How It All Began
We have already shown that the New Testament of the King James Version
(KJV) is translated from completely
different source material from virtually every other modern English version. It is a word for word translation taken from the Received
Text (Textus Receptus / Majority Text) Which has been shown to have been used extensively by the early church.
Almost all modern English translations of the New Testament scriptures originated
from either the Hort Westcott Greek New Testament which was presented to the English Speaking world in 1881 or from the United
Bible Society's Nestle-Aland text (the two texts are virtually identical).
This is how it all began; in the late 1800’s two Anglican clergymen
set out to give us a greater understanding of the ancient manuscripts.
They did this by first rejecting all previous scholarship.
All previous scholarship—now do we honestly believe that from the days of Christ until the late 1800’s
there was no reliable translation of the scriptures available? Because that is exactly what Professor Fenton John
Anthony Hort and Bishop Brook Foss Wescott were saying when they rejected all previous scholarship.
The scriptures say that God honors his Word above his name, and that his word endures to
all (that means each and every…) generations. If Hort and Westcott were correct in rejecting all previous
scholarship, then God is a liar.
They attempted to, and succeeded to a great degree, discredit the Received Text altogether by composing a Greek
New Testament edited entirely from the Egyptian/Minority Texts. So we see they not only rejected all previous scholarship
up to that point, but also the very source material that from the first century up until then had been considered, by every reputable scholar, sacred, inspired and reliable.
Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort rejected entirely the Received
Text that had been used, trusted and born incredible fruit for almost two thousand years and chose instead for their
translation, almost exclusively, two very poor manuscripts (Mss.) “Aleph” (Sinai) and “B” (Vatican).
Not only do the two Mss. they chose differ significantly one from
the other but also from 99 out of 100 other more reliable manuscripts!
So, the question is, why did they reject all previous
scholarship as well as all previous source material in favor of two codices that most scholars agreed, at that point,
were quite inferior?
Reader, I beg you to understand, we are not talking about only some
of the scholarship up to that point, but every single bit of it.
It helps to know something about the people who were undertaking this revolutionary
project. Bishop Wescott was a publicly professed disbeliever in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. In other words, he was not even saved. God only saves those who call on his name out of faith in
his risen son (Romans 10:9-10, 13)
Since he rejected the physical resurrection of Christ, it should come as no
surprise that his translation work and choice of source material would reflect that slant.
The Hort Westcott Greek Text doesn’t stop with the resurrection. The
text (and the translations based on it) refutes and/or dilutes every major doctrine of Christianity.
When 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) is
compared with most modern translations, the flawed theology of Bishop Westcott is clear—as well as the corrupted nature
of the Egyptian Minority Texts.
In changing the more specific “God” in this verse to the generic “he,” the message of one of the most profound statements of the Deity of Christ
found in the New Testament is completely corrupted.
The Received Text clearly says “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. And this
reading enjoys the agreement of around 4000 texts—either in mss evidence, versions or writings of the early Church
fathers. That is a great deal of evidence and constitutes more than enough witnesses to integrity of the texts chosen by the
translators of the King James Bible.
The Received Text that was used extensively by the early church is very specific in this case that God was manifest in the flesh. The Hort Westcott Greek, on
the other hand, clouds the issue.
The sad truth is that most modern English translations of the Bible are translated
from either the Hort Westcott Greek or from an “eclectic text” (??) that is virtually identical to the Hort Westcott text.
These versions either subtly attack the major doctrines of Christianity or
they boldly attack them. And in hundreds of ways dilute the doctrines given to us by God that pertain to life and Godliness.
Those who love the Hort Westcott Greek (which both the New Testament of
the Amplified Bible and Watchtower’s New World Translation are based entirely on) work tirelessly,
and often, successfully, to discredit the King James Version and convince many who are seeking the truth into believing that
the modern translations derived from the corrupt texts of Sinai and Vatican are the most accurate.
This is simply not true. It is a blatant lie that the Textus Receptus is full of errors. It is not.
It is a blatant lie that King James insisted on his particular doctrinal beliefs being
brought forth in the translation that bears his name. He did not.
The KJV is one of the very few word for word translations of the Holy Scriptures we have. Every word in it can be looked up in the original **Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Bible Dictionary.
**When purchasing a “Strong’s” make certain you purchase
the Original Strong’s—not the New Improved or The Strongest Strong’s—with the “updated”
Greek and Hebrew! (these new Strong’s are full of the corrupted Egyptian/Minority Texts).
The original Strong’s contains the words (and meanings) of the
Received Text (New Testament) as well as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text (Old Testament).
The Berry Interlinear contains a complete copy of the Received Text along with the
literal English translation.