript superiority of the Received Text which is the foundation from whence the KJV was born.

I do not have to remind anyone that I am not one of the highly educated servants of the Lord! I really do not need to get letters telling how stupid I am, and that I have a very low IQ- I already know all that! I have a brother that reminds me of that quite often.

I also know the above arguments above are not profound- but they are some of snags that keep me from embracing the view we have discussed.

Original article appeared at Rightly dividing the word of truth

HOME PAGE Lion of Judah Christian Apologetics