1. Session 6 – Bible versions In this session we will look at (what I consider) an in house debate for Christians The question of which English Bible version to use has been a question many Christians have had in their walk. Many believe the KJV Bible is the best version (and only version Christians should use) Much information is taken from aomin.org from Dr. James White

2. Degrees of King James Onlyism 1. "I Like the KJV Best" This view simply thinks the KJV of the Bible is a good version and they like it the most typically because they grew up using it 2. "The Textual Argument" This group believes the text that underlies the KJV version (majority text) is the more accurate manuscript tradition

3. 3. "Received Text Only" This view narrows down the previous one to the manuscripts used in the Textus Receptus by Desiderius Erasmus Many believe these texts were supernaturally (or providentially) preserved and that other Greek manuscripts not used in this compilation may be flawed

4. 4. "The Inspired KJV Group" This group believes hat the KJV of the English Bible is divinely inspired and is as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves This group often rejects any other translations even off the same Greek manuscripts, because God was only inspiring those who compiled the KJV, not others. The KJV Bible should be the only English version

5. 5. "The KJV As New Revelation" This group believes that the KJV Bible is New or Advanced Revelation from God They believe that the KJV can correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts They believe that the KJV Bible should be the standard by which all other Bible are translated (in English and other languages) What’s the case for the KJV?

6. Many who exclusively use the KJV Bible believe that there is some kind of conspiracy to change the Bible in the other modern English Bible versions They claim that the modern versions are based on corrupt manuscripts of the Bible that distort the message We will address this topic broadly, because we don’t have time to go into details on every point that would be made (on either side)

7. Compare: What are these changes in modern versions they are talking about? 1 Timothy 3:16, KJV: “without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh….” Look what the NASB says: 1 Timothy 3:16 NASB: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,”

8. And Compare These ReferenceModern Vers.KJV Matthew 4:18heJesus Acts 19:10the Lordthe Lord Jesus 1 Cor 9:1JesusJesus Christ 2 Cor 5:18ChristJesus Christ Acts 16:31Lord Jesus Lord Jesus Christ 2 John 3Jesus Christ Lord Jesus Christ

9. Still not convinced there is a significant different in the Bibles? Get out a modern Bible version and look up John 5:4 (It’s a trick BTW) John 5:4: “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” Why did they take this out?

10. Understand though, it goes both ways John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Look what the KJV says: John 1:18 (NIV): “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” Now the modern version

11. In another instance the KJV Bible aligns itself with the Jehovah Witnesses NWT (although KJV was written earlier) in John 14:14 and ignores Jesus receiving prayer to himself John 14:14 (ESV): ” If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” John 14:14 (KJV): If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Which one is correct? If we pray to Jesus that would support his deity

12. Another comparison you won’t hear about: Revelation 1:8 (KJV): “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” We hear modern translations take out the deity of Christ? Look what they say here: Revelation 1:8 (NRSV) “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

13. Is there a conspiracy going on here? Are the new translations (sometimes called “New World Translations”) out to destroy the Bible and the deity of Christ? First understand, we are not saying we need all the versions we have today, there are TONS of English Bible versions and some of them are not great But believe it or not there isn’t a big conspiracy out there with the modern Bibles

14. Why do these translations differ with one another? Why are there differences? We will be looking at the New Testament, which is where most the debate is The KJV/ NKJV NT’s are based upon a 16 th century Greek text known today as the “Textus Receptus.” Modern translations are based upon the Nestle-Aland Greek text of this century.

15. The “Textus Receptus” represents what is called the “Byzantine” family of manuscripts. These “Byzantine” type manuscripts make up 80% of the extant Greek texts in our possession. Even though they make up the majority of the Greek texts that we have, they do not account for many of the texts in the first millennium of church history

16. That means this text (Majority Text that the Textus Receptus came from) represents the later ecclesiastical copying Understand, even though the TR came from the Majority Text, it disagrees with the majority text in about 1800 places on average, so they are not identical The other popular text type would be the Alexandrian text, which represents a smaller, but earlier group of texts

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

18. The “Textus Receptus” was created by the work of a Roman Catholic priest and scholar who had the nickname “Prince of the Humanists,” Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus printed and published the first edition of the Greek NT in 1516. The 3rd edition of his text was particularly influential

19. A total of five editions came from him; after him, Stephanus (1555) and Beza (1598) edited the work, and it was used by the KJV translators for their NT (1604-1611). Modern translations are based upon a different text that draws from a wider variety of sources than the TR, including manuscripts unknown in the days of Erasmus.

20. Some of the papyri manuscripts used in the modern Nestle-Aland 27th edition date to as early as AD 125. Because these sources in the modern translation are older, there are less of them around (the further back you go, the fewer manuscripts have survived) Keep in mind, the “differences” between the manuscript traditions is minor, there is no doctrinal differences

21. If one applies the same rules of exegesis to the TR and the NA 27th edition, the results will be the same. The variations do not change the message. One problem we have when looking at this topic is the double standard that is used by the KJV only group. They claim the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. have changed the Bible… But what is the assumption all along? That the KJV is the standard

22. We believe that the KJV of the Bible should be put under the same test as the other versions of the Bible The question is not “what does it say compared to the KJV”, but “what does it say compared to the original manuscripts” Our goal should be to look at the manuscripts that we have, and see what reading has the strongest evidence for the being the original reading

23. Most likely this was a marginal note, an explanation, written in an early manuscript and accidentally inserted into a later copy by a copyist who thought it was a part of the original text. How about John 5:4? (Angel and Water) This passage is not only omitted by P66, P75, a, B and others, but even in the manuscripts where it does appear, there are a number of variants within the text, and some give special markings to the passage

24. How about John 1:18? The earliest manuscripts of John, P66 and P75 (papyri manuscripts dating around AD 200), as well as two of the earliest uncial manuscripts, a and B, (i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) all read “unique God” or “the only Son who is God.” The bulk of later manuscripts read “only- begotten Son.” The KJV, following the TR, reads this second way

25. Here the Alexandrian texts join with a large portion of the Byzantine texts in containing the word “me.” In the same way, there is no “conspiracy” at John 14:14 (prayer to Jesus) But a part of the Byzantine tradition does not contain the word, and this part underlies the TR. The Majority Text contains the reading “me” at this point, demonstrating that the TR is not identical to the Majority Text.

26. Likewise, Revelation 1:8, and the reference to “the Lord God” is another example of where the TR even departs from the entirety of the Byzantine manuscript tradition. The vast majority of texts, including the later ones, contain this reading. There is a reason for this, Erasmus rushed getting his project done and only used one manuscript when doing revelation (and his work becomes the basis for the KJV)

27. Here’s One of the “Big Ones” Colossians 1:14 KJVNIV in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins Did later versions take the blood out?

28. It is on the basis of passages such as this that KJV Only folks have identified the NIV as the “bloodless Bible.” But is such a charge true, accurate, and honest? First, any person studying the passage might note that Ephesians and Colossians contain parallel passages. The parallel to Colossians 1:14 in Ephesians is found at Ephesians 1:7

29. Ephesians 1:7 KJVNIV In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace The question is, if they are trying to hide the blood part of things, why include it here?

30. In reality the KJV here contains a reading that goes against not only the ancient manuscripts, but against the vast majority of all manuscripts, including the Byzantine. The earliest manuscript to contain the added phrase is from the 9th century. All of four manuscripts, all dating long after the original writing, contain the reading. Understand, that is four out of thousands and thousands of manuscripts

31. One of the most obvious problems is in Revelation 16:5. Even our hymns have been impacted by this textual variant. All Greek manuscripts, of whatever type, agree in reading as the NASB: “And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things;” The key phrase is “O Holy One.” Compare the KJV:

32. “And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.” Theodore Beza made a “conjectural emendation” at this point: that’s a change in the text that has no manuscript support. He felt that the text made more sense if it read “and shalt be” than “O Holy One,” and he thought the Greek words were similar enough in form to explain it.

33. Which KJV do you have? And which one should be the “standard” we are to use? Almost all KJV’s are actually the 1769 Blayney Revision of the AV, not the 1611. But, there are different kinds of KJV’s. The two most prevalent are the Oxford and Cambridge types. How can you tell which you have? Look at Jeremiah 34:16:

34. Oxford Edition Cambridge Edition he But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. ye But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

35. Clearing up some misunderstandings and common arguments used All the new versions create confusion This can certainly be true at times, we don’t have to debate this point. This, however, has absolutely no bearing on if the KJV version is the best and most accurate or not There are many versions of the Bible that are not needed today, and we don’t support all modern day Bibles

36. Keep in mind, the King James Bible was not the only version of the Bible when it came out, there were many others versions Not only that, but when the KJV was translated there were Bibles before that which were widely accepted, and you had the same situations where people were not happy about a new version coming out Other English Bibles like the one translated by Wycliffe and Tyndale existed

37. KJV has long term acceptance KJV activists often point out that the KJV Bible has been the reigning English translation for 400 years, and has become the standard (which means it has to be the best) Understand, other Bible versions have more seniority than that. The Latin Vulgate was the Biblical standard for 1100 years, almost three times as long as the KJV, that didn’t make it the best translation ever done

38. Alexandria was corrupt Many argue against manuscripts that came from Alexandria because many heresies had their origins in this place There were corrupt church fathers who had bad interpretations of scripture They are correct to say some heresies came from the area of Alexandria, and that there were some (atleast one) church father who was very “off” in his teachings

39. But keep in mind, that was everywhere! The Church at Byzantium was not perfect, and many heresies came about in that area too The most notable would be the Arian heresy (Arius) which said that Jesus Christ was not God (but a created being) The most outspoken opponent to the heresy was Athanasius, who came from… You guessed it, Alexandria

40. Vaticanus is stored by Catholics Somehow in the minds of many KJV Only advocates this makes the manuscript less valuable and corrupt Keep in mind this manuscript outdates the modern Roman Catholic Church (Catholicism as we’d know it) And also keep in mind that the primary source behind the KJV Bible is Erasmus, who is a notable Roman Catholic at the time

41. Siniaticus discovery Often critics point out that this manuscript (which is used for modern day translations) was found by a trash can and was considered junk by the monastery That is historically false. The first hand account of it’s discovery records that the monks kept it in a closet wrapped in red cloth, and that it had been used for hundreds of years

42. It comes down to this, do you want what the apostles wrote, the original, or are you okay adding stuff if it sounds “better” There are many more arguments that we could go over in this debate, KJV only advocates often bring up the question “Has God preserved His Word for us today?” The answer would be yes, but it has nothing to do with an English translation of the Bible done in 1611

43. When it comes to apologetics, it’s almost suicide to accept the KJV Onlyism To say that the Alexandrian manuscript tradition is corrupt that underlies the modern Bibles we have today, is to say that we really don’t have good manuscript evidence for the Bible for hundreds of years This textual criticism and examining all the manuscripts we can is what gives us the confidence we have

44. Jude 1:3B: “…ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Memory Verse