Why the KJV Only?

By Bud Alavezos

Paul tells us in Heb 4:12,

“For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword…”

In the Revelation we are told,

Rev. 19:11-16 “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was
called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of
fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the
armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule
them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

John, speaking of this Word states,

1 Jn. 1:5 “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light,
and in him is no darkness at all.”

Speaking of the last days Amos states,

Amos 8:11 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a
famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:”

How does this occur? Malachi gives some insight.

Mal. 1:6, 7 “…O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar;…”

Jesus is not only the Word, He is the Bread of Life

The above texts are extremely important for those of us living in the time of the “great and solemn
events” soon to take place on planet earth.

There is a great work to be done, not only in our own lives, but in the world at large. This can only be
accomplished through the looking-glass of God’s pure unadulterated Word. Satan knows this, and long
ago set out to destroy confidence in God’s Word by producing many counterfeits, all of which follow the
corrupted New Testament produced by two heretics, BF Westcott and FJA Hort. More about them
later. Some of Satan’s greatest tools to cast doubt on God’s Word are the footnotes in many of these
new versions, stating suggestions such as: “The oldest and most accurate manuscripts state”; “other
ancient mss. add”; “other ancient mss. omit”. Some footnotes would even have you believe that the
book of Mark ends at Mark 16:8, not verse 20, thus eliminating the resurrection and ascension of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Other footnotes would eliminate John 7:53-8:11.

How and where did this all begin?

Notice the origin of the two completely different texts claiming to be God’s Word today:
I would like to draw your attention to a few important facts in this very revealing diagram posted
above:

(1) First and foremost is the fact that the KJV comes from the line of the apostles, continuing
through the devout Christians who, because of persecution had to flee into the wilderness and
was the product of those very godly men (the KJV translators) who also had to flee from Roman
oppression at the close of the Reformation. In their desire to produce an accurate translation,
the KJV scholars rejected the corrupted translations of the Gnostic scholars.
(2) In contrast, all of the new versions are descendants of not only the Gnostics (Greek philosophy
combined with Christianity) who believed that Jesus was not the Son of God, nor did they
believe in any of the miracles which He performed; but, and more importantly, these versions all
rely on the Greek New Testament that Wescott and Hort produced, using mainly the Vaticanus
(found in the Vatican library); Sinaiticus (discovered in a monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai) and
Alexandrinus and a few others. Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament was the basis of the
Revised Version that was produced in 1881 at the close of the Oxford Movement. (1833-1883
Jesuits entered the universities of England as Anglican scholars in a covert effort to convert
England back to Romanism).
(3) There are 5210 different fragments of Greek manuscripts which support the Majority/KJV/
Received Text and only 43 Greek manuscripts aside from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus supporting
the minority text. The new versions all follow the invented version produced by Westcott and
Hort leaning towards Romanism.
(4) Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with themselves over 3000 times in just the gospels alone.
(5) John W. Burgon declares Vaticanus and Sinaiticus “two of the least trustworthy documents in
existence”.
(6) Over 306 Greek words were added. 2987 Greek words were omitted. (most originate in the
Westcott and Hort text)

These facts should be startling, as well as conclusive to all searching for eternal truth. However let’s
address a few other issues.

Does anyone really believe that God, who gave us His Word by His Holy Spirit, “For the prophecy came
not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” 2
Peter 1:21, and thereafter allow it to become lost for over 1500 years (during the 1260 years of papal
persecution, followed by the Reformation) and suddenly permit it to be discovered in the Vatican library
(the oppressors of His true church) or in a wastebasket at Saint Catherine’s monastery (where also can
be found a seven foot high pile of skulls of deceased monastics), when He has promised to preserve His
Word forever?

“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

It is reasonable to accept that God, not only divinely inspired the production of His Word, but that He
divinely preserved that Word throughout history as well.

David W. Cloud in his book “Myths about the Modern Bible Versions” exposes the fallacy of many of the
myths concerning the different Bible versions.
They are:

(1) Erasmus [compiler of the Greek New Testament/Textus Receptus; the basis of the KJV] was
merely a humanist.

He did agree that Erasmus was an enigma. Though Erasmus never officially left Rome and did criticize
Martin Luther as well as some of the Reformation leaders, on the other hand he publicly rebuked a
number of the Roman blasphemies. In addition, it was his desire to place God’s Word in the hands of
the common people. Again on page 53 of Cloud’s book Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, he
quotes Erasmus: “These sacred words give you the very image of Christ speaking, healing, dying, rising
again, and make Him so present, that were He before your very eyes you would not more truly see
Him.” These are not the words of a humanist as we understand the term.

(2) The Reformation editors lacked sufficient manuscript evidence.

This is a perversion of the actual history. On Page 74 in bold letters, Cloud states: “The Vaticanus
Readings Were Known and Rejected by the Protestant Translators”. He was speaking of Erasmus,
Robert Stephanus, Theodore Beza, and other 16th century editors who had access to the Vaticanus
(Westcott and Hort’s preferred manuscript). On page 77, Cloud quotes Ellicot: “The manuscripts which
Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details, from the great bulk of the
cursive MSS. … That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. THE FIRST ANCESTOR OF THE
RECEIVED TEXT WAS AT LEAST CONTEMPORY WITH THE OLDEST MSS, IF NOT OLDER THAN ANY ONE OF
THEM.” (Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two members of the N.T. Company, pp.
11-12)

This is also a denial of the Christians in non-Greek speaking languages. David B. Loughran, quoting David
Fuller, on p. 9 of his book Bible Versions—Which is the REAL Word of God, makes an important point
that the modern Revisionists overlook: “It was at Antioch, capital of Syria, that the believers were first
called Christians. And as time rolled on, the Syrian-speaking Christians could be numbered by the
thousands. It is generally admitted that the Bible was translated from the original language into Syrian
about 150 AD. This version is known as the Peshitto (the correct or simple). This Bible even today
generally follows the Received Text.”

Loughran also places the Old Latin Vulgate (common--not Jerome’s Vulgate) at AD 157 and the
Waldensian at 120 A.D. . These precede the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by two centuries. However on
page 10 he lists: The Gallic Bible (Southern France, AD 177); The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350); The Old
Syriac (AD 400); The Armenian Bible (AD 400, 1244 copies still exist); The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450);
The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535); The Czech Bible (AD 1602); The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD
1606); and the Greek Orthodox Bible (from the time of the apostles and is still in use today). All of these
versions are in agreement with the Majority/Received Text.

David Cloud on page 77, Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, also pointed out that Erasmus used the
early church Fathers as independent witnesses and “proves the correctness of the Latin text [not
Jerome’s Vulgate] through a reference to the Fathers whose wordings agree with the Latin text and not
with the Greek. Often, however, there is agreement between the Greek manuscripts and the
commentaries of the Fathers” (W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation, p. 145).

(3) The difference between texts and versions are insignificant and affect no doctrine.
Again, David Cloud points out on p. 83 that there are almost 10,000 [9,970] word differences between
the Received Greek Text underlying the KJV and the Greek (compiled by Wescott and Hort) upon which
all the new versions are derived. This is the equivalent of the final two books (Jude and Revelation) in
God’s Word.

B. G. Wilkinson states on p. 175 of his book “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated”:

“The Revisers apparently felt no constraint on this point [curse for changing God’s Word], for they made
36,000 changes in the English of the King James Version, and very nearly 6,000 [Cloud had more recent
data] in the Greek Text.”

After stating that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, David Cloud quotes Ps 11:3: “If the
foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” This is exactly what has been accomplished and
most Christians are completely unaware of this fact.

On page 88 Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, David Cloud states: “There are 17 verses omitted
outright in the New International Version—Mt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28;
17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom 16:24; and 1 Jn. 5:7. Further, the NIV separates
Mark 16:9-20 from the rest of the chapter with a note that says, “The two most reliable manuscripts do
not have Mk. 16:9-20,” thus discounting the authority of this vital passage in the minds of the readers
and effectively removing another 10 verses. John 7:53—8:11 is also separated from the rest of the text
with this footnote: “the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have Jn. 7:53—8:11.” Hence
another 24 verses are effectively removed from the Bible. The NIV questions four other verses with
footnotes—Matthew 12:47; 21:44; Luke 22:43; 22:44. THIS IS A TOTAL OF 55 ENTIRE VERSES WHICH
ARE REMOVED ENTIRELY OR SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED. IN ADDITION THERE ARE 147 OTHER VERSES
WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS MISSING.”

The above paragraph is a study in and of itself. Are we so Laodicean that we find this totally acceptable?

How can anyone seriously believe that the true intention of these modern Bible translators is not to
change God’s Word. The question is, “How can such a travesty on God’s Word not effect doctrine? The
following example will illustrate how substituting man’s word for God’s does affect doctrine. The KJV
uses a specific term “fornication” which can only mean an unlawful relationship and all that it entails.
Whereas new versions have replaced it with a very general subjective word “immoral”. This can, and
does open a floodgate of evils. There are those who feel it perfectly moral to be in a live-in relationship
with “the love of their life” whether male or female. Others believe that it is perfectly moral to kill your
unborn child. Some of those very same people adamantly believe that it is immoral to cut down trees or
drive gasoline-operated automobiles, etc..

The above is addressing only one word and could be explored in much more detail. This should highlight
the issue, however it is important to remember that the Revisers have made over 36,000 changes in the
English, as quoted by B. G. Wilkinson above.

On pages 92-99 Myths about the Modern Versions, David Cloud lists 51 doctrines that have been
affected by these modern versions. Included are:
Fasting; the virgin birth; withdrawing from those who deny doctrine (would that include Bibles that deny
doctrine?); healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; calling sinners “to repentance”; “take up the cross” is
omitted; “trust in riches” omitted, therefore it is hard to enter heaven; and “they worshipped Him” is
removed; Christ “by himself” purged our sins is removed; confess our “sins” one to another rather than
faults; Jesus came “in the (sarx/sinful) flesh” is eliminated; three person Godhead is omitted. [not listed
however, purgatory “under punishment for the day of judgment” is taught in 2 Pet 2:9 and Mark 7:18,
19 teach that all foods are clean].

This list is incomplete, however it should be obvious to a sincere believer that multiple doctrines have
been altered to accommodate a world loving church. This is the work of Satan.

(4) Inspiration was infallible but preservation is fallible.

This entire concept is in opposition to God’s Word. God, who cannot lie, has promised in Psalms 12:6, 7
to preserve His Word. (note: even this verse has been changed in many modern bibles from “Thou hast
promised to preserve them” (the words) to “Thou hast promised to preserve us from this generation
forever.)” Following are other texts supporting divine preservation: Ps. 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2;
119:89; 119:152; 119:160; Isaiah 48:8; 59:21; Matt. 4:4; 5:18; 24:35

(5) Biblical scholarship does not support the Received Text.

This is simply a subjective comment that cannot be supported by fact. True, almost all textual critics
today reject the Received Text, leaving a total void in most, if not all, Bible colleges. As humanists
control the media, Textual Critics do the same in regards to textual scholarship that does not accept the
validity of the Egyptian [Gnostic] manuscripts. On page 133 of Myths About the Modern Versions, Cloud
writes, “Even the graduates of many Bible-believing schools are practically unaware of the existence of a
scholarly “other side” of the issue. Because of evangelical “media blackout” on this subject, they are
aware only of views closely paralleling Wescott-Hort’s turn of the century theories: “Oldest and better
manuscripts are to be preferred in the passages of question” (meaning Sinaiticus and Vaticanus…).”

On the same page he quotes Pickering directing us to John Burgon’s support for the Received Text: “Of
the considerable volume of unpublished materials that Dean Burgon left when he died, of special note is
his index of New Testament citations by the Church Fathers of antiquity. It consists of sixteen thick
manuscript volumes, to be found in the British Museum, and contains 86,489 quotations. It may be said
that Burgon’s scholarship in this facet of the total field has never been equaled (Pickering, ibid., p 217).”

On page 132 Cloud, quoting Pickering, states that Burgon’s work is “either ignored or misrepresented in
every handbook (that the author has seen) published in English in this century that touches on the
method of New Testament textual criticism” (Wilber N. Pickering, “Contribution of John William Burgon
to New Testament Criticism,” True or False?, p. 218).”

Finally Cloud lists these Biblical scholars who do support the Received Text: John Burgon; Robert Louis
Dabney; Philip Mauro; the Trinitarian Bible Society (Terrance Harvey Brown); Dr. Edward Hills; Benjamin
Franklin Dearmore; William Aberhart; The Fundamentalist Evangelistic Association with Marion H.
Reynolds, Sr.; Dr. David Otis Fuller; Dr. Donald Waite; Dr. James Qurollo; Dr. Bruce Lackey; Jay P. Green,
Sr.; Donald R. White; Dr. William Pickering and Dr. Thomas Strouse. Cloud then concludes with the
thought that thousands of common men [God’s faithful church in the wilderness] have come to the
same conclusion through their own careful, prayerful private studies.
The author would also refer to the manuscripts, both Greek and non-Greek posted on page 4 of this
article, supporting the Received Text.

(6) Modern texts and versions are based upon Bible believing scholarship.

On pages 172-258, Myths about the Modern Versions, Cloud quotes hundreds of statements by many
of the often quoted Biblical critics themselves proving their modernistic skepticism regarding the
infallibility/inerrancy of God’s Word. On page 173 he states: “It is not difficult to prove that modern
textual criticism is a product of end-time apostasy, and that is what I intend to do in this section of the
book.”

Two paragraphs later he states: “God has commanded me to “mark and avoid” false teachers (Romans
16:17). How is it possible that He would use false teachers to lead the teachers in the foundational issue
of Bible texts and versions? I do not think it is possible. For one, I would reject the modern versions if
only for the fact that they are founded upon the work of men who are apostate from the faith.”

“Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt
water and fresh.” James 3:12

On page 174, Cloud begins by contrasting the era in which the KJV was compiled (1611) to that of the
modern bibles (1881-1984 and still coming). He correctly points out that 1611 was an “age of belief”
(other authors identify all the KJV translators as extremely godly and learned scholars. Whereas the
modern translations were compiled in an age of unbelief, including: Romanism (Westcott and Hort’s
Revised Version was the end product of the Oxford Movement); Liberalism; Modernism; Socialism;
Higher Criticism (according to Cloud, modern textual criticism is a form of rationalism and infidelity); and
Darwinism (disbelief in the creator God).

The 1881 Revised Version Committee was ecumenical, howbeit skewed toward the liberal bent, led by
Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Cloud gives a brief glimpse of the makeup of the
committee on pages 201-202, Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, citing how George Vance Smith
(a Unitarian who did not accept Jesus’s divinity): “After he participated in a communion service with
the other revisers, a letter was published in The Times (July 11, 1870) in which he proudly declared that
though he had received communion, he had refused to recite the Creed since he would not compromise
his ‘principles’ as one who denied the deity of Jesus Christ.”

Cloud then quotes A. G. Hobbs in the forward of the Centennial Edition of Burgon’s Revision Revised:

“[Smith’s participation in the communion service] led to a public protest signed by ‘some thousands of
the clergy.’ The Upper House passed a Resolution that ‘no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord
Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which was committed the Revision of the
Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and it is further the judgment of this House that any person now
on either Company should cease to act therewith.’ This Resolution was also passed by the Lower House.
And still they could not get this non-believer off the committee.”

Then Cloud states: “Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirlwall all refused to serve if Smith were
dismissed.”

Can the character of the makeup of the Revision Committee be more obvious?
P. 202, “Unitarian Smith later gloried in the fact that many changes made in the English Revision
reflected his own views on Jesus Christ. He understood that the critical text and the modern versions
support doctrinal heresy better than the Received Text.”

The above speaks volumes as to the composition of the committee that produced the bible that is the
template for all the modern versions today.

The following is just a sample of quotes of some of the more well-known textual critics listed with the
page numbers from David W. Cloud’s book.

205-207--Philip Schaff (the president of the American Committee/ American Standard Bible):

#1 “[Schaff’s description of his visit to the Franciscan monastery of St. Francis in 1841] “in the chapel is
the picture of the Madonna, who often spoke with St. Francis…” (spiritualism)

#2 “[Shaff’s description of his audience with pope Gregory XV1 in 1841] “passing through a door we
found ourselves in the beautiful but plain sitting room of His Holiness, who was clad in white. …He is
certainly a good man. He gave me his blessing and I went out quite satisfied from his presence.”

207-208-- Both Dr. Ezra Abbot (foremost textual critic in America) and Joseph Henry Thayer were
Unitarians and held views similar to George Vance Smith above.

210--William Foxwell Albright (served on OT committee of the Revised Standard Version):

“One cannot of course place John on the same level as the synoptic Gospels. …”

210--Walter Russell Bowie (served on RSV New Testament committee/ contributed to The Interpreter’s
Bible:

#1—“The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much
of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell.”

#2—“The man of whom these words were written [Jacob] belongs to a time so long ago that it is
uncertain whether its records are history or legend.”

#3—“The imprecatory psalms and other utterances like them reflect a God who is dead and ought to be
dead—and never was alive except in unredeemed imagination.”

215—Fleming James (server on the RSV New Testament committee):

#1--“The narrative of calling down fire from heaven on the soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY
LEGENDARY.”

#2—“What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW.”

215-216—James Moffatt—(served on the RSV New Testament committee and produced two of his own
versions):

#1—“The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some of the Old Testament
prophecies.”

221-224--C. H. Dodd—(New English Bible director):

#1—“The Bible itself does not make any claim to infallible authority for all its parts…” (Dodd, Library of
Constructive Theology, p. 15):

#2—“The old dogmatic view of the Bible therefore is not only open to attack from the standpoint of
science and historical criticism, but if taken seriously it becomes a danger to religion and public morals.”
(Ibid P. 13)

#3—“Moses has left us no writings, and we know little of him with certainty.” (Ibid P. 27)

#4—“[Moses] WAS A MAGICIAN, a medicine man, whose magical wand wrought wonders of deliverance
and destruction. …To separate history from LEGEND in the stories of his career is impossible and not
very profitable.” (Ibid p. 45)

#5—The famous ‘whale’ or sea monster, is no zoological specimen. The ancient monster of chaos the
dragon of darkness, was a familiar figure in MYTHOLOGIES of the ancient world.”

#6—“Creation, The Fall of Man the Deluge and the building of Babel are symbolic MYTHS” (Dodd, The
Bible Today, p112)

228-232—“Bruce Manning Metzger—(author of United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament/ head of
the continuing RSV translation committee/ also chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible). He
wrote the introduction to each book. Listed are just a few of his comments:

#1—“Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a
composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses.”

#2—Exodus: “As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as
the sixth century B. C., were combined in the makeup of the books.”

#3—Deuteronomy: “It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B. C., though it rests
upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses’ time.”

#4—Daniel: “Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the persecutions (168-165 B. C.) of
the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes.”

235-239—Robert Bratcher (primary translator of Today’s English Version):

#1—At a question and answer session on October 13, 1970 at Spartanburg, South Carolina, Bratcher was
asked: “Is Jesus Christ God, or the same as God?” His answer: ‘Jesus is not the same personality as God.’

#2—Another Question at same event: ‘Why did you leave out the blood of Jesus Christ in Romans 5:9
and 14 and other places?’ His answer: ‘It is a matter of translation’

#3—Another question: ‘Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour?’ Dr. Bratcher would not
answer.

#4—Another question: ‘Is the human heart by nature Man-centered or God-centered?’ His answer: ‘Let
us stick with questions about translations.’ (Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual, pp. 98-99)

#5—“The New Testament scriptures were written to specific situations, at specific times, to specific
groups or individuals and in response to some felt need. The New Testament writers probably never
intended their work to be the gospel record of the future—so there is not a sterile order to the
scriptures.” (Robert Bratcher, The Baptist Courier, Feb. 22, 1968).

251-253—John Bertram Phillips (Anglican priest who wrote Letters to Young Churches and The New
Testament in Modern English):

#1—“I felt at liberty to disentangle some of Paul’s complex arguments, or to paraphrase where direct
translation would not make sense.” (Phillips, Ring of truth, p. 75).

#2—“Those who were sent to arrest him ‘fell back to the ground’. PREVIOUS PIOUS GENERATIONS
ATTRIBUTE THIS TO SOME SUPERNATURAL POWER. I DON’T BELIEVE THIS FOR A MOMENT.” (Ibid p. 88)

#3—“A ‘MIRACLE’ is by definition, something to be wondered at, and in the past, when laws then
unknown were being used, it was commonly assumed that divine intervention was the cause of the
wonder. People thought that God was somehow ‘interfering’ with the working of Nature. I do not
regard such an action as ‘impossible’ (who are we to say what is ‘possible’ and what is ‘impossible’), but
I THINK THAT IT IS UNLIKELY” (Ibid p. 93)

254—Herman Von Soden (Influential textual scholar):

#1—“To this body of scripture the Christians then assigned determining authority, supporting its claims
by a peculiar THEORY as to the origin of these writings—THE SO-CALLED doctrine of inspiration” (Von
Soden, Books of the New Testament p. 5)

255—Henry Clay Vedder (authored Our New Testament: How did We Get It):

#1—“Most theologians and preachers declare very positively that there is a place called Heaven, where
the ‘saved’ will forever be happy in the presence of God. There may be such a place; nobody can prove
that there is not. But neither can the preachers prove that there is such a place. THERE IS NO
ADEQUATE GROUND FOR THEIR CONFIDENT ASSERTIONS. When they tell us that there is a heaven, and
all about its conditions and life, as if they had actually been there and had brought back plans drawn to
scale and complete specifications, they are just ‘pushing wind.’ They know no more about it than you or
I know, and that is just nothing at all.” (Vedder, cited by The Baptist Believer April 1920)

Editor’s Note: Posted above is just a sampling of the deceptiveness of the critics of the Received Text/
KJV, suggesting that those textual critics and modern Bible translators are Bible believing scholars.
Cloud concludes this section with the thought that these new versions are accepted by Unitarians;
modernists; neo-orthodox theologians; Roman Catholic; Jehovah Witnesses; and the World Council of
Churches. This alone should be a ‘red flag’ to all who believe that God divinely inspired His Word and
has promised to preserve it.

(7) Evangelical scholarship can be trusted.

First let’s examine the original source of all of these modern Bibles. As presented in the chart on p. 2,
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were the products of the Gnostic translators (who did not believe Jesus to be
God, nor any of His miracles). Many biblical scholars believe that these manuscripts were two of the 50
manuscripts Constantine commissioned Eusebius to compile in his effort to bring together both
paganism and Christianity. (Can we see history repeating today?) Those manuscripts were filled with
errors and as a result, were rejected by God’s true followers who recognized their unfaithfulness to His
Word. They remained forgotten until resurrected by Westcott and Hort in order to produce their own
Greek Text. Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in 1481, after being hidden for over 1100
years. Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844 where it lay in obscurity for over 1500 years. Less Garrett, on p.
149 of his book Which Bible Can We Trust, states that Sinaiticus has had “no less than ten different
attempts of revision and correction”. One paragraph later he quotes Scrivener: “the Codex is covered
with alterations”—i.e., alterations of obviously correctional character—“brought in by at least ten
different revisers,”

Contrast the above quote with the Masoretic Hebrew scholars:

“In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care.
When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their
whole body before writing “Jehovah” lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new
copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only
one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. …” Jasper J. Ray, God Wrote Only One
Bible, p. 94

Les Garrett makes two valid arguments on p. 153, Which Bible Can We Trust, about the obsession to
uphold these two manuscripts by modern translators which we should very carefully consider:

“1. That the most important and deplorable of the departures of the New Greek Text from the Received
Text have been made with the support of less than one percent of all the available witnesses; or in other
words, the readings discarded by the Revisers have the support of over 99 percent of the surviving Greek
Texts (Besides [excluding] Versions and Fathers).

2. That the two Mss. which had the controlling influence in most of these departures
[Vaticanus/Sinaiticus] are so corrupt upon their face as to justify the conclusion that they owe their
survival solely to their bad reputation.”

Westcott and Hort—1881—Revised Version—Can it be trusted?

Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Hort were two Anglican scholars at the tail end of the Oxford
Movement (inclined toward Romanism) commissioned by the church of England to update the KJV but
not change the Greek Text. That was not their intent. Though the committee did include a few
defenders of the Received Text, it was heavily weighted with heretics who favored the Alexandrian Text.

Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., in his Gipp’s Understandable History of the Bible, describes a clear picture of the
thoughts and character of both these leaders of the Revision committee. Neither Westcott nor Hort
were Bible believers. Both hated the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek.

Hort: Didn’t believe in creation; loved the Tractarians (a force in the Oxford Movement); did not believe
the Bible infallible; commenting on Darwin’s book stated, “I am inclined to think it unanswerable” and
“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin, Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that
one is proud to be contemporary with… My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.”; admired
philosophy more than Scripture; did not believe in a devil; accepted the idea of purgatory; rejected the
Atonement; accepted baptismal regeneration; hated democracy; inclined toward Communism; admits
occultism (both he and Westcott attended the Ghostly Guild weekly); hated America; hated D.L. Moody.
Westcott: Was even more anti-biblical than Hort, according to Gipp. Westcott also didn’t believe in
creation; thought heaven was just a state of mind, not a literal place; admired John Henry Newman
(leader of the Oxford Movement); was a devout socialist; accepted icons; believed in purgatory; called
the Oxford Movement the Oxford Revival; worshipped Mary; advocated communal living; supported a
Peace Movement, including disarmament; though he did not believe Jesus performed miracles, had no
doubt that a Roman Catholic priest could.

Samuel Gipp, on p. 263, 264, Gipp’s Understandable History of the Bible gives a synopsis of what these
two men accomplished:

“Through their subtle guidance Westcott and Hort had led the Revision committee in a direction one
hundred and eighty degrees from what they had been instructed by the Convocation. These master
deceivers had slowly, methodically introduced their own personal Greek text into the committee and
replaced the Textus Receptus with it. Their hypnotic ability had shielded them from discovery and in the
end the Church of England had nothing more than a “Protestant translation, corrected by the Vulgate.”
It can be safely said that if Wescott and Hort were not two Jesuit priests acting on secret orders from the
Vatican, then two Jesuit priests acting under such orders could not have done a better job of
overthrowing the authority of God’s true Bible and establishing the pro-Roman Catholic text of
Alexandria, Egypt!”

Nestle-Aland

The first edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text was printed in 1898 and combined the readings of
Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort and Weymouth. It became the text of the United Bible Societies Greek
New Testament. Therefore Nestle-Aland is the offspring of Westcott and Hort’s Revised Version. From
the time that these 19th century textual critics have sought to bring us “God’s true Word”, Nestle-Aland
is in its 28th edition with many readings reverting to the Received Text.

Consider this thought: Textual Criticism has been searching for God’s true Word for over 138 years to
date and it continues to elude them.

Less Garrett, on p.65 Which Bible Can We Trust, gives this absurd hypothetical:

“When a student turns to any one of these modern Greek texts he cannot possibly say that this is the
Word of God. The men producing the modern text do not even claim to have the correct text. One
Bible critic said when asked, Do we have an accurate translation of the Bible?” “No not yet, but we are
working on it.” …God help us!”

In contrast, though textual critics suggest that the KJV has undergone over 30,000 (some even suggest
75,000) changes, G.A. Riplinger on page 600 of her book In Awe of Thy Word posts the type of changes
to the KJV.

1. 1612: Typographical (from Gothic to Roman type).

2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors
3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling

David Cloud Myths of the Modern Bible Versions points out another recent influence on modern
Evangelical scholarship that helps us understand its untrustworthiness. By the mid 1950’s there was a
clear break between Fundamentalists, who desired to remain true to biblical principles and Evangelicals
leaning towards Ecumenicalism. The term “New Evangelicalism” no longer defines fundamental
theology. There was a call for REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM which was both initiated as well as
accepted with open arms by the Roman church. On page 261 Cloud quotes Dr. George Dollar: “It has
become a favorite pastime of new-evangelical writers, who know so little of historic Fundamentalism, to
call it offensive names, as if to bury it by opprobrium. THE REAL DANGER IS NOT A STRONG
FUNDAMENTALISM BUT A SOFT EFFEMINATE CHRISTIANITY—EXOTIC BUT COWARDLY.” (Dollar, A
History of Fundamentalism in America, 1973, p. 208)

On the next page Cloud states: “God says, “Walk ye in the old paths,” but the New Evangelical
reassesses the old paths. God says, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set,” but
the New Evangelical has removed them one by one. God says, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness,” but the New Evangelical reasons that such fellowship is necessary. God says, “A
little leaven leaventh the whole lump,” but the New Evangelical thinks he can reform the already
leavened lump. God says, “Evil communications corrupt good manners,” but the New Evangelical thinks
he can uplift evil communications. God says, “I will resist the proud and give grace to the humble,” but
the New Evangelical thinks the way to reach the world is by meeting them on their own proud territory,
matching them scholarly degree with degree.”

Cloud thereafter states that New Evangelicalism has paved the way for acceptance of the modern
versions and that this apostasy is clearly identified by its cozy relationship with Roman Catholicism as
well as questioning the infallibility of God’s Word.

He identifies Evangelicalism today on page 275:

“Evangelicalism’s apostasy is not only seen in its relationship with Rome and its downgrade of biblical
inspiration, it is also seen in its repudiation of biblical holiness. The old Fundamentalism was staunchly
and boldly opposed to worldliness. The New Evangelical crowd has rejected and redefined this. The
result has been incredible to behold. R-rated and PG-13 movies are given positive reviews in Evangelical
publications. Evangelical music groups look and sound exactly like the world. Many college campuses
have the look and feel of secular colleges. The students wear the same clothes (or lack of clothes) as the
world; they drink the same liquor; they dance to the same music; they celebrate the same worldly
events; they care about the same worldly concerns. Richard Quebedeaux documented this more than
20 years ago in his book, The Worldly Evangelicals.”

He further states that New Evangelical apostasy can be seen in its acceptance of heretics; listing a
number of examples: pp. 278, 279

(1) C. S. Lewis—believed in prayers for the dead; purgatory; confession of sins to Catholic priest;
believed theistic evolution; rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God; used profanity; told
bawdy stories; often got drunk with his students; did not believe in the total depravity of man;
and despised biblical separation.
(2) Bruce Metzger—questions the authorship, traditional date and supernatural inspiration of
books by Moses, Daniel and Peter.
(3) Robert Schuller—(Was a mega-church leader whose mentor was Norman Vincent Peale, a
spiritualist) Sin is merely the lack of self-esteem; Born again means change from a negative to
positive self-image.
The final point he addresses suggesting the superiority of modern versions:

(8) Dynamic Equivalency is a faithful method of Bible Translation.

This flies in the face of the KJV, which is a word-for-word transliteration of what God spoke through His
prophets and Bible authors.

Dynamic equivalency is the process of substituting words of a certain author with words or phrases
which another author considers more understandable or relevant to an entirely different culture. From
a human perspective, this appears reasonable; even advantageous. However when applying this
concept to God’s Word there are numerous pitfalls. Following are a few that must be considered:

#1—The Bible is God’s Word and cannot be treated as any other book.

#2—How can one possibly, after examining the heresies of today’s textual critics and Bible translators
(as previously presented), believe that these heretics are capable of faithfully translating those original
thoughts?

#3—God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). How many of us have been in a congregation in
which a passage of scripture is being read from either the pulpit, Sabbath School teacher, or even
another person in class or Bible study, that doesn’t even remotely resemble (in some cases reading
directly opposite) what we are reading in the KJV/Received Text? Far too often the thoughts that God is
trying to portray are entirely obliterated. (Example: “Do two men walk together unless they have made
an appointment?” Amos 3:3 NASB)

#4—In agreement with the above issue, using Strong’s Concordance to research a subject is greatly
hindered, if not made impossible, due to the multiple inconsistent word changes.

#5—On p. 315 Cloud makes two very important points. First, Dynamic Equivalency ignores God’s
warning about adding to or taking away from God’s Word. Rev. 22:18-19, pronounces a curse on those
who do. Secondly, it substitutes God’s thoughts with man’s thoughts. More importantly, those
attempting to do so are heretics. (See note 2 above)

A Compilation of corrupted Texts

A sampling of corrupt Texts in the modern Bible versions: Job 19:25-26 —“in my flesh” substituted with
“without my flesh”; Isa. 7:14—“virgin” changed to “maiden”—thus denying the virgin birth; Matt. 5:44
“bless them that curse you” omitted; Matt. 9:13—sinners “to repentance” omitted; Matt. 18:2-3 —
being “converted” no longer a requirement, just “turn”; Matt 24:3—"sign of thy coming and, of the end
of the world?” replaced with “end of the age”— (second coming obscured); Mk. 7:19—"Jesus declared
all foods are clean”; Mark 2:17—sinners “to repentance” omitted; Lk. 2:33—"Joseph and His mother”
replaced with “His father and mother; Lk. 4:8—"Get thee behind me Satan” omitted; Lk 11:2-4 —
"which art in heaven” omitted from the Lord’s Prayer — (it can be prayed by pagans); 23:44-45 — “sun
was darkened”—substituted with “eclipse of the sun”—(which was impossible during the Passover mid-
month full moon); Jn. 2:11—"miracles” become only “signs”; Jn. 5:39—the command to “search the
scriptures” is omitted; Jn. 7:8—“…I go not up yet unto this feast…”, new versions omit “yet” thereby
essentially making Christ a liar; Acts 3:19—“when the times of refreshing” changed to “in order that
times of refreshing may come”; Acts 13:42—Gentiles wanted to hear next Sabbath omitted; Acts
16:7—deny 3rd person of Godhead; 1Cor. 5:7—Christ sacrificed, “for us” omitted; 1 Cor. 11:24—“this is
my body which is broken for you” to “this is my body which is for you” supports the Eucharist; 1 Cor
15:47—Lord from heaven omitted; Eph. 3:9—Jesus as creator is omitted; 1 Cor. 1:14—Through His
blood eliminated; Col. 1:15, 16—"worlds created by Him” changed to “in him”; 1 Tim 3:16—"God was
manifest in the flesh” eliminated; 2 Tim. 3:16—"All scripture is given by inspiration of God” is replaced
with “every scripture inspired of God is also profitable” Heb. 1:3—“…he had by himself purged our
sins” “by himself” omitted; Heb. 7:21—"after the order of Melchisedec” omitted; James 5:16—
“confess your faults” changed to “confess your sins”; 1 Pet. 4:1—Christ suffered, “for us” omitted; 1
Pet. 4:6—supports praying for the dead; 2 Pet. 2:9—new versions support purgatory; Rev. 1:7—“wail”
about lost condition changed to “mourn” allowing for repentance at the Second Coming; Rev 13:18—
"666”changed to “616” in margin of some modern versions; Rev 22:14—"do His commandments”
changed to “wash their robes”.

Authors Note: Because Nestle-Aland is in its 28th edition, there is no consistency in any of the versions.
As the Nestle-Aland Greek text has reverted, in some cases back to the Received Text, some of the
modern versions do as well. However the overall bent is in favor of the Gnostic Alexandrian Texts.

CONCLUSION: Sadly, ALL of these modern versions are corruptions of God’s true, pure, unadulterated
Word, which He not only gave us through Divine providence (His Holy Spirit), but just as importantly, He
has promised throughout His Word, to preserve the same. This He has done through that same Spirit, as
well as His true church that has been scattered throughout the world because of persecution by Satan
and his agencies. At the conclusion of the 1260 years of papal persecution, Satan chose another attack.
Compromise! This was accomplished on multiple fronts. First the Roman power introduced the Oxford
Movement under the leadership of Cardinal Newman, in an effort to bring the Church of England back
to Rome. About the same time Evolution/Darwinism was introduced with the intent to bring about
doubt on both God and His Word. Even prior to this time the beginnings of textual criticism began to
raise its ugly head. The goal of textual criticism is to cause doubt on the Received Text/KJV and bring
back a Bible that is more agreeable to the human heart. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries
modernism began its push towards humanism. The result was the mid-20th century in which
fundamental Christianity took a back seat to Evangelical ecumenicalism, resulting in a church that can no
longer differentiate between God’s Word, as given to His Apostles (thereafter sent throughout the
world), and Satan’s counterfeits that are the product of unbelieving scholars (Gnostics/Arians/textual
critics today).

Finally, Les Garrett on p. 236 of Which Bible Can We Trust quotes Dr. Frank Logsdon at a conference on
modern versions, paraphrases and translations. He states that modern translations:

1. cause widespread confusion.

2. discourage memorization—Who is going to memorize when each one has a different
translation?
3. Discourage the use of the concordance, because there would need to be a different one for each
translation.
4. Provide opportunity for perverting the truth by giving different slants of meaning of verses. A
marvelous opportunity for the devil to slip in and pervert the Word.
5. Make teaching of the Bible difficult.—How could a mathematics Professor or teacher teach a
certain particular problem in a class if the class has about six or eight textbooks?
 6. Incur an enormous waste of the Lord’s money. One in just two years brought in $22,000,000.
That could have sent a lot of missionaries.

Floyd Nolan Jones, on p. 62 Which Version is the Bible? provides this quote from Dr. Frank Logsdon (the
Co-founder of the New American Standard Version-NASV):

“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in
trouble with the Lord…I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the
translator; I wrote the preface; When questions began to reach me, at first I was quite offended…I used
to laugh with others…However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right
about the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I
can’t refute them…The deletions are absolutely frightening…there are so many…I wrote my very dear
friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product
is grievous to my heart…I don’t want anything to do with it. [T]he finest leaders that we have
today…haven’t gone into it [the new version’s use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn’t gone into
it…that’s how easily one can be deceived. [Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely
correct. How correct? 100% correct!...I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized
Version. If you must stand against everyone else, stand…”

Final Point: NKJV omits “Lord” 66 times; omits “God” 51 times; omits “heaven” 50 times; omits
“repent” 44 times; omits “Blood” 23 times; omits “hell” 22 times; omits “Jehovah” entirely; omits “new
testament” entirely; omits “damnation” entirely; omits “devils” entirely; ignored the KJV Greek Textus
Receptus over 1200 times; replaced the KJV Hebrew (ben Chayyim) with the corrupt Stuttgart edition
(ben Asher) Old Testament.

“WHY?”