The "Oldest" and "Best" Manuscripts Part Two
(Oldest is Not Always Best)

All scripture is from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.
Before beginning this study, I suggest you pray and ask God to guide you through this study.
I also suggest that you do you own study of this material in order to ensure its accuracy.
Copyright Notice

_________________________________________

NOTE: Roll mouse pointer over scripture references to view scripture in a pop up box.

Note: Read the Foreword in Part One if you have not already done so.

In my first treatise I noted that I have become a staunch supporter of the King James Version of the Bible. Let me now relate my understanding of the KJV-Only debate. There are those that say that the preserved Word of God is extant in English only in the King James Version. Put more succinctly, the KJV is the only English version of the preserved word of God. According to KJV Onlyism (a word coined by the anti-KJV school), no other translation of the Bible into English is acceptable for no other translation has the preserved Word of God.

I have struggled with this issue for a very long time, and have come to the following conclusion. I believe that the Word of God is preserved to all generations, and that it is preserved today in English. But I do not limit the preserved Word of God to the KJV only. I believe that the true and preserved Word of God is in the Majority texts, and consequently in the Textus Receptus (or Received Text), which is a Greek Text based on the Majority texts. There are other texts that were consulted when the Textus Receptus was produced, and therefore it differs somewhat from the Majority Texts. I am willing to consider English translations based upon the Majority Texts (MT) or the Textus Receptus (TR). (The Textus Receptus is also known as the Received Text). However, when the MT and the TR disagree, I always defer to the Textus Receptus for reasons I stated in the last treatise on this subject. I am unwilling to accept any translation based upon A,B,C & D (see above). Those modern translations using the United Bible Society text are simply using the old Westcott and Hort text from the late 19^th Century. The UBS text is the Nestle-Aland text, and that is just an updated Westcott and Hort text with a few added Textus Receptus readings thrown in for good measure. These texts are a part of the Western texts and/or the Alexandrian texts. Virtually every modern translation from the late 19^th Century to the present is based upon this text.

I have decided, upon much study and prayer and meditation, that I am not a member of the KJV Only school of thought. But I am very close to that. I said that I will consider any translation based upon the Majority Texts.

I have considered the following and can give my unqualified endorsement (for what is worth) to these translations: The King James Version, Webster's Translation, the Literal King James Version (LITV), and the Modern King James (MKJV) Version. The KJV and Webster are essentially identical. Both are based upon the TR. The latter two are translations by J.P. Green Sr., in whom I have the utmost confidence. I have used the LITV for several years and it is, to the best of my knowledge, true to the Textus Receptus.

I can give a qualified endorsement to these: The Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT), and the English Majority Text Version (EMTV). I qualify this by stating that I have some but not much experience with these and they are based upon the Majority Texts.

I give another qualified endorsement to Young's Literal Translation. It is based upon the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts has been praised by many conservative Christians throughout the years. Robert Young published the translation in the late 1898. Robert Young is also the author or Young's Concordance.

I wish to comment separately on the New King James Version. Yes, it is based on the Textus Receptus. But several of its translators are rationalists and even though they used the TR, they are modernists and do not accept the TR as a good text. To me, that means that some renderings are tainted by modernism. I have a good deal of experience with the NKJV and I have found several readings that are not in keeping with the traditionalist view. I therefore reject the NKJV as an acceptable translation.

In the Preface to the NKJV, we are told that since the late 19^th Century the view was held that the Majority Text was officially edited in the Fourth Century and therefore suspect. The preface continues, stating, "a growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text [Textus Receptus] as far more reliable than previously thought." This is a qualified endorsement of the TR, not disregarding it, but not completely accepting it.

However, in the next verse they recite the modernist mantra, "Readers may be assured that textual debate does not affect one in a thousand words of the Greek New Testament." Two things. 1) Here they are officially accepting the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. And, 2), They are stating that the codices like A, B, C, and D, are essentially the same as the Majority Texts. Their premise is that the differences between the two are slight and do not question any established doctrine. This is the mantra of virtually all modernists. I say mantra because they repeat it over and over as if that will somehow make it acceptable. And, of course, if they keep on repeating it some will believe it.

Well let me give a few examples why they are wrong. John 3:16 states "He gave His only begotten Son". Modern versions state "His one and only Son". Now this is a variant reading because even the GNT of Westscott and Hort use the Greek word (lemma) "monogenes", (morph) "monogenen" (μονογενης/μονογενην), just as the TR does. But modern translators have forgone the traditional interpretation, making the word mean one and only son instead of only begotten son. What is the difference? God has many sons and daughters by adoption. Christians are His adopted children. Jesus is His only begotten, but not His one and only. This reading denies that Christians are the children of God. Here are some other of those changes that supposedly do not affect doctrine:

In Revelation 1:11 modern versions omit "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last".

In Colossians 1:14 "through his blood" is omitted.

In Matthew 27:35 "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" is omitted.

The doctrine that Jesus' death was the fulfillment of prophecy is questioned here.

These few examples (and there are many more of these) show beyond doubt that doctrine IS affected by the modern texts. This is in opposition to the NKJV view that these textual differences are minor in scope and need not concern readers of these Bibles. Older versions and some electronic versions of the NKJV are footnoted. The footnotes give the readings I have quoted here.

Another reason for rejecting the NKJV is the Hebrew manuscript used. The NKJV uses the Stuttgart Edition of the Biblia Hebraica, which is based upon the corrupt Ben Asher Biblia Hebraica, of Rudolph Kittel. The KJV uses the Masoretic Hebrew text, which is the one transmitted by Jewish scribes from the time of Ezra up to at least the Fifth Century AD.

There are several more translations based on the Textus Receptus that I cannot recommend because I am not familiar with them. They are the 21^st Century King James Version (KJ21), and the Third Millennium Bible (TMB), both by Deuel Enterprises, Inc. After reading their specifications, they seem to be good translations. I looked at several verses and they seem to follow the KJV exactly with the exception of archaic words. In 2 Corinthians 13, the word charity is changed to love. I like charity better. The Third Millennium Bible seems to be the same as the 21^st Century KJV, except that it contains the Apocrypha. Again, I am not recommending them only because I am unfamiliar with them. The KJ21 and TMB have this going for them: they are not new translations, just updates of the KJV. There are probably other English translations based upon the Masoretic texts and the TR that I am completely unfamiliar with.

There are several reasons why I am not KJV Only. The first is the KJV Letter to the Reader. The translators did not consider themselves to be divinely inspired. They describe how they had to make certain subjective translations:

They also advocate the use of several translations to make sense of these inadequacies:

There is a scriptural reason for not accepting KJV-only position, and that is the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4. Now I am familiar with the KJV Only explanation for this use of the word. It is that Passover had already passed in Acts 12:4, and Herod knew that it had passed. Therefore Herod was referring to the pagan festival of Spring, called Easter in the 17^th Century. Therefore, Herod was really referring to a pagan rite when he made the decision. Thus the KJV is correct in its use of Easter.

The argument separates Passover and the Feast of Unleavened bread as two separate events. But to the Jews, Passover was the entire week long festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread. In fact Acts 12:3 tells us that they in the midst of were the days of unleavened bread. So it is obvious that Herod meant to bring Peter before the Jews after the days of unleavened bread had passed. Thus he equated the days of unleavened bread with pascha, or Passover.

My real problem with this explanation is the use of the word pascha (πασχα) by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit had meant a pagan festival, would He have not used the real name of the pagan festival? Why would the Spirit of God use a holy a term like pascha, which is a term given to our Lord, to describe a pagan festival? Since there was no such festival as Easter in that day, how could Herod have meant Easter? The nearest thing would have been the Spring Festival, which honored Astarte. If the Spirit meant the Festival of Astarte why would he use the term pascha?

The term pascha is associated with Jesus, who is our Passover, according to 1 Corinthians 5:7, "For even Christ our Passover lamb is sacrificed for us:" The Holy Spirit would not have used the term Astarte to refer to the Son of God. Therefore, Easter is the wrong word to use. In a study of his, a friend of mine, Thomas Dexter, stated:

"Some assert the Holy Spirit inspired the King James translators to correctly translate το πασχα [to pascha, passover] of Acts 12.4 as 'Easter'. This position seems to question the divine inspiration of Luke. For had a heathen festival of Herod been meant, την Ασταρτην [ten Astarten, Astarte] or an equivalent almost surely would have been scribed so as to not confuse the reader and hearer of the day to the meaning of το πασχα."

Let me give two more arguments for the use of the word Easter. One, the translators of the KJV followed the tradition established in earlier English translations. The precedent was set by previous English translations of the Bible, beginning with Tyndale in 1525. The Geneva Bible, after Tyndale, used the word Passover. The Great Bible and the Bishop's Bible both used the word 'Easter'. So the KJV translators were following a precedent set by previous English translations.

There is also the argument that the word Easter is the dynamic equivalent of pascha. Thus to the Englishman in the Seventeenth Centry, Easter was the equivalent of Passover. There is evidence of that in the Webster 1828 Dictionary, which defines Easter as "A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque." I cannot refute that argument. The evidence confirms this. But I still cannot get beyond the fact that the Spirit inspired Luke to use the word pascha, which has only one meaning, and that is Passover. It is never used for any pagan festival. A Jew would have considered that blasphemous. And God has given us the following scriptures that would work against using the Holy word, pascha, to describe pagan activities:

The New Testament is divinely inspired and we must consider it to be valid scripture for that reason. Paul considered himself to be divinely inspired and that he was writing scripture (1 Corinthians 2:12-13). Peter agreed with this (2 Peter 3:15-16)

There is a scriptural reason for not accepting KJV-only position outside of the use of the word Easter. The Massoretes believed themselves to be divinely inspired to transmit the scriptures to posterity as accurately as possible. The King James Translators were under no such conviction. I therefore do not accept that the KJV is the only translation containing the inspired Word of God.

In summary, I reject the teaching that the KJV is the only preserved Word of God in English. I uphold the KJV as the best translation because it uses the Textus Receptus as its basis. I am willing to accept translations based on the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text. However, I maintain that the King James Version is the standard by which others are measured. I reject all modern translations based on the corrupt Western and Alexandrian texts.

Before continuing, we must refute the notion that the King James Bible was written in the common dialogue of the day. The English of the KJV has been called Elizibethan, Jamesian, and Jacobean (and probably other classifications as well). The fact is, that the English of the KJV is none of the above. It was written in a syntax designed to rise above common every day speech, and therefore better stand the test of time. Here is what Bishop Lightfoot said: "we may take courage from the fact that the language of our English Bible is not the language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its grand simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and often affected diction of the literature of the time." If you think that the KJV is Elizabethan, try comparing it with Shakespeare. The Bible is much more easily understood. The idiom of Shakespeare is often unintelligible to the modern ear, unless one has studied Shakespeare or Elizabethan English (or uses a Shakespearean Concordance). The KJV Bible, on the other hand, is quite a bit clearer to the modern ear than Elizabethan English. The KJV is written in a simple form of English. No the KJV was not written in the vernacular of its day; it was written in a syntax all its own. It has its own peculiar style that surpasses the ordinary. KJV English was not a spoken syntax, but one designed specifically for translating the Bible. The KJV was written in Bible English!

If you will take the time to understand the use of suffixes and the use of singular and plural pronouns, the KJV becomes much more understandable. That study should take only a few minutes.

We will continue this debate in the next segment of The "Oldest" and "Best" Manuscripts.