Make your own free website on

The Choice Really Isn't "Which Version"

Home | Live Forever! | Why Suffering? | Church Growth Seminar | * | The "WHOLE" Armour of God | Leviathan Exposed | Introduction to "Redemption-Understanding Bible Prophecy" | Bible Prophecy Study Center | The New Jerusalem | Our Brochures

Does it matter which Bible version we read?........Does it matter which Doctor we choose?  Does it matter what kind of food we eat? Does it matter who we leave our kids with?

A Good Point
A very good point was made in our KJV discussion group that that the Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament is lacking in the type of Greek from which most modern
versions of the Bible are translated from (the Berry Interlinear is a copy of the "Received Text" from which the King James bible was translated from).

However, it is not lacking in the Greek from which the King James Bible was translated from--and that is the
salient point.

The everyday koine type Greek that composes the Textus Receptus and that is contained in the Berry Interlinear
Contains Matthew 6:13.

The King James Translators did not add this verse - they simply translated it. The King James Bible is not a paraphrase. It is a word for word translation.

Most modern versions are not true translations but rather paraphrases. (They are not usually up front about
this , but any observant student of the Bible can easily detect this).

Those that do claim to be translations rather than paraphrases usually use The "thought for thought" method (NIV is one of those) of translating rather that the "word for word" method--which makes them, in actuality--paraphrases leaving the interpretation of the "God Breathed" words completely in the hands of the translators.
These translation/paraphrases are either translated from the Hort Westcott Greek which was presented to the world in 1881, (this text was based on their "theories" of textual critism) or from the "eclectic" Nestle-Aland text (promoted by the United Bible Society) which is virtually identical to Hort and Westcott's (85%).

The 2 primary texts Hort and Westcott chose to exalt were the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

These were written in the classic literary style of Greek as opposed to the everyday koine type the Textus Receptus was written in (the King James Bible was translated from Textus Receptus).

These two texts (Vaticanus/Sinaiticus) differ significantly not only one from the other but from 99 out of a 100 other Greek texts.

90-95% of over 4000 Greek texts were written in the
everyday koine Greek of the Textus Recepticus--not the classic literary style found in texts chosen by Hort and Westcott.

We've got to see that we are not comparing apples to
apples here. These Bibles are not all translated from the same source material.

The controvery is really not which version is most accurate. It is which source material is the true Word of God. The texts contradict one another--therefore a choice must be made between them. One is right--the others are wrong.

Refusing to choose between the texts (which will ultimately determine which version we choose to read and uphold as reliable) is actually a refusal to be responsible followers of Christ by truly embracing a love of the truth-which includes contending for the faith, which begins with the Word of God.

Matthew 6:13 is contained in the every day koine Greek
of the Textus Receptus. The Translaters of the
King James Bible did not add it (as many who are ignorant of the truth claim), nor did they have to look to another source to find it.

This cannot be said of the composite text put together by
Bishop Brook Foss Westcott (who was a professed disbeliever in the physical resurrection of Christ) and Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

Both their text and theories of textual critism were, and still today are, rightly being challenged by many who are very qualified to do so.

How the Christian world accepted a composite Greek text that was presented to them by an unbeliever in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is beyond me.

I can only believe it is a precurser to the great delusion that God will send on all those who do not have a love of the truth when the anti-christ exalts himself above all that is called God and sets himself up in the Temple and calls himself God.

Word of Truth) was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness." (Ref:F7)

The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177)
The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350)
The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400)
The Armenian Bible (AD 400) There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.
The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450)
The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535)
The Czech Bible (AD 1602)
The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606)
The Greek Orthodox Bible: Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church.

All the above mentioned Bibles and the vast majority (about 99%) of the 5200 extant New Testament MSS are in agreement with the text now known as Textus Receptus; the Text which underlies the Authorised King James Bible.

Question:   Where can I obtain a copy of the Textus Receptus?

Answer:   A paperback (800 pages) entitled The Interlinear Greek-English N.T. by Berry is obtainable from:   Eye Opener Publications P.O. Box 7944, Eugene, Oregon 97401 U.S.A.  

 This is the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated in 1611. Literal modern English words appear between the Greek lines and under each word, making it possible for anyone to make an accurate check of all Bibles versions. The KJV appears in the margins. Notice in how many ways modern translations vary from the Greek text.

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:

  • Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
  • Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
  • 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 Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
  • Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
  • Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
  • 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 Saviour'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. This is an important fact to bear in mind

"The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....

Return To "Bible Versions"

Be careful what you eat...

               ... to the hungry soul, every bitter thing is sweet

Copyright 2003 -2018 jocelyn andersen. All rights reserved.

Permission is given to reproduce anything from this site, written by Jocelyn Andersen, for non-commercial use only. Articles and quotes must be published within the context in which they are written. All other uses must have written permission.