WHICH BIBLE SHOULD I USE?
Living in the last days has many perplexities. We live in a time where if it were possible even the very elect would be deceived. Now, more than ever we must absolutely depend upon Christ and daily walk in the Spirit. One of the great questions of our day is, 'Which Bible should I use?' Today there are more than 428 translations of the New Testament in the English language. The majority of them are no longer in print which testifies to their lack of value. Traveling around the world I am finding the same question arising in other countries.
The many different translations of the Bible are a part of the end time confusion. There are a multitude of arguments out there and to chase these arguments will only leave man in a spiritual ditch. In studying this subject I have come to a conclusion and am totally convinced that the King James Version is God's word to the English speaking people.
Why are there so many new versions?
Many have asked this question and there are many answers to this question, but when one looks at the marketing techniques of those that sell the new versions it must clearly be for profit; and on the spiritual side it is for confusion and ultimately deception. The King James Bible is in 'public domain.' You can quote from it, copy it, use it in a message or book without anyone's permission. The NIV cannot be used quite as freely. It is copyrighted and one must have permission for certain types of usage. It is now becoming more and more difficult to find King James Bibles at the local Bible bookstores.
When Charles Russell of the Jehovah's Witnesses sat down to make his New World Translation he just simply took what the Bible said and changed it where he didn't agree. But the new versions of the Bible are not merely a bad translation such as Russell's, it is that and even deeper. The new versions of the Bible have been translated from different manuscripts than the King James, and it is these manuscripts that are the root cause of the corrupted new versions. The final product is only as good as the materials used to make it.
There are over 5,000 manuscripts in existence today and none of these manuscripts contain the entire New Testament in themselves. From these manuscripts a Greek New Testament was made: the Textus Receptus (or the Received Text), also called the Byzantine Text, or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority (90%) of manuscripts still in existence. These existing manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was the most notable editor of all and was one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.
Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible and deformed them with philosophical speculations, errors, fallacious reasoning, and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful. The King James Bible has the Textus Receptus as its New Testament basis.
We have seen how that 90% of the existing manuscripts or the vast majority are in agreement with the Textus Receptus, but what about the other 10%? Of the other 10% there are two groups: the Minority Text, also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt, and The Neutral. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes.
It is believed that the Minority Texts were butchered by Egyptian Gnosticsm with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The Gnostics were a group that did not believe: 1) the virgin birth, 2) that Jesus was the Son of God, 3) that Jesus was resurrected to Heaven, 4) that Jesus was the Creator, or 5) that Jesus made atonement for our sins. There are many alterations in the Minority Texts, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years. The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places. The Minority Texts are weak doctrinally and often dangerously incorrect. Yet, startling as it may sound, virtually every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text in preference to Textus Receptus!
The two main manuscripts of the Minority Texts are Vaticanus (or B), and the Sinaiticus (Aleph). Vaticanus was produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. This manuscript omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14. It is interesting that a manuscript possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Hebrews 10:10-12). It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17. Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Vaticanus has numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been traveled over by the pen of some scribe of about the tenth century. If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable.
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament.
In the 1800's two men, Westcott and Hort made another Greek New Testament text from the minority text which included Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since the time of Westcott and Hort another revision was created called the Nestle/Aland. Nearly all of the new translations of the Bible are based upon one of these two Greek New Testaments and not the Textus Receptus. That means that the newer versions are based on 5% of the manuscripts in stark contrast to 90% on the other side. This is where the differences really come from. We can see that from very early on there has been a struggle over this issue of the correct scriptures, we now hold in our hands the offspring of these arguments. Many of the deletions in the modern versions revolve around exactly what the Gnostics didn't believe in: the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God and was resurrected to Heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins.
In the world today, there only really exists two classes of Bibles: those based upon the Textus Receptus and those based upon the Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments. Whether a person has an New International Version, New American Standard Version, or Revised Standard Version he is reading from the Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments that are only supported by 5% of the existing manuscripts.
How does the Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland differ from Textus Receptus?
These two Greek New Testaments are vastly different from one another. They are different to the point that only one of them can be the Word of God. If a person believes that Wescott/Hort is the correct version then they must believe that the Textus Receptus was added to (with words like 'Jesus' and 'Fasting' and versus like 1 John 5:7). If a person holds to the Textus Receptus that person must believe that the Wescott/Hort version has deletions.
The Wescott/Hort, and Nestle/Aland are primarily based upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are in contradiction one with the other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone! The Wescott/Hort - Nestle/Aland Greek Text differs from the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places, involving almost 10,000 Greek words - there's no way that a Bible translated from the Wescott/Hort - Nestle/Aland could be anything equal to the King James Bible which is based on the Textus Receptus.
The Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. It was also the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland. At one point Pope Gregory ordered all copies of the Textus Receptus destroyed.
Many argue that the Minority Texts are older and therefore must be the accurate manuscripts, but Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts favored by the
One scholar, when researching more than 86,000 quotations from scripture of the early church fathers pointed out that Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of their citations from scripture. Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Savior's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood! Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church.
If I were to be tried and the sentence was to be life or death I would rather the jury base their decision on 90% of the evidence than 5%. Yet we are not just dealing with life or death, we are talking about eternity. A person that uses the New International Version, The Revised Standard, or The New American Standard is basing their eternity upon 5% of the existing manuscripts which are not only obviously corrupted but self contradicting.The changes in the new versions are having a very obvious effect upon the church world of our day. It is perfect timing for these new versions to come in the Laodicean Age. A translation that is missing a multitude of words not only will, but has caused damage to the church in our day. The church is overrun by humanism and self esteem. Sacrifice is foreign to the modern church and death to the old life is offensive...
(Due to difficulties a large number of examples of sciptures taken out of the new versions especially the NIV are not recorded in this present article but can be provided for any who are interested).
The name 'Jesus' is omitted in the NIV 38 times and the NASB 73 times. The NKJV omits the word 'Lord' 66 times, 'God' 51 times, 'heaven' 50 times, 'repent' 44 times, 'blood' 23 times, 'hell' 22 times, 'JEHOVAH' entirely, 'new testament' entirely, 'damnation' entirely, 'devils' entirely. There are 34 verses in the Bible that discuss the role of 'the dragon', the NIV omits 20 of these. The word 'hell' occurs 67 times in the Old Testament. The NASB and the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation translate it 'Sheol' all 67 times.
While the NIV does not sanction homosexuality directly, it certainly doesn't teach against it either. The NIV makes it appear that the sin is prostitution and not homosexuality in general. Not all homosexuals are 'shrine prostitutes', but all of them are 'sodomites.'
These are just a few examples of the many changes in the new versions. Many have said, 'Well everything that is deleted is in the footnotes.' Even so they are still not in the text. The footnotes are the last step to total removal, and not many read their footnotes. The difficulty of using the footnotes in the NIV for example is can we justify accepting some foot notes without accepting all of the others. For example:
Psalms 8:5 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." (KJV) The NIV footnote says 'a little lower than God.'
Mark 15:39 "And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God." (KJV) The verse says, 'the Son of God.' The NIV footnote says, 'a Son of God.'
Isaiah 14:12, 15
How you have fallen How art thou fallen from
heaven, O Lucifer, son from heaven O morning
star, a son of the dawn... of the morning!...Yet
thou shalt be brought but you are brought
down to the grave. down to hell.
One of the references for these verses in the NIV is 2 Peter 1:19 which leads you to Christ in the New Testament. The KJV calls for honesty 10 times in the New Testament, the NIV and NASB only once. The NIV also removes fasting 6 times out of the New Testament.
We all have to agree that the King James Bible is very different from the newer versions. It is different to the point that only one of them could be the Word of God. I for one do not think that God waited until 1978 to give the English speaking world His true word, nor do I believe that God even waited until the 1800's. From 1611 the English speaking world has had the word of God, the King James Version.
This is not just an argument for the King James Bible only, for the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James also underlies others. The King James Bible is also in agreement with the Georgian Bible, which is one of the oldest, and it is very similar to the Spanish Reina Valera. For us to say that the King James is incorrect or filled with errors would be to condemn the bibles of many true believers throughout the world and thus say that until the 1800's reviving of the Minority Texts the world was in darkness. No, our God is greater than that, far greater. He has kept His word throughout the ages and we can confidently know that we have it today in the King James translation.