We have seen that nearly all of the modern translations of
the NT base their Greek text on mainly two manuscripts - the
Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. We have noted that modern
translations differ from the Majority Received Text in thousands
of places, some small but some also large.
This part of our study will look at a few of those
Please note the reading in the KJV of 1 Timothy 3:16. This
verse clearly teaches Jesus is God! God was manifest in the
flesh. It was Jesus who came in the flesh. He was Immanuel(God
with us). Christ was and is a member of the Godhead - hence He
Notice how the New American Standard reads here: "And by
common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was
revealed in the flesh........"
Ah, by changing "God" to "He" they take out the fact that
Jesus IS God. They add the words "who" and "was" so changing the
sentence structure and meaning.
Turn in the KJV to Romans 14:10b and 12. All will stand
before the judgment seat of Christ and give account to God.
Christ is clearly God, not God the Father, but a member of the
Godhead, and all in that entity are called God. I am Hunt, and my
children are called Hunt.
The New American Standard(NAS) has it this way: "For we
shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.....So then each
one of us shall give account of himself to God."
UMMM! Did you see what was done? There is not proof in
these verses that Jesus is God, not from the NAS there is no
Note Acts 20:28 in the KJV. The Church of God was purchased
with "his own blood" thus clearly making Christ God as it was
Jesus who shed the blood.
But here's how the RSV renders this part of the verse:
"........to care for the church of God which he obtained with the
blood of his own Son."
Just not really the same at all, for in the KJV we have a
constant truth being proclaimed all the time - Jesus Christ IS
From Scriptures such as Mat.4:10; Rev.22:8-9; Acts 10:25-26;
we see that God is to be "worshipped."
From Scriptures in the KJV such as Mat.9:18; 20:20; Mark
5:6; Luke 24:52; we see that Jesus allowed people to "worship"
Him. Now you go right ahead and look up the Greek word used, see
all the places where it is used in the NT, and you will indeed
see that it means "worship" as when you worship God.
Mat.9:18 from the NAS, "......behold there came a synagogue
official and BOWED DOWN before Him saying......"
Mat.20:20 from the NIV, "Then the mother of Zebedee's sons
came to Jesus with her sons and, KNEELING DOWN, asked......"
Mark 5:6 from The Everyday Bible, "While Jesus was still far
away, the man saw him, ran to him, and fell down before him."
Luke 24:52 from the NAS, "And they returned to Jerusalem
with great joy" (worship is omitted). A footnote in the New
Living Translation says, "Some manuscripts do not contain
'worshipped him and.' " From this study you will have seen it is
only a very few manuscripts do not contain those words.
"To worship" is not the same as to "bow down." You can bow
down to the Queen of England out of respect, but you are not
worshipping her. What the writers of the Gospels wanted to make
very clear to their readers in so many verses, was the fact that
Jesus was God and so was worshipped, and because He knew He was
God in the flesh He also allowed people to come and worship
There is a doctrine floating around today, and it is not
new, for it goes back many hundreds of years, that teaches that
Christ Jesus had an "origin" - had a beginning - was a created
being of the Father's - the first creation of the Father's. Some
of the modern translations give forth this teaching. Please read
carefully Heb.2:11 in the KJV. Now this is how the Revised
Version renders this verse: "For he who sanctifies and those who
are sanctified have ALL ONE ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed
to call them brethren."
There is a vast difference between the two translations.
The RSV teaches that Christ had an origin. The KJV teaches no
such thing. We shall see in the next verse we look at that
Christ did not have an origin. He has been from eternity just as
the Father has. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that
says Christ had an origin or was the first creation of the
Father. This is not the place to show it, but there is much
evidence to prove that Jesus is YHWH as is the Father YHWH. I
will give you one section of Scripture on this point. Zechariah
chapter 14. The whole Bible teaches that the one to come and
rule the earth, to stand on the Mount of Olives, will be the one
who was Jesus Christ on this earth two thousand years ago. The
Hebrew word used in Zechariah 14 is YHWH.
Turn to Micah 5:2 in the KJV. This is clearly speaking about
the Christ that was to come, Immanuel - God in the flesh. Notice
the last phrase: "......whose GOING FORTH have been from of old,
Now see what the RSV does to it: "......whose ORIGIN is from
of old, from ancient days."
Christ had no origin (even if some do claim He had), but the
RSV teaches he did have an origin from some old time, from some
ancient time in the past.
God promised Abraham that through his seed the people of
the earth would be blessed. There are a number of NT Scriptures
that show this promise to Abraham was fulfilled in a specific way
through ONE individual - Christ Jesus. Please read Acts 3:25-26
in the KJV. Here this plain truth is given. A blessing to all
people was given through Abraham when God sent His Son to turn
away every one from his iniquities.
Now this is how the RSV renders Genesis 12:3, "I will bless
those who bless you and him who curses you I will curse, and by
you all the families of the earth shall BLESS THEMSELVES."
Instead of being blessed through CHRIST.....they BLESS
John 6:47 KJV, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on ME hath everlasting life."
The NAS has, "Truly, truly, I say unto you, he who believes
has eternal life."
He who believes WHAT? The Late, Late Show? That President
Clinton has never committed adultery? They leave out the key
factor as to how to have eternal life.
Zech. 9:9 in the KJV has "and having salvation" while the
RSV leaves it out .
Col.1:14 in the KJV contains "through his blood" while the
NAS leaves it out.
There are the verses of Mark 16:9-20. These verses tell
about the resurrection of Christ. Some new translation may leave
them out, while others put brackets around them and give you a
foot-note that says something to the effect that these 12 verses
were "probably not" in the original writings. Or that some of
the best manuscripts leave them out. They of course by referring
to the best manuscripts are referring to the Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, which we have seen would have served us better hidden
on the Vatican Library shelf never to be discovered, and left in
the garbage basket for the furnace fires.
Their statements in foot-notes on this passage are very
misleading. Out of 620 ancient manuscripts of the book of Mark,
these 12 verses are found in 618 of them. To say they were
probably not in the original writings is scholastic
egg-headedness, and Theological bias.
Look at Luke 24:6 in the KJV. The RSV only has, "Remember
how he told you, while he was still in Galilee." They leave out
"He is not here, but is risen."
Here's a funny one if it wasn't so serious a matter. Read 1
Peter 2:2 in the KJV. Pretty plain as to what to desire to make
one grow thereby. You are to desire the "milk of THE WORD."
The RSV says, "Like newborn babes, long for the PURE
SPIRITUAL MILK, that by it you may grow up to salvation."
What on earth is "spiritual milk"? WHO KNOWS? There could
be all kinds of opinions and ideas as to what constitutes
"spiritual milk." God did not leave us guessing or having to
decide for ourselves on this. He knows what is needed for His
children to GROW! It is the desire for the milk, the food of His
Luke 4:4 in the KJV has "......that man shall not live by
bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD." The NAS, New Living
Translation, NIV and others, all leave out "but by every word of
Many ministers today of large Church denominations, are
denying that God created what Genesis says took six days. Many
deny Jesus was born of a virgin. Some think He did not rise from
the grave, did not ascend into heaven, will not literally return,
and many other things that the KJV is quite dogmatic about.
Concerning the virgin birth of Christ there is a web of
deceptive thought that runs through many of the modern
translations. You may want to compare the modern versions with
the KJV in Scriptures such as these: Isaiah 7:14; Mat.1:22-23;
Luke 1:34; Luke 2:33.
The KJV makes it so very clear that Immanuel, God with us,
the person from the Godhead that was to come to earth and be born
as flesh and blood, would be born of a VIRGIN, a young woman who
had never known(had any sexual relations) a man. It would indeed
be a SIGN, a miracle, just as Isaiah had foretold. The truth of
this may from a technical point have been somewhat hidden in the
exact words used by Isaiah in chapter 7 verse 14, but the MEANING
was not hidden. Immanuel would come as a SIGN - born from a
young woman. Young women, married or not married, have babies
every day, and it is no sign. But a young woman who is a virgin
having a baby, now THAT IS a SIGN! Of course the Bible was
speaking outside of modern science that today can pregnate a
woman with child, without knowing a man, so she could still claim
to be a virgin.
The CAPITAL lettered words in the following NT Scriptures
are omitted by many of the modern versions. This is only a small
example of such omissions.
Mat.17:21 "BUT THIS KIND DOES NOT GO OUT EXCEPT BY PRAYER AND
Mat.18:11 "FOR THE SON OF MAN HAS COME TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS
Mark 11:26 "BUT IF YOU DO NOT FORGIVE, NEITHER WILL YOUR FATHER
WHO IS IN HEAVEN FORGIVE YOUR TRANSGRESSIONS."
Luke 17:36 "TWO MEN WILL BE IN THE FIELD; ONE WILL BE TAKEN AND
THE OTHER WILL BE LEFT."
11-13a "And these things appeared to them as nonsense, and they
would not believe them. BUT PETER AROSE AND RAN TO THE TOMB;
STOOPING AND LOOKING IN, HE SAW THE LINEN WRAPPINGS ONLY; AND HE
WENT AWAY TO HIS HOME, MARVELLING AT THAT WHICH HAD HAPPENED. And
behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named
John 5:3-5 "In these lay a multitude of those who were sick,
blind, lame, and withered, WAITING FOR THE MOVING OF THE WATERS;
FOR AN ANGEL OF THE LORD WENT DOWN AT CERTAIN SEASONS INTO THE
POOL, AND STIRRED UP THE WATER; WHOEVER THEN FIRST, AFTER THE
STIRRING UP OF THE WATER, STEPPED IN, WAS MADE WELL FROM WHATEVER
DISEASE WITH WHICH HE WAS AFFLICTED. And a certain man was there,
who had been thirty-eight years in his sickness."
John 7:53-8:11 This whole section, like Mark 16:9-20, is said by
the modern Textual Critics NOT TO BE A PART OF THE BIBLE.
Acts 8:36-38a "......AND PHILIP SAID, 'IF YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL
YOUR HEART, YOU MAY,' AND HE ANSWERED AND SAID, 'I BELIEVE THAT
JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.' And he ordered the chariot to
Acts 18:21 "But bade them farewell, saying, I MUST BY ALL MEANS
KEEP THIS FEAST THAT COMES IN JERUSALEM, I will return again unto
you, if God will....."
THIS IS JUST A VERY SMALL SAMPLING.
YOU MAY LIKE TO COMPARE THE FOLLOWING VERSES IN THE KJV WITH SOME
OF THE MODERN VERSIONS.
Mark 7:16; 9:24; 9:44 & 46; 10:21; 11:10; 11:26; 12:29-30; 13:14;
Luke 1:28; 2:33; 2:43; 4:4; 4:8; 4:41; 7:31; 9:54; 11:29; 22:31;
24:12; 24:40; 24:49; 24:51;
John 1:18; 1:27; 3:13; 3:15; 4:42; 5:3; 5:4; 6:47; 7:53-8:11;
8:16; 11:41; 16:16; 17:12;
Acts 2:30; 7:30; 7:37; 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 16:31; 17:26; 20:25;
Romans 1:16; 5:2; 9:28; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6; 14:9; 14:21; 15:29;
1 Cor.5:7; 6:20; 7:39; 10:28; 11:24; 11:29; 15:47; 16:23;
2 Cor.4:6; 4:10;
Gal.3:1; 4:7; 6:15;
Again this is not all by any means. There are still over 80 more
that could be still listed.
WHERE DID OUR KJ BIBLE COME FROM?
We have seen that the KJV is not WITHOUT its ERRORS. A
classic example is Acts 12:4 and the word "Easter." This word is
not in the Greek manuscripts. The Greek word is the one for
PASSOVER. You can clearly see this in any Greek Interlinear.
There are some other errors also. And we have seen that the
Latin Vulgate, or parts of it, got into the KJV translation. But
the MAJORITY Greek manuscripts we have, can correct the errors of
the KJV. The KJV is still a better translation than the modern
versions in the fact that it did work its way to a more majority
text than what the present day translations do.
The KJV translators did not use either the Vaticanus or the
Sinaiticus manuscripts. The manuscripts from which the modern
versions are translated include the manuscripts that were used by
the KJV translators, PLUS the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It was
the Protestant/Textus Receptus hater by the name of Hort who
along with some others he could pull to his side, including his
other Roman Catholic buddy, Westcott, that started the slide
against the majority text school, and into Hort's favorite
manuscript from the Vatican Library - the Vaticanus. Many of the
so-called "Textual Critics" to follow stepped right into the
deceptive net laid by Westcott and Hort. A net that was very
definitely from the Roman Catholic Church, to bring Christianity
under its domain once more. Although she does speak some truth,
and appears as an angel of light, nevertheless all false
doctrine, from the change of the Sabbath day to Sunday, Passover
to Easter, the Trinity doctrine, introduction of Christmas and
many other heathen festivals, false Church Government, this and
much more, all the way to a false Bible that not only her ONE
BILLION members espouse, but millions of other deceived
Christians also now have as their first Bible.
As the Worldwide Church of God walked into the pathway of
religious deception and heresy, what did they do? Why, they
officially adopted the NIV translation of the Bible. It, along
with their leader's mind-set, led them down the garden path, out
into the thorn bushes, and back into the waiting arms of the
Woman Whore's children - the Protestant Churches, who waved the
flag of victory.
Well it is not surprising. It was to be this way at the
time of the end. Jesus clearly told us so, if we will but see it.
He said deception would be so great just before His return that
ONLY THE ELECT would not be deceived (Mat.24:24). Paul was
inspired to say there would come a great "falling away" before
Christ came again (2 Thes.2). What better way to have people
fall away and be deceived, than to have the wrong Bible, from
wrong perverted manuscripts, that disagree among themselves in
thousands of places, or have people and even ministers/leaders in
the Church of God NOT SURE as to what are the words of the Bible.
Make no mistake about it the words of Revelation chapter 12
and verse 9 say that the Devil, the one we call Satan, has
DECEIVED THE WHOLE WORLD!
Do I have some of the modern translations? Oh, you bet I do!
I have a number of them in my library. They do serve at times a
useful end. But they are not my reading or study Bible. I still
use the KJV, in conjunction with my NewKJV study Bible, noting
their center reference comments on Textual Criticism - NU means
the modern Westcott/Hort text, and M means Majority texts.
One more study in this series should rap it up. To end this
topic you will hear from one of the Hebrew/Greek "scholars" who
has "been there" as they say. He has been behind the doors with
the Textual Critics, knows where they are coming from, knows
things about the manuscripts that they(the Hort students) will
not tell you, and do not want you to know, so the "dumb sheep"
can be led to follow down the pathway of the blind.
And as Jesus said, if the blind lead the blind, they will
both fall into the ditch.
Yes, I will pull no punches with you friend. THIS IS A
SERIOUS MATTER! IT CONCERNS THE VERY TRUTH OF GOD, WHICH IS HIS
WORD (John 17:17).
Most of the above facts on the differences between the KJV
and the Modern translations was taken from the book: LET'S WEIGH
THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. You need to have this small book.
You can obtain it from Chick Publications, P.O. Box 662, Chino,
CA 91710, USA.
Written January 1998
To be continued