'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part 2)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
By Dr. D.A. Waite

'THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS A SUPERIOR NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. There is a
simple table in our book which speaks volumes concerning the New Testament
Greek text debate. Here it is:

The Greek Text that underlies the KJV. If you examine this table
carefully, you will learn much about the debate that is raging concerning
the Greek N.T. On the left of the table are some facts about the Textus
Receptus that underlies the KJv. The Trinitarian Bible Society has
published this text and made it available to anyone. The TBS took this text
from that of Dr. Frederick Scrivener who was commissioned in about 1885, by
the Cambridge University Press, to come up with the exact Greek text that
underlies the King James Bible. Scrivener set down all of the Greek words
used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face
type all of the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881
English Revised Version. He inserted the exact alterations in the
footnotes. These consisted of either additions of Greek words, subtractions
of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way. This Greek   
text edition has been reprinted by the Bible for Today. It is a very useful
tool. Scrivener's Greek text is also available on the LOGOS Computer
Program which enables the student to study more carefully. Dr. Jack Moorman
counted 140,521 Greek words in the Textus Receptus. Scrivener's Greek
edition has 647 pages which would average 217 Greek words per page. That's
what the Textus Receptus has.

2. The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort that underlies the Modern
Versions. Though there were some scattered opposition to the Received
Text in years before, the concerted effort against the Received Text came
in 1881, and after. In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as
conservatives) from the Anglican Church, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort,
published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5,604 places by my
actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added,
subtracted, or changed from the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4
words per page of the Greek N.T., or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7%
of the total of 140,521 words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a radically new
Greek text. Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the TR
that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the
N.T.

You might rightfully ask, "How did you come up with this number of
changes?" That's a valid question. I took a copy of the original
Scrivener's Greek N.T. to a summer Bible Conference where I was preaching.
During the afternoon, when there were no meetings, I studied that volume
carefully, making notations on it as I read. When I indicate that there are
5,604 places in the Greek N.T. where Westcott and Hort actually altered the
Greek Textus Receptus used by the KING JAMES BIBLE translators, it is
because I actually counted that many places. I have the data in my copy of
Scrivener's Greek New Testament. These 5,604 places involve a total of
9,970 Greek words. How do I know that? Again, I counted them. I saw from
the footnotes exactly how many Greek words each of the 5,604 places
involved. As you might know, some of the places involve twelve entire
verses (Mk. 16:9-20 and John 7:53-- 8:11). In each of the 5,604 places,
compared to the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV, Westcott and Hort
either added Greek words, subtracted Greek words, or changed the Greek
words in some other way. You can see that the Westcott and Hort alterations
amount to just thirty words short of 10,000 Greek words. This means that
there are almost 10,000 Greek words that are different in the Westcott and
Hort Greek New Testament (and probably about the same or more in the
Nestle/Aland 26th edition Greek text) as compared to the Greek text that
underlies our KJV.

This FALSE Greek text, with its approximate 10,000 alterations, was the
basis for virtually all of the modern English versions and perversions,
including the ERV, ASV, NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, JB, NEV, LV and
the rest.

Hort's own three estimates on the extent of the Greek textual problems
between his text and the Textus Receptus. In 1882, Hort wrote an
Introduction to the so-called Westcott and Hort Greek Text of 1881. In his
Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek--The Text
Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort,   
D.D., Hort made an estimate of the differences between various Greek texts.
His estimate had three parts. Let me quote each of the parts:

(1) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that was
virtually accepted by everyone. He wrote: "With regard to the great
bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings,
there is NO VARIATION or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for
textual criticism; . . . The proportion of words virtually accepted on all
hands as raised above doubt is VERY GREAT, not less, on a rough
computation, than SEVEN EIGHTHS OF THE WHOLE. The REMAINING EIGHTH
therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative
trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism" (Hort, p. 2).

Since the "whole" in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek
N.T. as seen in our table, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's
7/8ths of the Greek New Testament virtually agreed to by all would be
122,956 Greek words (87.5%=566 pages). Hort's 1/8th of the Greek N.T. that
he claimed was in dispute would be 17,565 Greek words (12.5%=81 pages). In
point of fact, as seen in the above table, the area of dispute between the
Westcott and Hort Greek text as opposed to the Textus Receptus that
underlies the KJV is only 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). So Hort's
estimate in this area is incorrect.

(2) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that would
still be in doubt if his principles were followed. He wrote: "If the
principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very
greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from
peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgement in
suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside
differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt
only make up about ONE SIXTIETH of the whole New Testament" (Hort, loc.
cit.).

Since the "whole" in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek
New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647
pages), Hort's 1/60th of the Greek New Testament still subject to doubt if
his principles were followed, would be 2,342 Greek words. This represents
1.76% of the Greek words, or 11.4 pages in a Greek New Testament if put all
in one place. But we don't follow Hort's "principles" at all.
Because of this, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies the KJV are
still disputing 9,970 Greek words (rather than only 2,342 Greek words).
This represents 7% of the Greek words (rather than only 1.76%), or 45.9
pages in a Greek New Testament if the words were put in one place (rather
than only 11.4 pages). So Hort's estimate in this area is incorrect again.
We still maintain that the of Greek words in dispute are vastly more in
number than Hort has stated.

(3) Hort's estimate of the proportion of the Greek New Testament that
contains "SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION." He wrote: "In this second
estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond
measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any
sense be called SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION is but a small fraction of the whole
residuary variation, and can hardly form more than A THOUSANDTH PART of the
  
entire text" (Hort, loc. cit.).

Since the "whole" in numbers of Greek words and pages in the Greek
New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647
pages), Hort's 1/1000th of the Greek New Testament that he thought could be
called "SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION" would be 140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647
pages). This would be a little over one half a page in the Greek N.T. This
is extremely wide of the mark of truth! Since we don't follow Hort's
"principles" at all, we who hold to the Greek text that underlies
the KJV are still disputing, either in "SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION" or
otherwise, a total of 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). It is Hort's
last estimate that has been seized by his modern day puppets and grossly
distorted in order to fool people into thinking that the problem is very
tiny, when in reality, it is much, much larger!

The misquotation of Hort by his followers on the extent of the Greek
textual problems between his text and the Textus Receptus. Modern
disciples of this false Westcott and Hort Greek text have enlarged upon
Hort's estimates. They say, in effect: "If all of the variant readings
between the Westcott and Hort-type text and the Textus Receptus-type text
were assembled together in one place, they would amount to a little over
one half a page in the Greek New Testament."

Hort's pupils are either knowingly or unknowingly misquoting their teacher.
They want to make the DIFFERENCES in the Greek texts very, very slight so
as to minimize the arguments against the false Westcott and Hort-types
Greek text. From the above quotations from Hort's Introduction, his
differences in Greek texts would be either 81 pages (1/8th), or 11.4 pages
(1/60th), or .647 pages (1/1000th). Rather than merely "a little over
one half a page," Hort's 1/8th of total differences would amount to 81
pages. In reality, we are faced with faced with 45.9 pages of difference!

@PARABEFORE2 = A current illustration of this practice of distorting the
facts in this area is found in a tape-recorded message given by Dr. Kenneth
Barker, the chairman of the translation committee responsible for the New
International Version. Dr. Barker spoke in the Sunday evening service,
September 12, 1993, at the Southside Baptist Church in Greenville, South
Carolina. A friend recorded the message and gave me a copy. Dr. Barker
stated:

@BODY TEXT2 = "There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and all of them
are AGREED 98% of the time. So all of this debate that Carson refers to in
The King James Version Debate, all of this debate, all of the hullabaloo is
over less than 2% of the entire text of the New Testament. And in that less
than 2%, you can select any reading that you wish among the manuscripts,
(that's not our approach, but you can) and it won't change Christian
doctrine one bit."

@PARAAFTER2 = Dr. Barker is wrong on TWO COUNTS! (1) His "less than
2%" difference between any of the Greek manuscripts would be 2,810
Greek words (12.9 pages). The truth of the matter is that there is a 7%
difference between the Westcott and Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus
that underlies the KJV. This would be 9,970 Greek words (45.9 pages). This 
 
is a most serious error. It is a blatant falsehood that is being
promulgated by the chairman of the NIV translation committee. It would give
false confidence to the pastor and members of this church that had just
recently given up the KJV in favor of Dr. Barker's NIV. (2) The second
serious error is Dr. Barker's statement relative to the fact that
variations in manuscripts "won't change Christian doctrine one
bit." In our book, we specify 158 such passages. Dr. Jack Moorman lists
356 such passages. These two falsehoods, from someone who should know
better, are the major ones used to lull Bible believing Christians into
deep slumber concerning the Bible version controversy that has been raging.

The King James Bible's Greek text is worth fighting for! The Greek
Text of the New Testament is truly a BATTLEGROUND! Someone might say to you
that there is really very little difference in the two Greek texts. They
may tell you that you shouldn't be fighting about these differences. It
seems to me that almost 46 pages of the Greek N.T. ARE worth fighting
about. 9,970 Greek words are worth fighting about. 7% of the Greek N.T. is
worth fighting about. This is a BATTLEGROUND! We must not retreat. We must
do battle for the Lord's Words! We must stand fast. If we lose in this
battle between truth and error, there's no stopping the onrush of more
error. In the tug of war with truth and error, there is no middle ground.
Those of us who believe in standing up for the Lord Jesus Christ should
remember His Words: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of
My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the
Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of his Father with the
holy angels" (Mk. 8:38).

THE KING JAMES BIBLE'S GREEK TEXT IS ATTESTED BY THE EVIDENCE. Here
is a table that is printed on page fifty-seven of Defending the King
James Bible. It gives us a summary of the manuscript evidence that is
available to us today.

As of 1967, Kurt Aland, of Munster, Germany, counted a total of 5,255 Greek
manuscripts still in existence. Though there are a few others since 1967, I
use these figures which are still very close. Aland is the lead editor of
the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament which is being
used as the critical text of today. I am using Aland's 1967 figures.

As you can see from the table, there are 81 (now 88) papyrus fragments.
There are 267 uncial manuscripts. These are large, capital letter
documents. There are 2,764 cursives manuscripts. These are the flowing hand
manuscripts. There are 2,143 lectionary manuscripts. These are portions of
Scripture that were read on certain days of the church year. This totals at
least 5,255 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. that have been preserved and are
available for us today.

The table gives the approximate number and percent of each type of Greek
manuscript that supports the Westcott-Hort (WH) Greek text, as well as the
number and percent of each class that supports the Textus Receptus (TR)
Greek text. These approximations are taken from the careful research of Dr.
Jack Moorman in his book Forever Settled (see Bibliography).
The WH figures are given first and those for the TR second. For the papyrus
fragments the score is 13 to 75 (15% to 85%). For the uncial manuscripts   
the score is 9 to 258 (3% to 97%). For the cursive manuscripts the score is
23 to 2,741 (1% to 99%). For the lectionary manuscripts the score is 0 to
2,143 (0% to 100%). For the totals for all classes of manuscripts the score
is 45 to 5,210. This is a ratio of less than 1% to more than 99%!

THE KING JAMES BIBLE'S GREEK TEXT HAS BEEN PRESERVED BY GOD. Which
of the two kinds of Greek text has God preserved? How do you define
preservation? The Scripture says:

"The Words of the Lord are pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of
earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep Them, O Lord, Thou shalt
preserve Them from this generation for ever" (Ps. 12:6,7).

Obviously God has "KEPT" and "PRESERVED" His Words in the
99% of the evidence, rather than in the 1%. By very definition, this is
"PRESERVATION." Suppose I had 100 million dollars to begin with and
a thief stole it from me. Suppose I reported this to the police; and after
long investigation, they were able to recover 99 million dollars out of the
100 million dollars. The thief would keep one million dollars. Which of the
two parties could most accurately be described as having
"PRESERVED" the 100 million dollars: the thief who had the one
million dollars, or the police who recovered the 99 million dollars? The
one million would be a "PRESERVATION" of practically nothing (1%)
compared to the 99 million (99%). And so it is with the Greek manuscripts
of the N.T. The fulfillment of God's promise to "KEEP" and
"PRESERVE" His Words is to be found in the more than 99% of the
manuscripts we have today. And these support the Greek Text that underlies
the KJV, and NOT the Greek text that underlies the modern versions and
perversions!

THE FALSE GREEK TEXTS OF "B" AND "ALEPH" CONTRADICT ONE
ANOTHER IN OVER 3,000 PLACES IN THE GOSPELS ALONE. In the total numbers
of manuscripts, you'll notice that the Westcott- Hort type has only 45
manuscripts that go along with it as over against 5,210 that go along with
the TR that underlies the KJV. This 45 includes "B" (Vatican) and
"Aleph" (Sinai) and forty- three of their little heretical puppets
that follow them. The theory behind the acceptance of these less than 1% is
that "The oldest are the best." The oldest are not necessarily the
best, especially if they have been tampered with by heretics!

Both Dr. Frederick Scrivener and Dean John William Burgon agreed that the
greatest pollution of the stream of pure manuscripts was accomplished in
the first 100 years after the New Testament was written! So the oldest are
not necessarily the best! This is especially true since the heretics had
their knives out "correcting" the Greek N.T. almost as soon as it
was written. The Egyptian scribes and editors of "B" (Vatican) and
"Aleph" (Sinai) were some of the most vicious "correctors"
of God's Words; yet these two Greek texts form the very bedrock of the new
versions and perversions of our day. "B" and "Aleph"
contradict each other, as Herman Hoskier has so accurately pointed out in
his two volume work entitled Codex B and Its Allies, in over 3,000
places in the four Gospels alone! So, they are not good witnesses. They are
false witnesses indeed!  

#2: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS. The second reason for
defending the KJV is because it has superior translators. This correctly
implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have
inferior translators.

Let's take a brief look at the superior translators of the KJV. Why do I
say that the KJV translators are superior? I say they are superior because
they ARE superior! I think that there is no question about the expertise
and ability of the translators who gave us our KJV. The new version people
often say that the KJV translators were rather ignorant and didn't know as
much about translating as the "translators/paraphrasers" of today.
This is not only prideful, but completely false. Their linguistic
qualifications are unequaled!

The accomplishments of Lancelot Andrews. Let's mention Dr. Lancelot
Andrews. He was certainly a superior KJV translator. He had mastered
fifteen languages. Someone said that if Dr. Andrews had been present at the
confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel, he could have served as
interpreter general. I don't know any of the modern
"translator/paraphrasers" who have mastered fifteen languages, do
you? Send me their names, if you have proof of this.

The acumen of William Bedwell. How about Dr. William Bedwell? He was
famed in Arabic learning. I don't know how many of these new men who are
"translating/paraphrasing" for these modern versions and
perversions who have studied as much of the Arabic language as he had. In
fact, he published in quarto, an edition of the Epistles of St. John in
Arabic with a Latin version. I don't know how many men today could do that.
Dr. Bedwell left many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge,
with numerous notes and a font of types for printing them. In fact, he
wrote an Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three volumes. He also began a
Persian dictionary which is among Archbishop Laud's manuscripts, still
preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford today. I don't think anyone
among our modern "translators/paraphrasers" of today has done this
or could do this! Do you know any of these men who have written an Arabic
dictionary and begun a Persian dictionary, or done anything similar in the
scholarly world that will even come close to the accomplishments of William
Bedwell? If so, send me their names and the proof. In our day, many people
watch too much television. They attend too many football games, baseball
games. and basketball games. We are ignoramuses today compared to the
scholars who gave us our KJV!

The acceptability of Miles Smith. Look at the acceptability of Dr.
Miles Smith. He was an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in
Arabic. They were almost as familiar to him as his native tongue. Dr. Smith
went through both the Greek and Latin church Fathers, making annotations on
them all.

The activities of Henry Savile. Sir Henry Saville was proficient in
both Greek and mathematics. He became tutor in these two subjects to Queen
Elizabeth. I don't know how many queens or kings our modern
"translators/paraphrasers" have tutored, do you? Saville translated   
the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published the same with notes. He
published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin against
Pelagius, the Writers of English History Subsequent to Bede, and
Prelections on the Elements of Euclid. He was the first to edit the
complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He was
a profound, and exact scholar.

The academics of John Bois. John Bois was expert in Hebrew as well
as Greek. He studied at his father's knee. In fact, at the age of five, he
had read the whole Bible IN HEBREW!! At the age of six, John Bois was able
to write Hebrew in a clear and elegant style. If you know anything about
the Hebrew letters, it's difficult to write in an elegant style, or in any
style, for that matter. Much more could be said about John Bois.

The superior translators in general. Have you ever heard of
Gulliver's Travels? It tells of Gulliver's adventures with the
inhabitants of Lilliput. Do you remember what the Lilliputians did to poor
Gulliver? They were tiny, tiny people, and Gulliver was like a giant to
them. While he was asleep, they tied up Gulliver with tiny cords so he
couldn't move. I liken the KJV translators to the giant Gulliver and the
"translators/paraphrasers" of today to tiny Lilliputians. It states
in Ge. 6:4: "There were GIANTS in the earth in those days..." It
was true also from 1604 to 1611, when these profound scholars gave us our
incomparable King James Bible! They had mastered English as well as the
Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. They also knew the cognate or brother-sister-
cousin related languages that shed light on the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek
such as the Aramaic, the Arabic, the Persian, the Coptic, the Syriac, and
the others. When the modern "translators/paraphrasers" come upon a
word they don't understand, they throw up their hands in dismay. The KJV
translators did not meet with such difficulty because they knew the cognate
languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. Our modern
"translators/paraphrasers" are linguistically illiterate when
compared to the men who gave us our KJV. They truly were "GIANTS"!!

END OF PART TWO

• Previous message: 'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part 2)
• Next message: 'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part3)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]