Which water do you want to drink?
Overview
The devil likes to do things in small steps. From the very beginning, the Bible says in Genesis 3:1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Firstly, let me say that I am not about to state that anyone reading something other than a King James Bible is going to hell, but I am sure there are some incredulous individuals out there that make that error. There is only one thing that will let you avoid that terrible mistake and one thing only - putting your hope and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is not one of the ways, part of the way, but THE way, John 14:6.
If you have made it to this post, you may have encountered someone advocating the use of the King James Bible in preference to all other modern "versions" and you are curious what the fuss is about. There is no shortage of debates on this subject. It seems like every year there is yet another "bible version" being released. For many, a King James Bible and all the others are just different versions of the same text and are only worded differently, and are all in the same progression of Bible's over the years. A similar view maybe to new versions of the Apple iPhone and how they have progressed through different versions. It's only when one discovers that not only are there many words replaced that cause the very meaning to change, but entire verses removed that some might stop to look into it deeper. The path you will follow is not a single trail but two separate trails. Don't take my word for it, please look into it for yourself. One trail leads to Antioch, Syria and the other to Alexandria, Egypt.
The Key Differences
There are many, but of the two that probably come to the top are:- The origins of the KJV and other "modern versions" such as the NIV and ESV are not the same. They are not merely different versions or translations of the same text.
- Dozens of entire verses are missing between the KJV and the others. Can both be right and preserve God's Word?
Examples
Below are but a few examples.Matthew 12:47
Note: Why do the NIV and ESV differ?
KJV
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
NIV
Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
ESV
missing
Luke 2:33
Note: Who is the father of Jesus?
KJV
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
NIV
The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
ESV
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.
Matthew 17:21
KJV
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
NIV
missing
ESV
missing
Matthew 18:11
KJV
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
NIV
missing
ESV
missing
Matthew 23:14
KJV
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.
NIV
missing
ESV
missing
There are many, many more, but is this enough to make you pause and ask why these differences exist?
Why
If this question of why some are so defensive (or seemingly offensive) about the King James Bible is new to you and If I had to pick a single word answer- it would be preservation. God promised to preserve His word from one generation to another in Psalms 12:6 & 7. He promised to preserve His Word, not the language it was written in. That means, assuming you believe the Bible is the Word of God, that we have to have it available to us today, unchanged and pure. Otherwise, God has not kept His promise. Some often criticize the King James Bible for the "old English" it uses as being hard to read since we don't speak that way any longer. Thee and thou, hither and thither. Yes, it is different than how we speak today. There are so many fundamental differences between what we have in the King James Bible and ALL the new "versions" that if one looks seriously at this issue, it becomes evident it's more than just a difference in "wording" or translation. I make no claim of being a Bible-scholar, archaeologist, theologian, scientist or prophet. I do not know any other language than English. I am just a whosoever. The only claim I make is that I believe nothing I've ever done or ever will do can pay my way into heaven, but I trust that payment has already been made for my sins on the cross by my Messiah, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I trust Him and His Word - even when I don't understand all of it. I'm still learning and growing. I hope that when I draw my last breath, it's used to share the Word with someone that they might know the Lord or if they do, then walk closer and seek the old paths that Jeremiah referred to in chapter 6 in the book of Jeremiah.Entire books have been written on this subject. We can't do that here. Some will point out that the King James Bible isn't the first English version of the Bible to be printed, and this is true. Also, that it was the Geneva Bible that came over with the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, but along with them, John Alden the ships carpenter, brought a King James Bible. Before that it was the Bishop's Bible and the "Great Bible" and a few others. Even the King James Bible we have today is not the same one that was first published in 1611. A time when even the English language was in transition. What has not changed however is the Word. The name on the cover, the language or the printers may have changed, but God's Word is still with us. If one however changes the printed text virgin to "maid" or removes entire verses, then you have something different indeed and God's Word is no longer being preserved, is it? Or, if you start with a bad source of manuscripts, you can't make it "good". However, if a printing press blunders with the typesetting, that is not the same as changing God's word on purpose. Any book that is published to the same extent that the King James Bible has, sooner or later will include typos. If you read enough Bible, you will find them. Men are fallible, God is not, nor does He change (Malachi 3:6).
You see, the King James Bible comes from a line of other English-language Bibles that were compiled largely from a set of manuscripts very different than those such as the NIV and ESV. This article isn't to compare the KJV against any particular version, it's to give you some background to this subject and show what some of these differences are.
A Little Bible History
The two trails mentioned earlier.| Trail 1 | Trail 2 |
| 33-150 AD Antioch, Syria. The Apostles and the received text. | 200 AD Origen of Alexandria Egypt, taught purgatory, was 1st Catholic |
| 150 AD Peshita Bible | 331 AD Eusibius, a follower of Origen, made 50 "bibles" for Constantine, 2 of which became known as codex vaticanus and codex sinaiticus and were from Alexandrian manuscripts |
| 157 AD Italic Bible, Waldenses, Albigenses | 1481 AD Vaticanus "found" in Vatican library |
| 1516 AD Textus Receptus | 1844 AD sinaiticus "found" by Tischendorf |
| 1611 AD King James Bible | 1881 Westcott & Hort Greek NT using mostly vaticanus and sinaiticus text |
| 1769 AD Revision in use today, which mainly corrected typos and misprints. | 1901 AD Revised Edition (ASV eg. American Standard Edition) uses Westcott & Hort Greek NT. |
| . | All "modern" versions that follow, use the Westcott & Hort Greek and/or Nestle/Aland Greek NT, including the NIV, ESV etc. |
There you have the last 2000 years of Bible history. Critics will argue that the KJV we have today is not the same as the 1611, and they are correct. What has NOT changed however, is the Word. Correcting typos and misprints is not the same as what resulted from the manuscripts known as codex vaticanus and sinaiticus.
The manuscripts
What's the big deal? Somewhere during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, there were those who wanted to mix Christianity with pagan and/or Jewish traditions. Earlier, Paul had already dealt with some of these in Galatians chapter 3. These persons trying to corrupt the teachings of Jesus and Paul seemed to be centered around Alexandria, Egypt but not exclusively. This is something I would like to read more about, but they were known by such names as Gnostics & Arians. The groups in Alexandria developed a method of writing known today as "textual criticism", which would be expuonded upon later by others. This method assumes the ability to decide when a word or entire verses need to be replaced or omitted. At some point, it seems that copies of the received text made their way to this area and were re-copied into a new set of manuscripts (see table above). One of them became known as the Codex Vaticanus and reflects this textual criticism when comparing to all the other manuscripts that have become known as the "majority text" or the "received text".Textus Receptus vs Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
In the early 1500's, the Catholic church had a rebellion on it's hands. Just one year before Luther published his 'ninety-five theses", a man named Erasmus had finished his work of collating Greek manuscripts into a new edition of the Greek New Testament. The manuscripts he chose were primarily those of the majority text, not those of Alexandria. Where did Erasmus get these texts? Historians will disagree, but it is likely that those known as the Waldenses(Waldensian's) of northern Italy and elsewhere, who had preserved them for generations, smuggled these manuscripts into England at a time when England was under the control of the Catholic church. The Textus Receptus would go on to form the basis of the German Luther Bible, the Spanish Reina-Valera and the English King James Bible.
Read more here.
http://thekingsbible.com/Library/TextusReceptus
Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland
The book you hold in your hand with the word "Bible" on the front or side is supposed to be the Word of God. Many assume that one Bible is the same as another with "minor differences". Some have realized the differences among the newer translations and/or the King James Bible. Even fewer know much about the men involved in bringing the new versions to us and what they believed. Westcott and his colleague Hort were known as textual scholars of their day wrote numerous letters as they began to examine the Biblical texts. It's from these letters we can get in their own words, what views they held. These men were doing their work during an age that saw men such as Charles Darwin bring in ideas that would cause some to question the Biblical view of creation. Their papers can be found today and here are but a few quotes:Questioning hell as a real place of punishment
"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149). Link here on archive.org
Questioning the deity of Jesus Christ
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297). archive.org
Read more here:
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-dont-christian-leaders-prefer-the-nestle-aland-text
and here
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-are-the-differences-between-the-textus-receptus-and-nestle-aland-important
and here
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/fuller-preserved.html
Changes that affect doctrine
Below are just a few examples of scripture differences that affect doctrine, or the basic beliefs of Christianity. The deity of Christ, the meaning of salvation and hell as an actual place of punishment to name a few. Textual criticism at work...Acts 3:26
Note: Is Jesus the Son of God, or the servant of God?
KJV
Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
NIV
When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.
ESV
God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.
Acts 8:37
Note: What is the consequence of someone reading verses 36 & 38 and leaving out 37? Could someone get the idea that all one needs to do to be a Christian is get baptized?
KJV
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.
NIV
missing
ESV
missing
Matthew 8:2
Note: You kneel before a king but worship God.
KJV
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
NIV
A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
ESV
And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
Matthew 9:13
Note: Notice the word repentance is omitted. To repent means to change. Change from unbelief to believing.
KJV
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.
NIV
But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
ESV
Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark 13:14
Note: Jesus makes a point out that He is referring to the prophesy given to Daniel. Leaving it out gives the impression that He is the one saying this and it's new.
KJV
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:
NIV
“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
ESV
“But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
No comments:
Post a Comment