Question: My dad likes to take out his RSV and read to me the foreword which says
something to the effect of the 1511 KJV contained many serious errors.
He will then say that the KJV, like the RSV, is a Protestant Bible, and they themselves are admitting their own version
is bad. What is a good answer to that? Thanks
Answer: The straight-forward
answer to the forward in the RSV is, that it is simply not true.
It is the opinions of professor Fenton John Anthony Hort and Bishop Brook Foss Westcott that are found in the forward
of the RSV--no more and no less. They were the (human) driving force behind that translation to start with, and it is
their Greek text which underlies the New Testament portion of it.
We must remember, that the forward to any book, including
any forwards found in Bible versions, only contain the thoughts and opinions of human beings.
Hort and Westcott simply
made a blanket statement, based on their theory, that the Minority Texts (of Vaticanus and Siniaticus) were error-free.
Therefore, according to their theory, any place the Received Text disagrees with the Minority texts, it is the Received
Text which must be in error. Since the Received Text and the Minority Texts disagree in literally thousands of places,
it stands to reason that Hort and Westcott would make the outrageous claim that the Majority Text is riddled with "serious"
It comes down to that choice again--the one which must be made between the Majority and the
Minority Texts. They are so contradictory, that, once the correct information is presented, choosing between the two
cannot be avoided by any reasoning person.
And if they choose not to make a choice, then--whether they will admit it or not--a choice has just been made--on side
of serious compromise.
The choice is easy for me, because I know that God did not choose to wait until the late1890's in order to finally
present his Word to a lost and dying world. If that is so, then his Word can't be true, because his Word says it will be "preserved"
to every generation--not just to the generation of Hort / Westcott and after....
There is at least one quote
in this book from a scholar who initially accepted the flawed theory of Hort and Westcott and, therefore, their
revised Greek Text and the Revised Standard Version, then realized he had been both duped and hasty.
There are many more quotes from reputable, widely acclaimed scholars attesting to the inferiority of the texts chosen
by Hort and Westcott to exalt as the true Word of God.
The Revised Version may technically be a "Protestant" Bible, but the Roman Catholic Church has very little problem
with it (or with any of the other modern translations for that matter) as it is translated, primarily, from 2 manuscripts
harbored (and many believe commissioned by) by the Roman Catholic Church (that, by the way is where the rumor originated that
we have the Catholic Church to thank for preserving the Holy Scriptures--they did no such thing--they preserved the corrupted
Egyptian Minority texts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (aleph and B)--the primary texts from which virtually all modern
versions are derived.