Links and Studies

Received Text vs. Critical Text

or
the King James Version
vs. the modern translations

Introduction: The reason for writing this paper

Before I give my reasons, let me define the Received Text (RT) as the Greek manuscript that the King James Version was translated from. The Received Text  is the New Testament which the church passed down from generation to generation.

In recent years there have been a lot of modern translations of the Bible. With the exception of the New King James Version (NKJV) the modern translations are based almost exclusively on a new Greek manuscript called the Critical Text (CT). The Critical Text is a Greek manuscript edited by Scholars who believe that the Received Text, From which we get the King James Version was a corrupt manuscript.

Are there any significant differences between these two manuscripts? Is it necessary to understand these differences before you chose a Bible version?

The reason I am writing this paper is because the answer is YES, there are very significant differences and it is essential that we Christians become informed on this issue. After all, if the Christians do not take responsibility for keeping our sacred manuscripts pure, who will?

Many Christians are completely ignorant that this debate is going on. Often a Christian will join a church and begin using their Bible without any other consideration. In discussions with other Christians the most common reason for picking a modern translation is to get rid of those hard to understand thee and thou’s of the King James Version (KJV).

If the Grammar of the KJV was the only issue though, we would not need this paper. I cannot think of the words necessary to stress the importance of this issue. However I am convinced that it is essential for the Church as a body to study and show themselves approved.

This Study is not an Attack on those who prefer the Critical Text.

While I will try to show that the Received Text is pure, I am not accusing scholars and church leaders who prefer the Critical Text of any conspiratorial motivation. However I will try to show that this movement to replace the Received Text is and has undermined the authority of the Word of God.

Attacks on the Word of God should not surprise us. They started before the epistles were finished being written. Peter notes:

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.”   
2nd Peter 3:15-17

While I am not accusing modern scholars of any malicious intent, for Christians to be ignorant of the conspiracy Peter warned of is to do so to our own harm.

Read this paper entirely before you make up your mind. I believe it is the shortest work to deal with the differences between the manuscripts, and yet be thorough. If you study to show yourself approved, you may be used of God as a guardian of His Word. The Word that He said would out last heaven and earth.

The two opposing schools of thought

First school: The Received Text is the Word of God.

As you have probably guessed this is my position.

The Word of God has been kept through the centuries. The Church always believed it had the inerrant Word of God. This Word is passed down to us in what are known as the Majority Text, called thus for obvious reasons.  In the 16th century Erasmus compiled a complete manuscript of the New Testament using the Majority Texts, today this manuscript is known as the Received Text or for the scholars reading this Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was the main manuscript used in the 17th century to translate the KJV. In a sentence, these scholars translating the King James Version used manuscripts the church had passed down through the ages as the New Testament.

Jesus said:

Matthew 5:18     “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Matthew 24:35   “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

As I will show in a moment, the proponents of the Critical Text do not believe their manuscript is inerrant. Nor do they agree with each other on what were the words of Jesus. If you understand the underlying issues, if you are consistent and if you believe the CT is the best manuscript, you must believe at least some of Jesus words have passed away.

The Bible warns us.

Deut 4:2             “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

Proverbs 30:5-6  “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

Rev 22:18-19      “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

In spite of all the warnings we all know that there has been tampering with some Bible manuscripts. However, what is the chaff to the wheat? Those who love the Word of God will take His warnings seriously. Those who believe the Scripture believe that any improvements to the Sacred Scripture are done to the scribes own destruction.

If you understand the issues and prefer the Critical Text you must believe that in spite of God’s warnings the church regularly (maybe thousands of times) changed the Word, either to improve its harmony, or make doctrine more clear, or for any other reason. To quote Dr. Bruce M. Metzger a Christian authority, scholar and one of the editors of the Critical Text. (I will give Dr. Metzger a more formal introduction in a moment.)

“Other divergences in wording arose from deliberate attempts to smooth out grammatical or stylistic harshness, or to eliminate real or imagined obscurities of meaning in the text. Sometimes a copyist would substitute or would add what seemed to him to be a more appropriate word or form, perhaps derived from a parallel passage (called harmonization or assimilation). Thus, during the years immediately following the composition of the several documents that eventually were collected to form the New Testament, hundreds if not thousands of variant read­ings arose. …

“The chief characteristic of Western readings is fondness for paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted. Sometimes the motive appears to have been harmonization, while at other times it was the enrichment of the narrative by the inclusion of traditional or apocryphal material. Some readings involve quite trivial alterations for which no special reason can be assigned. …” [Underlines are my emphasis]

How much kinder is Dr. Metzger than the apostle Peter who said: "Which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction". I myself tend to be more like Peter, I do not believe the 'true church' tried to improve on the scriptures.

Second school: The Critical Text is the most accurate manuscript.

Through the centuries, as Dr Metzger said, church scholars regularly and freely edited their manuscripts, therefore the Received Text has been slowly accumulating errors until it is an inferior manuscript. The oldest copy of the RT is fairly new dating only to the 16th century. (That is a complete New Testament, there are thousands of partial manuscripts and fragments that support the RT, some easily dating back to the early second century.)

The RT varies considerably with two ancient and nearly complete manuscripts dating to the mid 4th century. These ancient, and therefore more accurate manuscripts were discovered in the 1800’s. To be specific the codex Siniaticus was found in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai and the codex Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library (It had also been discovered once in the 15th century but was apparently returned to the shelf to be forgotten).

Both of these manuscripts originated in Alexandra Egypt, so obviously they are also called Alexandrian Manuscripts. Because of their age, the Alexandrian Manuscripts are regarded as the most accurate manuscripts to the majority of modern scholars including the translators of modern Bible versions.

With these ancient manuscripts as their major source of inspiration and using the art of textual criticism, (Dr. Metzger said: “textual criticism is an art as well as a science,”) scholars have been able to remove many of the errors and produce a manuscript that closely resembles the original autographs.

In concluding:

But in vain they do worship me, teaching  for doctrines the commandments of men.    Matthew 15:9 

If the Bible has errors it is no longer the final authority. If God cannot or did not keep the Bible from being tampered with, it is no longer a divine revelation. Who then should decide what is the word of God and what are the doctrines of men?

One concern with the modern translations is the problem of ownership

Before we look at the ancient manuscripts themselves, there is one problem with using modern translations that should be discussed. In using modern translations the church has turned over the guardianship of the Sacred Scriptures to big business. Is it not the church's responsibility to translate the Scriptures and spread the Gospel?

Here is my problem, when you buy a modern translation you are paying for a license to read the book, not quote from it. You may make partial quotes, however you may not quote an entire book without the publisher's prior written consent. 

Here are some examples of copyright permissions for different Bible versions.

After the Amplified Bible, The online New International Version  has the most restrictive copyright I have found, it also states that in using their version you agree that they can revoke their permission for you to quote from it at any time. If you do not believe me, you can read it at the IBS website.

The bottom line is this, if you are using one of these modern versions you are not free to go out and proclaim the whole Gospel. Knowing history, knowing the martyrs like William Tindale who were burned at the stake to give us a Bible in English, why is the church turning over the stewardship of God’s Word of to commercial publishers?

Lets look at the differences between manuscripts

There are about 3000 differences between the Received Text and the Critical Text

In order to decide if this is an important issue, lets look at some of the differences. To list all 3000 would be an overkill, so I have picked some of the differences that are most significant to me.

Here are 103 examples where the Received Text and Critical Text differ. The following verses are quoted from the King James Version (Received Text). Where the words (or their modern equivalent) are struck through like this they are missing from the Critical Text and as a result most modern translations. All these words are missing from the New International Version. I am comparing the KJV to the NIV because these two are the two most popular English versions available.

Matthew 5:44     But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 

Matthew 6:13    And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

Matthew 6:27    Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
[Changed to one hour of life.]

Matthew 9:13     But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
[See also Mark 2:17]

Matthew 16:3      And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

Matthew 17:21    Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Matthew 18:11     For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 19:9        And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Matthew 20:7     They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

Matthew 20:16    So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Matthew 20:22    But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

 

Matthew 23:14    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Matthew 25:13    Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. [Amillennialism?]

Matthew 27:35   And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Mark 1:31     And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.

Mark 6:11           And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mark 7:8       For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mark 7:16     If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 9:24     And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

Mark 10:21   Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Mark 10:24   And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 11:26    But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Mark 13:14         But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: [Jesus said: "let him that readeth understand" Is it possible he told the what to read?]

Mark 13:33   Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

Mark 15:28   And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
 

Mark 16:8           Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Most modern Bibles add the resurrection account in The Gospel of Mark though it is missing from both of the Alexandrian manuscripts. Yet, it must be a controversial issue for most translators. For instance the International Bible Society places these faith filled words after vs 8: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." 

Maybe some at The International Bible Society think The good news of Mark should have ended with these faith filled words: "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

Luke 2:33      And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.
[Replaced with the word father]

Luke 4:4        And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luke 4:8        And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 6:48      He is like a man which built a house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
[well built]

Luke 9:55-56      But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Luke 11:2      And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Luke 17:36    Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Luke 22:64    And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

Luke 23:42    And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

John 3:15      That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 5:3-4     In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 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.
[If you look at verse John 5:7, you will see that it has no meaning if you leave out verse 4]

John 6:47      Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
[What you believe is important]

John 7:53-8:11   [Again like Mark 16:9-20 the NIV prefaces this passage with the words "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." If this is so, why is this passage in their Bible?]

And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 17:12    While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Acts 7:37      This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Acts 8:37       And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [Again, what you believe is important]

Acts 9:5-6     And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Acts 10:6      He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Acts 15:18    Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Acts 23:9      And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

Acts 24:6-8   Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

Acts 28:29     And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Romans 1:16       For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
[See also Galatians 3:17 & 4:7 & 6:15]

Romans 1:29      Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Romans 8:1        There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 9:28     For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

Romans 10:15    And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Romans 11:6      And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 13:9       For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Romans 14:21     It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Romans 15:29      And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

Romans 16:24      The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 Corinthians 5:7     Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

1 Corinthians 6:20    For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1 Corinthians 7:39    The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 10:28   But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof:

1st Corinthians 15:47    The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 16:22      If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Galatians 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Galatians 6:15      For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Ephesians 3:9      And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Philippians 3:16     Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Colossians 1:14     In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 2:11     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:
[Replaced with "sinful nature"]

Colossians 3:6       For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

1 Thessalonians 1:1    Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:17      Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

1st Timothy 3:16    And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
[God is replaced with 'He']

1 Timothy 4:12    Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

1 Timothy 6:5     Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy 4:22   The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

Philemon 1:12     Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:

Hebrews 1:3       Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 2:7     Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Hebrews 7:21    (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek:)

Hebrews 10:34    For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

1 Peter 1:22     Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

1 Peter 4:1     Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

1 Peter 4:14    If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

1 Peter 5:11    To him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
[Replaced with "power"]

2 Peter 2:17    These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest: to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever.

1st John 4:3      And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

1 John 4:19    We love him, because he first loved us.

1st John 5:7       For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
[Verses 6 and 8 are different to some extent also.]

1 John 5:13   These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Jude 1:25      To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Revelation 2:13      I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Revelation 5:14      And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth forever and ever.

Revelation 8:13      And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
[Replaced with 'eagle']

Revelation 11:17    Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

Revelation 12:12   Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Revelation 14:5      And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Revelation 16:17    And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

Revelation 20:9      And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Revelation 21:24    And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it.

Revelation 22:14     Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
[replaced with the words "washed their robes"]

I have heard there are about 3000 differences. I listed about 103 passages. While some of the 3000 changes may seem trivial, yet, every single instance there is a significant difference in doctrine; it is the Received Text or King James Version that:

• Calls to repentance and holiness.

• Teaches the virgin birth.

• Teaches the lordship messiah-ship and preeminence of Jesus.

• Teaches the deity of Jesus Christ.

• Teaches that Jesus made an atonement for our sins with his blood.

• Teaches the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

• Warns of God’s judgment to come.

The above list was not an all inclusive list. I find new passages all the time. Also, some modern translations are far worse at leaving out verses or perverting their meaning:

I think we are given two choices:

1. Those who believe these doctrines would edit these changes into the Bible.
    

2. Those who do not believe these doctrines would remove the above passages out of their Bible.

I think Peter was clear, we edit the Bible to our own destruction.

Satan has always tried to corrupt the Word of God.

The first record of this is in Genesis chapter 3

Is the Bible the Word of God or the opinion of man?

If you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, than you must wonder why I am raving about this. However if the Bible is the Word of God, it gives guidelines on salvation and warnings to those who reject them.

• Did Matthew record Jesus calling sinners to repentance or didn’t he? Matthew 9:13

• In Mark 6:11, did Jesus warn it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who did not receive those very words?

• Did Mark teach in his Gospel that Jesus rose from the dead, or as some would suggest, was this resurrection account a fabrication, centuries later, of a superstitious church?

• Do men live by every word of God, or is this notion the false teaching of some zealous scribe? Luke 4:4

This is not a debate about different Bible translations

We certainly do not need another translation into English, even though that is where the money is. Rather, their are thousands of people groups that need a Bible in there own language, unfortunately most of these people do not have much money.

Still there are many problems in translating the Bible. Though Bible translations spread the gospel through the whole world, they are not without errors.

Let me quote the November 2007 Newsletter of the Baptist Bible Translator Institute. Director Rex Cob writes:

"Translation is not a quick task. In spite of modem technology, it is still going to take the very best years of his life, in theory, computers should speed up the process, but computers cannot heal sick babies, disciple baby Christians, build airstrips and church buildings, home school the children, and a hundred other things that demand the translator’s time.

"The translator must master the meaning of a bunch of strange sounds and put them in a usable alphabet. He must also crack the culture code and decipher the thinking of the people. Before he begins to translate Scripture, he practices on fairly easy materials such as folk stories, books about health or agriculture, and simple Bible stories. During this time he is training himself and his native translation helpers. He is also showing the people that their language can indeed be written.

"Now the work begins! Even though he has learned thousands of words, the translator hasn’t learned many Bible terms. Take Mark 1:4 for instance. How does he say “baptize’?” They don’t baptize people, and if they do, it is a pagan baptism. Can he use the pagan word? What about the word “preach?” The missionary knows the words for “talk,” and maybe “teach,” but not “preach.” And how can someone “preach baptism?” What is repentance? And what is “the remission of sins?” Before the translation session, the translator must study and find out for sure what every word means in his own language. Then he must exp lain these strange new concepts to the native helper, and together they decide how to say those things.

"The temptation is to explain instead of translate, thus producing a commentary instead of a translation—we must not do that. In Mark 1:5 the translator might need to clarify to the helper that the “land of Judea” did not really go anywhere; it was the people of the land that did. Verse six mentions the camel, and there may be no word for it if none live in the region. Should the translator transliterate a word from the trade language? Or should he say, “a big animal like a horse with humps?” Because he could not find a word for donkey, one missionary said that Jesus came into Jerusalem on a large animal with long ears. The only animal the people knew with long ears was a rabbit, and they envisioned Jesus riding on an enormous rabbit. That was the first Easter Bunny!

"And on it goes. Nearly every verse presents a challenge. It can be done, but it is never easy. The initial translation is time consuming, but the checking and editing takes even longer. The translator or the helper must read a passage to others who have no knowledge of the Bible and ask them what it means. If their understanding doesn’t match the Bible, then it’s back to the drawing board.

"We attempt to translate literally, but sometimes a very literal translation of a verse will be a bad translation because the translator has matched words, but not meanings. In English we say, “We are going to support a missionary.” If we translate literally into Spanish, using the equivalent word for support and say, “We are going to soportar a missionary,” we actually say we are going to “tolerate” or “put up with” him. Translation is moving words, along with the correct meaning, from one language to another. We moved words, but by being too literal we failed to translate."

Rex Cob was the problems of the good guys. We also know that some cult leaders have translated of the Bible to propagate the errors of their cult. It is also true that over time words change meaning and spelling, in addition, punctuation also changes. For these and other reasons there are going to be problems with any translation.

However, none of this has any bearing on God’s ability to keep and pass down his word through to the end of time. If I were an attorney, my statement of faith might be worded something like this; The Bible is inerrant in the Koine Greek, its original tongue, as passed down to us through time as the Majority Text.

But do not the Majority Texts also disagree with each other?

Again, this is not the problem. Suppose a manuscript had a misspelling or misplaced word or even a misplaced paragraph. These errors standout when compared to the rest of the majority of the manuscripts. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls show just how possible it is to keep the word of God intact.

The problem is that majority of manuscripts when compared to the Alexandrian manuscripts have significant differences in doctrine that cannot be attributed to spelling or the accidental mistakes of a lazy scribe.

A critical look at the Critical Text

Obvious question    

As I said earlier I am not accusing those scholars who prefer the Critical Text with being deliberately malicious. However, I have a serious question for those who push it on the Christian community. Do you  know there is obvious tampering with your Alexandrian manuscripts?

In the early 1900’s the theory of evolution got a big boost from the discovery of the Piltdown Man. I suppose hundreds if not thousands of students earned degrees in biology and anthropology writing papers on man's evolution using the Piltdown Man as their main exhibit. Unfortunately for evolutionists, in 1953 the Piltdown Man was exposed as an elaborate hoax. The reason the fraud lasted over 40 years was that very few people were able to see and study the actual bones.

The major source of inspiration of the Critical Text is two Alexandrian manuscripts: the codex Vaticanus and the codex Siniaticus. Since the Critical Text cannot be better than the manuscripts it comes from, it is important to examine the original documents also.

The following information is pretty much cut and paste from the website http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html  The underlined words and heading fonts are my emphasis.

There are other sources for information available if you are interested in pursuing the quality of the original manuscripts. One proponent on the internet said: "We know where the tampering is so it does not effect the codex  accuracy." Another scholar calls these edits, "Corrections". So are these changes 'tampering' or 'corrections'? Your opinion will decide what you will do with these verses. Yes, the final authority on God's Word becomes your opinion.

No doubt (like the Piltdown Man) if more students were able to see the actual documents, and the physical evidence of tampering, it would have a major effect on these Alexandrian manuscript’s credibility.

The methods used in editing the modern Critical Text

In 1831 Karl Lachmann tried applying the criteria that he used in editing other classics to removing all the errors in the New Testament. This was the first Critical Text. There have been many versions since.

In 1881 using the codex Vaticanus and codex Siniaticus B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort's came out with The New Testament in the Original Greek . Westcott and Hort called these Alexandrian manuscripts the Neutral text .

At this point my critics will probably expect me to attack the character of Westcott and Hort. However the purpose of this writing is not to attack anybody. If you want to study Westcott and Hort go to a pro-Westcott and Hort website. There you can find their own writings. Every quote will be in context. Then you can answer for yourself any questions of what they taught and believed.

At any rate, all modern translations except the New King James Version use Westcott and Hort’s New Testament as their basis, it may be assumed that most modern scholars consider it the most faithful in preserving the original autographs.

So starting with the Alexandrian manuscripts, what is the procedure used to create a modern critical text?

All the quotes in this section are in blue and come from the Introduction to A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971 by  Bruce M. Metzger. The underlined words are my emphasis. Dr. Metzger was on the committee that created the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. The purpose of his commentary was to be a companion to their Greek New Testament. Since he was on the committee Dr. Metzger would be qualified to describe the guidelines they used to edit their manuscripts. Click here to read his quotes in there original context.

What is the criteria used in editing?

According to Metzger, what are the criteria used to decide what is Sacred Scripture and what are the words of men?

“These considerations depend, it will be seen, upon probabilities, and sometimes the textual critic must weigh one set of probabilities against another”

If it is based on probabilities, who decides what is probable?

 “It is inevitable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence”

What he is saying is that there is not an agreement among scholars on what evidence is most significant. As I will show in a moment, they disagree on most of their conclusions as to what should be in the New Testament.

Were there any ‘rules’ to guide the committee as to what may be significant or not regarding the evidence?

“ The range and complexity of textual data are so great that no neatly arranged or mechanically contrived set of rules can be applied with mathematical precision.”

However there were guidelines, so let us look at some of them even if they were not used with precision.

The first guideline:
The more difficult reading is to be preferred.

“In general, the more difficult reading is to be preferred, particularly when the sense appears on the surface to be erroneous but on more mature consideration proves itself to be correct. (Here "more difficult" means "more difficult to the scribe," who would be tempted to make an emendation. The characteristic of most scribal emendations is their superficiality, often combining "the appearance of improvement with the absence of its reality." Obviously the category "more difficult reading" is relative, and sometimes a point is reached when a reading must be judged to be so difficult that it can have arisen only by accident in transcription.)”

What is a ‘more mature consideration’? How does one decide that it is mature enough to override this guideline? If  “the category ‘more difficult reading’ is relative” is true, how can you apply this guideline at all? Especially to the difficult passages.

The second guideline:
The shorter reading is to be preferred.

“In general the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where… The scribe may have omitted material which he deemed to be (i) superfluous, (ii) harsh, or (iii) contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or as ascetical practice.”

However, as we saw when we compared the differences, the Critical Text does omit material scribes “deemed to be (i) superfluous, (ii) harsh, or (iii) contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or as ascetical practice”. This single guideline - preferring the shorter text - is an arbitrary guideline. When I struggle with a memory verse I usually have troubles remembering a verse, not adding them. When I copy a paragraph I am more likely to leave out words than add them. If we are going to use such arbitrary guidelines I suggest that the longer passage would be more faithful to the original. This single guideline explains many of the missing passages from the Critical Text.

The third guideline:
The reading with verbal dissidence is to be preferred.

“Since scribes would frequently bring divergent passages into harmony with one another, in parallel passages (whether quotations from the Old Testament or different accounts in the Gospels of the same event or narrative) that reading which involves verbal dissidence is usually to be preferred to one which is verbally concordant.”

It seems highly unlikely that “scribes would frequently bring divergent passages into harmony” for several reasons, the main one being the verses in the Bible that curse those who do so. The only people who deliberately add or remove passages from the Word of God are those who have no fear of God and as Peter said, they are doing it to their own destruction.

If a supposedly inspired Apostle is unable to quote Scripture, why shouldn't young Christians doubt the Word of God? Is it also not a major assumption that later scribes would have had access to the documents they were quoting yet the Apostles didn't, or the apostles were not inspired enough to quote accurately? Imagine trying to write a letter in which you are quoting a scripture passage. If you did not quote directly from a Bible, would it be more likely the passage would be harmonious or dissident? Could not dissident passages be caused by a later scribe transcribing from memory? For this and other reasons, having a guideline like choosing “that reading which involves verbal dissidence is usually to be preferred” is completely arbitrary. 

The fourth guideline:
What was the author more likely to have written?

“Intrinsic Probabilities depend upon considerations of what the author was more likely to have written. The textual critic takes into account (1.) In general: The style and vocabulary of the author throughout the book, the immediate context; and Harmony with the usage of the author elsewhere; and, (2) In the gospels: The Aramaic background of the teaching of Jesus; The priority of the Gospel according to Mark; and the influence of the Christian community upon the formulation and transmission of the passage in question.”

When you decide, “what the author was more likely to have written”, your opinions become the final authority. This is plainly using doctrine to edit the Bible. It should be the other way around, use the Bible to edit your doctrine! As Dr. Metzger pointed out earlier, using the above guidelines, it is not possible for all scholars to be in agreement.

The fifth guideline:
The textual critic knows when to give consideration of one kind of evidence over another.

“It is obvious that not all of these criteria are applicable in every case. The textual critic must know when it is appropriate to give greater consideration to one kind of evidence and less to another. Since textual criticism is an art as well as a science, it is inevitable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence. This divergence is almost inevitable when, as sometimes happens, the evidence is so divided that, for example, the .more difficult reading is found only in the later witnesses, or the longer reading is found only in the earlier witnesses.”

The sixth guideline:
Numerical support counts for nothing.

Let us not forgot to mention one guideline that would be useful. The guideline should read something like; The committee took into consideration what the verse looked like in the vast majority of ancient manuscripts. Well incredibly,

“Witnesses are to be weighed rather than counted.”

“For example, if in a given sentence reading x is supported by twenty manuscripts and reading y by only one manuscript, the relative numerical support favoring x counts for nothing if all twenty manuscripts should be discovered to be copies made from a single manuscript, no longer extant, whose scribe first introduced that particular variant reading. The comparison, in that case, ought to be made between the one manuscript containing reading y and the single ancestor of the twenty manuscripts containing reading x.”

Saying that the vast majority of ancient manuscripts come from a “single manuscript no longer extant” is obvious. As a matter of fact all manuscripts are copies of the single (and might I add original) manuscript no longer extant. He is right though in stating that the ancient manuscripts (including things like letters that quote scripture, or torn pages) support the Received Text compared to the Alexandrian versions at a  ratio of about 20 to 1. Actually, scholars call ancient manuscripts that support the Alexandrian version the Minority Text and all the ancient manuscripts that support the Received Text are called the Majority Text.

Being constrained by these six 'guidelines' could a God fearing person really create an accurate reproduction of the apostle's letters? Who created these guidelines anyway? Personally I would have to refuse the honor of working on a committee that was hamstrung with such guidelines.

There is another place where Dr. Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is useful in learning about the committee. It shows how in agreement the committee was in their final manuscript. In his own words:

 “In order to indicate the relative degree of certainty in the mind of the Committee for the reading adopted as the text, an identifying letter is included within braces at the beginning of each set of textual variants. The letter {A} signifies that the text is virtually certain, while {B} indicates that there is some degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. The letter, {C} means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while {D} shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. In fact, among the {D} decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading.”

“None of the variant readings commended itself as original”, I do not know how a sentence could make it more clear that this committee does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

So how in agreement are the scholars? I picked two books at random to look at James and 1st John. In the book of James he comments on nineteen verses that were edited. Only one verse got an {A}, ‘the text is virtually certain’. Seven verses got a {B}, ‘some degree of doubt’. Eight verses received a {C}, ‘there is a considerable degree of doubt.’ Finally three verses received a {D}, ‘the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading.’

The 1st Epistle John did not fair much better. Three verses got an {A}, ‘the text is virtually certain’. Eleven verses got a {B}, ‘some degree of doubt’. Eight verses received a {C}, ‘there is a considerable degree of doubt.’ Again three verses received a {D}, ‘the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading.’

Since the scholars themselves were ‘virtually certain’ in only 7% of their editing, why should I have any confidence in the manuscript?

Conclusion

Though these scholars may be well meaning, none of their assumptions, techniques or results impress me.

Assumptions:

• The majority of the ancient manuscripts are corrupt.

• The church regularly edited manuscripts without the fear of God.

• The church had a corrupt Bible for the last 1900 years.

• The obvious tampering (or corrections depending on your opinion) with the codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not prevent them from being the most accurate manuscripts.

Techniques:

• The more difficult passages are to be preferred.

• The shorter reading is to be preferred.

• The reading with the most verbal dissidence is to be preferred.

• Their committee decides what the author was most likely to have written.

• Regarding the majority of ancient manuscripts was not considered a reliable guideline.

Results:

• A Bible that leaves out essential doctrine.

• A Bible whose permission to quote from may be revoked at any time.

• No two critics agree on which verses should be included in the Bible.

• By their own admission, the Critical Text is not the inerrant Word of God.

Why would any Christian change from what the church has used from the beginning for a modern version?

Jesus said: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life.”
 - John 5:39 a 

When it is our eternal life at stake, one should consider very carefully which Greek manuscripts you will consider the word of God.

Yeah but the ‘Thee’s and ‘Thou’s are still hard to read

Some have argued in favor of modern versions saying the KJV English is too hard to read or understand. However, is the easiest way the best way? It is time that we grow up.

Hebrews 5:12      For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

It may take a few readings to get used to it, but my children started reading the KJV at five years old, and could do it effortlessly by age seven. With a little practice, very few adults should not be able to do the same thing.

It is easier for children to follow along in a Bible study using one translation, even if it is the KJV, than where several different modern versions are used.

It is much easier for everyone to memorize scripture when they use one and only one version of the Bible.

Finally, and most important, the thees, thous and thines are one of the treasures in the King James Version and give it an interesting advantage. The thees, thous and thines are singular, while all the ye, you and yours are in the plural, sort of like "you all". These singular and plural distinctions in the Greek are missing in modern translations.

Matthew 3:14      But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, [singular] and comest thou [singular] to me?

Matthew 4:19      And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you [plural] fishers of men.

Finally

Do not misunderstand; I have no doubt that the Word of God will last to the end of the world. I am only grieving as I see Christians whose faith has gone shipwreck, often the result of a Bible College, and always as they come to doubt the authority of God's Word.

Go back and learn how the Critical text came into existence. See if what I am saying is true. If it is, learn how to defend the Received Text.

It is time to recognize what is at stake. It is time for the Church, that means you, to take back the stewardship of the Scriptures. The Bible is reliable; we can trust God to keep His Word. Whether we remain willfully ignorant or not, He will keep His judgments.

May God bless us as we seek His will.
Jeffrey Barnes

If you do find any error in this document please email me.

You are free to copy this document, please do not compromise its integrity.