[Please Note: Where this article refers to the "Authorised
Version", this means the 1611 King James Version] [The
Revised Version is the 1881 version of Westcott & Hort]
The Divine Original
by T. H. Brown
Deficiencies in the text underlying modern Bible versions, with special
reference to doctrinal defects in the Revised
Version and the Revised
Standard Version
Preliminary Considerations
The Holy Scriptures exhort us to "contend earnestly for the faith once
delivered to the saints". That faith was delivered to the saints in
"the Holy Scriptures, which were given by inspiration of God, and are able
to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus". The
New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek, and our Bible is in English.
Therefore when we read our English Bible we hear the Word of God through an
interpreter, or rather through a whole series of interpreters. The question
arises -- were the interpreters reliable, or did they produce an imperfect
translation based upon defective manuscripts? When we contend for individual
passages, are we contending for the changeless Truth of God, or are we
contending for ancient human errors introduced into that text by accident or
design?
These questions have been raised with increasing persistence during the past
hundred years, and especially during the last few decades. People of every shade
of Christian opinion, including "modernists" on the one hand and
"evangelicals" of unquestioned integrity on the other, evince a common
eagerness to discredit the Authorised Version [which is
the 1611 (KJV) K.J. Version] of the English Bible. They insist that the
translators had few and poor manuscripts, that their knowledge of Greek and
Hebrew was imperfect, and that their English style contributed to the production
of a version which, although it "sounds nice" is "downright
misleading", and should be dismissed from the pulpit to the library, to
make way for an allegedly superior modern version. Many of these statements are
themselves misleading and it is important that we should be acquainted with the
facts before attempting to evaluate either the modem versions or the older ones.
The English Bible before the Reformation
Before A.D. 1450 there was no printing in this part of the world, but there was
an English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1382 by Wyclif and his
associates. This version was fruitfully used and the means of blessing to many,
but it was far from perfect. It was beautifully handwritten throughout, and a
few copies remain to this day to testify to the devoted care and skill of an
earlier age.
In the next century the art of printing was introduced in Germany, and in about
1450 Gensfleisch (Gutenberg) set up the first press at Mainz. This was the
beginning of the era of Bible printing.
The Revival of Greek Learning
For many centuries before the Reformation, Greek scholarship was virtually
nonexistent in western Europe. In 1453 Constantinople, the ancient capital of
the eastern part of the Empire and the centre of the eastern Church, fell to the
Moslem invaders. One far-reaching result of this calamity was that Christian
scholars with a knowledge of Greek, and with Greek copies of the Holy Scriptures
in their possession, fled to western Europe where their influence gave a new
impetus to the study of the Greek language. It has been said that "Greece
rose from the grave with the New Testament in her hand".
Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament
Among the next generation of Greek scholars was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who
prepared an edition of the Greek N.T. from several manuscripts to which he had
access. This edition was printed in 1516 and was followed by four later
editions. At Alcala (Complutum) University in 1502 Cardinal
Ximenes gathered together manuscripts and Biblical scholars, whose work
resulted in the publication of the "Complutensian Polyglot" in 1522. Robert
Stephens (Estienne), relying largely upon Erasmus and the Polyglot, and with
at least fifteen manuscripts at his disposal, produced editions of the Greek
text in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. In 1551 he withdrew to Geneva and joined the
Protestant cause. Theodore Beza produced nine editions of the Greek between 1565
and 1604. These followed Stephens fairly closely, although Beza had some ancient
manuscripts not available to Stephens. The Elzevir editions printed at Leiden
had much in common with those of Stephens and Beza.
The Elzevir edition announced itself as the "Textus Receptus" and
since that time Stephens' 1550 edition has been known as the "Received
Text" in England, while the Elzevir
edition of 1633 has had this title in other parts of Europe.
The Protestant Translations
The Protestant versions in England and other European countries in the 16th and
17th centuries were based on these editions of the Greek text. These early
printed Greek editions were themselves based on comparatively few manuscripts,
which have nevertheless proved to be representative of the Greek text embraced
many centuries earlier throughout the Greek Church.
The English versions of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews (or Rogers), the Great
Bible, the Geneva Bible, the
Bishops' Bible and the Authorised Version (1611 KJV) were all based upon this
little company of Greek documents, in which was preserved the Greek text
generally received throughout the Greek Church since the Apostolic age.
The Authorised Version (1611 KJV)
At the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 the Puritan leader Reynolds made the
suggestion -- which was first opposed and then adopted by the Conference with
enthusiastic approval from King James I -- that there should be a new
translation of the Holy Scriptures in English, to replace the different versions
then in common use. Fifty-four men, including High Churchmen and Puritans, the
greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars of the age, formed six companies to undertake
the task. Using their Greek sources and the best commentaries of European
scholars, and referring to Bibles in Spanish, Italian, French and German, they
expressed the sense of the Greek in clear, vigorous and idiomatic English. This
Bible won its battles against the prejudices and criticism which greeted its
first appearance and became the Bible of the English-speaking world. In 1786 Dr.
Geddes wrote,
"If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed
to constitute an excellent Version, this is of all versions the most
excellent."
Bishop Lightfoot affirmed that this version was the storehouse of the highest
truth and the purest well of our native English. "Indeed", he wrote,
"we may take courage from the fact that the language of our English Bible
is not the language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its grand
simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and often affected diction of
the literature of the time" (On a fresh Revision of the New Testament,
1872, p. 191).
Recent Discoveries and Textual Criticism
During the next three hundred years vast numbers of documents were brought to
light and Biblical scholars made many attempts to reconstruct the Greek New
Testament. There are now over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, including 90 papyrus
fragments (2nd-8th century); 270 Uncial copies (3rd-l0th); 2,800 minuscules
(9th-16th); and 2,000 Lectionary copies. The overwhelming majority of these
manuscripts agree so closely that they may be said to present the same Greek
text, called by some the "Byzantine Text" because it prevailed
throughout the Church in the Byzantine period A.D. 312-1453 (and long after).
The Versions. In addition to these Greek sources, scholars have recovered copies
of ancient translations in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, etc. Some
of these originated before our oldest existing Greek copies and thus testify to
the contents of still earlier manuscripts. Much of this evidence is favourable
to "The Received Text'' underlying the Authorised Version.
Early Greek and Latin writers -- The "Fathers"
The writings of early champions of the truth (and heretics) contain copious
references to the Scriptures and again testify concerning the Greek text as it
was in the 2nd century onwards. The majority of these witnesses support the
"Byzantine" or "Received" or "Traditional" text
underlying the Authorised Version, and they establish the antiquity of this text
and its superior acceptance in the early period.
The Papyri
It is alleged that the most ancient papyrus fragments are hostile to the
Received Text, but it must be remembered that the fragments that remain are few
in comparison with the many that must have perished through long and frequent
use. It is probable that the surviving minority survived because they were not
much used and that they fell into disuse because of their deficiencies. A number
of papyri of the 6th to 8th centuries do not contain a distinctively
"Byzantine" type of text, although it is beyond question that the
"Byzantine" text was dominant in that period. These papyri are
surviving representatives of a defective and discarded text.
Favourable evidence of the Papyri
Some of the papyrus fragments of earliest date do contain readings which 19th
century scholars had wrongly rejected as belonging to a late "Syrian"
or "Byzantine" revision. This is true of the document known as Papyrus
Bodmer II (A.D. 200?) which contains John Chapters 1-14 including 13 per cent.
of the readings rejected by 19th century scholars as "late Byzantine".
The Vatican and Sinai Manuscripts
In the mid-nineteenth century the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus became
available to Biblical scholars, and in 1881 Westcott
and Hort advanced the theory that the New Testament text was preserved in an
almost perfect state in these two fourth century manuscripts.
An Error of Judgment
The discovery of these MSS betrayed many Biblical students into a lamentable
infirmity of critical judgment. Tischendorf himself, the discoverer of the Sinai
Codex, amended his eighth edition in at least 3,505 places in conformity with
new readings which he found in this document. The Codex Vaticanus exercised a
similar mesmeric influence on the minds of many 19th and 20th century scholars.
The revised Greek text underlying modern versions has the support only of that
very small minority of the available MSS which are in some respects in agreement
with the unreliable text of the Sinai and Vatican codices.
An Elaborate Theory
Westcott and Hort devised an elaborate theory, based more on imagination and
intuition than upon evidence, elevating this little group of MSS to the heights
of almost infallible authority. Their treatise on the subject and their edition
of the Greek N.T. exercised a powerful and far-reaching influence, not only on
the next generation of students and scholars, but also indirectly upon the minds
of millions who have had neither the ability, nor the time, nor the inclination
to submit the theory to a searching examination.
A Fundamental Error
Those who do so will find that the whole theory was based upon a fundamental
error, namely the assumption that the reliability of these 4th century documents
was in proportion to their age. There were no doubt bad copies in every age,
some corrupted by accident, some by ignorance and some by design. These two
exhibit the most amazing number of incorrect readings.
Doctrinal Deficiencies of these MSS
These two MSS and a few others containing a similar text present in a weakened
form many of the passages of Holy Scripture which speak most plainly of the
deity of the Son of God. The trend of Biblical scholarship in the 19th and 20th
centuries has been towards a "humanitarian" view of the person of
Christ. It is not surprising that many modern scholars should welcome the
support of these two ancient documents, but it is sad to see so many earnest
evangelical Christians ready to accept without question a theory so destructive
of the faith once delivered to the saints.
Rejecting the Evidence
In the words of a great 19th century scholar, "To cast away at least
nineteen-twentieths of the evidence, and to draw conclusions from the petty
remainder is not ... consistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical
method." The process also has the effect of weakening the testimony of the
Holy Scriptures on a number of important doctrines.
The True Text
The Sinai and Vatican manuscripts represent a small family of documents
containing various readings which the Church as a whole rejected before the end
of the 4th century. Under the singular care and providence of God more reliable
MSS were multiplied and copied from generation to generation, and the great
majority of existing MSS exhibit a faithful reproduction of the true text which
was acknowledged by the entire Greek Church in the Byzantine period A.D.
312-1453. This text was also represented by the small group of documents
available to Erasmus, Stephens, the compilers of the Complutensian edition and
other 16th century editors. This text is represented by the Authorised Version
and other Protestant translations up to the latter part of the 19th century.
The Revised Version of 1881
This version was intended to embody the testimony of the newly discovered
manuscripts and the fruits of scholarly research in the Greek language, but the
whole undertaking was so dominated by the mistaken textual theories of Westcott
and Hort, that the years of labour produced an unreliable translation based upon
an unreliable text.
Influence of Westcott and Hort
When the Revision Committee met, each member was given an advance copy of the
edition of the Greek N.T. prepared by Professor Westcott and Professor Hort.
These scholars had both persuaded themselves that the true text of the N.T. was
preserved in its purest form in the Codex Vaticanus and that the testimony of
this manuscript or the Codex Sinaiticus, supported by one or more of a small
company of documents exhibiting the same kind of text, must be regarded as
almost infallible in all cases where the available manuscripts presented a
variety of readings.
Among the Revisers there was only one other who could lay claim to experience
and ability in the realm of textual criticism, namely Prebendary Scrivener. As
the revision proceeded, textual matters were discoursed upon in turn by these
three men and in many cases the more conservative opinions of Scrivener were set
aside under pressure from Westcott and Hort. The majority of the Revisers were
disposed to be influenced by the judgment of the two professors and the wiser
and more judicious minority were constantly over-ruled in this way.
The Revisers' Greek Text
After the publication of the R.V., Scrivener was commissioned to prepare an
edition of the Greek Text which had been followed by the Revisers. This text was
not identical with that of Westcott and Hort but it owed much to their dominant
influence and followed their lead in most matters of major importance. In this
edition Scrivener was bound to reproduce a Greek text in which there were many
features which were repugnant to his own wiser judgment. In his own works,
particularly the learned Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament (of which several editions were published, including what might be
termed a definitive edition by Miller), and Scrivener's Six Lectures on the Text
of the New Testament, Scrivener dissented from many of the conclusions
of the Revisers.
The crux of the matter is Westcott and Hort's insistence upon the superiority of
the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and a few kindred documents. The
worst corruptions of the Greek text appeared before the end of the second
century and it is generally agreed among critical scholars that the few
manuscripts available to Ximenes, Erasmus and Stephens were better
than many of the earliest period. Some of these ancient but imperfect
manuscripts were progenitors of documents like the Codices Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, but side by side with them were other MSS exhibiting the text more
or less as represented by the so-called Received Text and Authorised Version.
The most ancient writers and the translators of the most ancient versions were
apparently acquainted with both kinds of text.
The Antiquity of the Received Text
This fact is admitted by Bishop Ellicott the chairman of the revisors in his
pamphlet, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two members of the N.T.
Company, pp. 11, 12. "The manuscripts which Erasmus
used differ, for the most part only in small and insignificant details, from the
great bulk of the cursive MSS. The general character of their text is the same.
By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the
individual manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to
remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least
contemporary with the oldest of our extant MSS, if not older than any one of
them."
It must be emphasised that the argument is not between an ancient text and a
recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one of which was rejected
and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and remaining in
common use for more than fifteen centuries. The assumptions of modern textual
criticism are based upon the discordant testimony of a few specimens of the
rejected text recently disinterred from the oblivion to which they had been
deliberately and wisely consigned in the 4th century.
Part II
The "Syrian Recension" Theory
Being convinced that the Vatican/Sinai type of text was the most ancient and
most pure, Westcott and Hort assumed that there must have been a "Syrian
Recension" of the Greek text some time between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350 and
that this recension was the progenitor of the "Received Text". In
their Introduction to the N.T. in Greek these two scholars spun a web of
theories to advance the claims of their favourite manuscripts to the highest
antiquity. One great obstacle was the frequent agreement of the Pe****ta Syriac
with the Greek Textus Receptus. This obstacle was removed by the simple
expedient of changing the relative dates of the Pe****ta and Curetonian Syriac,
calling the latter the "Old" Syriac and the former the
"Vulgate" Syriac.
In his book on the N.T. Canon (1855, pp. 264-5), Westcott himself saw "no
reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most
competent scholars, that the formation of the Pe****ta Syriac was to be fixed
within the first half of the 2nd century. The very obscurity which hangs over
its origin is proof of its venerable age, because it shows that it grew up
spontaneously among Christian congregations ... Had it been a work of later
date, of the 3rd or 4th century, it is scarcely possible that its history should
be so uncertain as it is." In the Introduction to the N.T. in Greek,
1882, Westcott contradicted himself on all these points and contended that
the Curetonian Syriac was of greater antiquity, and that the Pe****ta was an
authoritative revision in the latter part of the 3rd or 4th centuries.
Although entirely lacking in historical evidence, the Syrian Recension theory
was particularly attractive because it appeared to give some semblance of
authority to those engaged in the process of recasting the Greek text in the
mould of the Vatican/Sinai MSS. The form of text represented by these documents
contains literally thousands of alterations to the sacred wording, including a
number of changes which dilute the testimony of the Holy Scriptures to our
Lord's deity. (Some examples are commented on below.)
The Deity of our Lord
In his Bampton lectures on the Divinity of our Lord, delivered in the year 1866,
Canon Liddon gave a timely and solemn warning of the perils which then beset the
Church of Christ through the denial of our Saviour's essential and eternal
deity. The detractors of this vital truth of God's Word have found a powerful
ally in the modern versions which have been based upon the pro-Arian type of
Greek text exhibited by MSS of the Vatican/Sinai group. Perhaps the most
powerful unitarian assailants of the true doctrine of Holy Scripture today are
the so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses". It is significant that their own
version follows this type of text and that they are generally disposed to
welcome versions like the R.S.V. and N.E.B. which display similar deficiencies
and rest upon the same unsound foundation.
Most people today, including theological students, teachers and ministers, are
prepared to adopt the attitude that the "scholars" must be right and
that matters relating to the Greek text must be left in the hands of
"experts". The evangelical professes to stand firm by the divine
inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, the equal and eternal deity of
Christ, the virgin birth, the atonement and other vital doctrines, but
surrenders both text and translation to the biased judgment of unsound scholars
and meekly allows the text of Holy Scripture to be arbitrated by a group of
ancient but unreliable documents.
The American Standard Version
After the English Revisers had completed their task the American Revision
Committee continued its deliberations for some years and published the fruit of
their labours early in the present century. This version was in many respects
very similar to the English Revised Version, although diverging from it in
hundreds of details of varying significance. The R.S.V. is a revision of this
"Standard Version"
THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION
This version, which is the property of the National Council of the Churches of
Christ in the U.S.A., has achieved a measure of popularity in the
English-speaking world, and some of the Bible Societies have amended their
constitutions in order to permit its circulation. It is quoted by evangelical
preachers and writers and widely circulated by evangelical organisations.
Notwithstanding its present popularity and the misleading and sometimes
ill-informed testimonials to its excellence, there are very good reasons why
discerning Christians with a reverent regard for the divine inspiration,
authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures should exercise great caution in
the use of this version and refrain from encouraging its general use by
undiscerning readers.
The Translators
Some of the translators have written articles which indicate that they do not
acknowledge the Bible doctrines of the Deity of Christ, His Pre-existence, His
Virgin Birth, His Atoning Sacrifice and present intercession in Heaven. A
translator who has adopted an entirely "humanitarian" view of the Son
of God, and is prepared to respect His ideal humanity and to disregard His
claims to full deity, is likely to betray his erroneous dogma in his
translation. That this deficiency is apparent in the R.S.V. is demonstrated by
the examples given later in this article.
Socinianism
The last 150 years have witnessed a great resurgence of ancient heresies
relating to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and these errors have
left their mark on modern translations of the Bible.
The translator, as well as the reader, is confronted with the vital question,
"Whom do men say that I am?" The Ebionite of old, and later the
Socinian asserted that Jesus was merely a man, whether supernaturally born, or
as modern rationalists generally maintain, subject in all respects to ordinary
natural laws. They contended that His moral eminence alone entitled the
enthusiastic admirer to call Him "divine". Socinianism will confess
Christ's "divinity" if this involves nothing more emphatic than an
acknowledgement of certain moral features of the Divine Being displayed in the
human life of Christ.
Modern Humanitarianism
In modern days this phenomenon of "humanitarianism" is reproduced by
writers who use language which seems to do justice to Christ's deity. They
recognise Him as the "perfect revelation of God" and the "true
head and Lord of human kind", but they deny the existence of a Trinity in
the Godhead, and recognise in God no pre- existent Personal Form as the basis of
His self-manifestation to man. They therefore avoid any plain assertion that
Christ is God.
Arianism
Arians maintain that our Lord Jesus Christ existed before His Incarnation and
that by Him, as by an instrument, the Supreme God made the worlds, and that He
is to be "worshipped" only as the highest creature. They insist that
there was a time when He did not exist, that He had a beginning of existence and
cannot be called God in the sense in which the Name is applied to the Supreme
Being. This view of the Redeemer satisfies neither reason nor faith and has been
well described as a resting point for minds which are sinking from a profession
of Christian faith downwards to pure humanitarianism. Some of the translators
have embraced and expressed unscriptural views akin to these, in contrast to the
faith of the whole Church of Christ, which acknowledges the pre-existent and
eternal deity of the only-begotten Son of God, His equality with the Father, His
miraculous incarnation, His atoning death and physical resurrection.
Doctrinal Changes
The advocates of the R.S.V. endeavour to assure their readers that the numerous
changes in the text do not affect any fundamental doctrine. They allege that the
alterations are exclusively dictated by newly discovered manuscripts and by the
gains of scholarly research in the Biblical languages. These assurances are not
in accordance with the facts. Fundamental doctrines relating to the Person and
work of the Lord Jesus Christ are weakened and obscured in the R.S.V. and the
translators appear to have made some changes on dogmatic rather than linguistic
or documentary grounds.
A Jewish Scholar among the R.S.V. Translators
The translation committee included in its membership a Jewish scholar, H. M.
Orlinsky of the Jewish Institute of Religion in New York. This man would not
accept the deity of Christ, but would favour a "unitarian" emphasis in
any passage referring to the Messiah.
For example, the prophecy of Isaiah 7.14 was altered to
read "A young woman shall conceive and bear a son." The correct
reading is "A virgin shall conceive ..." The erroneous reading in the
R.S.V. makes it possible to dissociate this prophecy from the record of our
Lord's miraculous birth of the virgin Mary in the New Testament.
The comment of a Jewish Rabbi
The corrupted text met with the warm approval of Rabbi Balfour Brickner of
Temple Sinai, Washington, who declared, "I am delighted to know that at
last this great error of translation has been finally corrected, and that at
least some elements of the Christian world no longer officially maintain that
Isaiah 7.14 is a prediction that Jesus was to be born of the virgin Mary."
The Unitarian Bias of the R.S.V.
Shortly after the R.S.V. New Testament was published, its deficiencies were
exposed in an article by Dr. R. C. Foster, Professor of Greek and N.T. in
Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Ohio, published in the July 1946 issue of the
"Church News Letter". After presenting a careful study of the numerous
changes in the text, he wrote, "The Revised Standard Version is frankly
unitarian and offers a very subtle attack upon the deity of Christ ... It is
as if the scholars were saying --This stubborn and unscientific generation of
the 20th century insists on maintaining that Jesus was God in the flesh, but by
the use of a literary device we will put words into their mouths as they read
this version so that they will consciously or unconsciously admit that Jesus is
not God but man."
The truth of this assertion is vindicated by the list of significant passages
given below.
The Name of God withheld from Christ
Psalm 45.6: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" is altered to
"Your divine throne endures for ever and ever." In an explanatory
article the translators stated that "Thou" and "Thee" were
used only when the Deity was addressed. The use of "Your" indicates
that the translators believed that this verse did not apply to a Divine Person.
The Name of God is here reduced to the adjective "divine", but when
this text is quoted in Hebrews chapter 1.8, it is made to apply to the Son, and
the Name of God is restored in the text. The footnote leaves the way open to the
sceptical reader to deny that the Son is addressed as God, "Thy throne, O
God", in the text, becomes "God is thy throne" in the note.
His Eternal Pre-existence denied
Micah 5.2: "Out of thee shall He come forth ... whose goings forth have
been from of old, from everlasting." In the R.S.V. this becomes ...
"whose ORIGIN is from of old, from ancient days." Thus the eternal
pre-existence of the Son of God is denied and the new translation assigns to the
ETERNAL SON an origin in time. This is a very ancient heresy which has been
disinterred in the last hundred years or so and thrust upon undiscerning hearers
and readers in many modern versions.
Proverbs 8.22: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way."
The R.S.V. reads, "The Lord CREATED me at the beginning of his work."
This is a Messianic passage and the new version alleges that the Person spoken
of was a CREATURE. This kind of teaching has been widely canvassed in recent
times by the so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses''.
His miraculous birth obscured
Matthew 1.25: "... till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son."
Verse 23 quotes the prophecy of Isaiah 7.14. "A virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son", and verse 25 emphasises the fulfilment of the
prophecy by stating that this was her FIRSTBORN son.
The R.S.V. text omits "firstborn" and thus obscures the literal
fulfilment of the prophecy and weakens the emphasis on the Virgin Birth.
Matthew 1.16: Early editions of the R.S.V. have a footnote (similar to that in
the N.E.B.) -- Other ancient authorities read, "Joseph to whom was
betrothed the virgin Mary, was the father of Jesus who is called Christ."
-- This note was based on a single corrupt Syriac version opposed by all the
major manuscripts. This footnote leaves it to the option of the reader either to
believe that Jesus was miraculously born of the virgin Mary, or that Joseph was
His father. Read in conjunction with the corrupted rendering in Isaiah 7 the
note constitutes a denial of the deity of Christ.
His essential Divine Goodness
Matthew 19.16, 17: "Good Master, what good thing shall do ... "
"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God..."
Without any explanatory note the R.S.V. changes this to, "Teacher, what
good deed must I do .... " "Why do you ask me about what is good? One
there is who is good ..." The A.V. says in effect, "You know there is
only One Who is essentially and perfectly good -- that is God Himself. You
addressed me as 'Good', but do you really believe me to be 'Good' and therefore
one with God?" The whole significance of the passage is destroyed by the
altered rendering.
His Divine Sonship obscured
Mark 1.1: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of
God." The R.S.V. has a footnote. -- Other ancient authorities omit
"the Son of God". Biblical scholars have been erratically omitting and
inserting these words in the Greek text and English translations for several
generations. The testimony for their inclusion is overwhelming, and even the
translators of the N.E.B. were constrained to admit that "the Son of
God" is the best attested reading. There is a note to this effect in the
Greek Text underlying the N.E.B. edited by Professor R. G. V. Tasker.
Fulfilment of prophecy omitted
Mark 15. 28: R.S.V. text omits "And the Scripture was fulfiled which saith,
And He was numbered with the transgressors."
His Post-Resurrection Appearances omitted
Mark 16.9-20: The whole of this portion is relegated to the margin of the R.S.V.
The evidence for the genuineness of this passage is outlined in a separate
article.
Luke 24.40: R.S.V. omits this verse which states that the risen Lord showed His
disciples His hands and His feet to prove to them the reality of His death and
resurrection.
His Miraculous Ascension obscured
Luke 24.51: R.S.V. omits the statement that "He was carried up into
Heaven."
Luke 24.52: R.S.V. omits the declaration that His disciples WORSHIPPED Him.
Mistranslation of Luke 2.14: "Good will toward men" becomes in the
R.S.V. text "... peace among men with whom He is pleased." This
rendering has very slender manuscript support. The indisputable case for the
Received Text and A.V. is summarised in a separate article.
Trinitarian doctrine impugned
John 1.3: The R.S.V. note in this verse is redolent of ancient heresies, the
significance of which is stated in a separate article. The note makes it
possible to regard the Holy Spirit as a CREATURE and to deny the eternal
preexistence of Christ.
John 1.18: The influence of early heretics may be seen in the marginal note
first in the R.V., "God only begotten" for "the only begotten
Son". The R.S.V. translators retained "The Son" but reduced
"only begotten" to "only" so their text reads, "the
only Son". The margin allows the alternative "God", so the full
text would then exhibit the impossible reading, "The only God who is in the
bosom of the Father, He has made Him known." One revision robs Him of the
title "only begotten" and the other revision robs Him of the title
"Son".
The rightful place of the Son of Man in heaven denied
John 3.13 A.V.: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." The R.S.V. omits
the words "which is in heaven".
Belief in Jesus as God removed from John 6.47
The Lord Jesus Christ said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me hath everlasting life." The implication of His words is
that to believe on Him is to believe on God, whom to know is life eternal. The
R.S.V. omits the words "on me", reducing the statement to, "He
who believes has eternal life". The implication of this new reading is that
whoever believes in God has eternal life. Belief in Jesus as God no longer has a
place in the text. This weakened rendering would be quite acceptable to any who
deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Testimony to "Christ the Son of the Living God" rejected
John 6.69: "We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of
the living God." The R.S.V. reduces this to, "We have believed and
have come to know that you are the Holy One of God." Thus another
declaration of His unique Divine Sonship is lost. The new reading is more
palatable to unitarians. Admittedly, the "Holy One" is a title of
great dignity, but it does not attribute Sonship to the Person addressed,
His use of the title "The Son of God" denied
In John 9. 35 the Lord Jesus Christ asks the man whose sight He has miraculously
restored, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" The R.S.V. changes
"Son of God" to "Son of man" and thus eliminates this clear
personal testimony of our Lord concerning His own Divine Sonship. Admittedly the
title "Son of man" is used elsewhere, but here there is a clear
reference to His unique relationship to the Father. The R.S.V. destroys the
important doctrinal teaching of this verse.
Prayer to the Father in the Name of the Son discountenanced
John 14.14: "If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it" is
changed by a marginal note to, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will
do it." If we accept the alteration we dilute the testimony of the Holy
Scriptures to the efficacy of prayer offered to the Father in the name of the
Son. This is even more noticeable in John 16.23: "Whatsoever ye shall ask
the Father in my name, he will give it you," becomes in the R.S.V. text,
"If you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my
name."
The Deity of Christ obscured in Acts 20.28
Paul admonished the elders at Ephesus, "Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased WITH HIS OWN
BLOOD." This is preserved in the R.S.V. text, but a marginal note offers
the alternative reading, "WITH THE BLOOD OF HIS OWN." This is entirely
different. The correct reading asserts that the flock was purchased with the
blood of One who was God -- "the church of God ... purchased with His own
blood." The marginal reading dilutes this testimony and merely declares
that God purchased the Church with the blood of one who was His own. This
reading removes the testimony to the deity of the Redeemer.
The Deity of Christ eliminated from Romans 9.5
The Apostle Paul writes of his own "kinsmen according to the flesh ...
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." This is the plainest possible
declaration that Christ is God, but the R.S.V. introduces a radical change by
adjusting the punctuation so that the statement reads, "To them belong the
patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is
over all be blessed for ever. Amen." The R.S.V. relegates the true reading
to a secondary place in a marginal note. The R.S.V. text merely acknowledges
that the Messiah was of human descent from the patriarchs and then in a separate
sentence pronounces a blessing upon God who is over all. This passage no longer
declares that Christ is God.
The Judgment Seat of Christ abolished in Romans 14.10
The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write "We shall all stand
before the judgment seat of Christ." This clearly implies that the Son is
one with the Father in judgment and is consistent with the Saviour's own words,
"The Father ... hath committed all judgment unto the Son."
The R.S.V. changes the text to read "the judgment seat of God." and
thus another testimony to the deity of Christ and His equality with the Father
disappears.
The Pre-existence of the Son as Lord in Heaven discredited
1 Corinthians 15.47: "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man
is the Lord from heaven." In the R.S.V. this becomes merely, "the
second man is from heaven." This is at variance with the whole teaching of
God's Word on the mysterious incarnation of the Saviour. He did not come from
heaven as man. "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin
Mary." In this appointed way, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among
us." He was eternally with the Father as the Son of God, but He was not
eternally with the Father as man. In the incarnation He fulfilled His eternal
purposes and took our human nature and "was found in fashion as a
man". In this way, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent
forth His own Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem
them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."
It is not Scriptural to say that "The second man is from heaven", but
it is Scriptural, and the utterance of the Holy Ghost, that "The second man
is the LORD from heaven".
The Miraculous Incarnation of the Son eliminated from 1 Tim. 3.16
In the majority of the Greek manuscripts and in the A.V. we read, "God was
manifest in the flesh". In the R.S.V. and other modern versions this is
reduced to "He was manifested in the flesh". This is introduced as the
great mystery of our religion. There is nothing mysterious in any person being
manifest in the flesh. This is true of every human being who has ever lived. The
great mystery of our religion is that Christ is God manifest in the flesh. This
is true only of Him.
The R.S.V. footnote reads, "Greek Who; other ancient authorities read God;
others, Which". One might well enquire why the R.S.V.
translators put "He" in the text if the Greek is "Who".
In fact the Greek is not "Who" or "He" or "Which",
but "GOD". The overwhelming evidence for the true reading is given in
detail in a separate article.
The Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures made doubtful
The R.S.V. calls in question the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by
inserting a note in 2 Timothy 3.16 suggesting that this verse may be read
alternatively "Every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable ..."
This suggests that some Scriptures may not be inspired by God, and that only
those that are inspired are profitable. That this is not an admissible
alternative reading is demonstrated in a separate article .
"Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" 2 Peter 1.1
This plain declaration of the Saviour's Godhead is called in question by a note
in the R.S.V. "Our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ", which avoids the
unequivocal statement that the Lord Jesus Christ is God.
The Manuscripts
We have seen that the corrupted readings quoted in the preceding paragraphs are
supported by a small group of ancient but untrustworthy manuscripts at variance
with the vast majority of the documents now at the disposal of Biblical
scholars. It has become fashionable to refer to the few as "the best
manuscripts" whereas in reality they contain some of the worst corruptions
of the ancient text. Some of these documents, particularly the Codex Vaticanus
and Codex Sinaiticus, were produced at the time when the most dangerous heresies
prevailed in the Church with regard to the Person of Christ and His relationship
to the Father. This little group of documents proved specially attractive to
those modern scholars who were disposed to adopt very similar erroneous views
themselves.
Westcott and Hort in the last century endeavoured to make this deficient
minority of the manuscripts respectable by propounding a theory that the
majority of the N.T. documents were derived from copies which had been
deliberately "edited" and embellished, implying that their
conformity with the Trinitarian doctrine embraced by the Church was artificial
and not original. There is in fact no historical evidence for any such
revision, but the groundless and dangerous theory has cast its long shadow over
the whole field of Biblical scholarship right down to our own times.
The Bible testifies to the eternal deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal
Son of the Eternal God. Some modern versions, and the defective manuscripts upon
which they rely, obscure this vital testimony, which the Authorised Version
(which is the King James Version - KJV) faithfully preserves.
sourcehtp://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org
For those who object to this article
I understand that If I object to this article, that I need to take certain steps:
1. I need to clearly understand for myself what is the specific basis of my objection
2. I need to remember that other people cannot read my mind and may not understand what I have a problem with, and I will need to be patient in explaining my objection.
3. I need to examine my own motives and decide what is pushing me or motivating me to respond about this article. If there is an issue of lack of accuracy, then I do need to bring this up.
But if the issue is that the article is accurate, then I need to understand how I should be responding to the parts that I already know and understand are true.
4. I need to be wise, so that I do not use my own lack of knowledge, as the basis for objecting too fast. There are many questions and much documentation that can be provided to those who may object. If I have a problem I can ask for this documentation, but I need to be sure and ask myself just what I am placing my SECURITY in, as a fellow Christian.
5. does the article upset me because it may be TRUE, and I am disturbed because I am finding that I have put my security in a Version of the Bible that either is NOT accurate or that was NOT accurately translated ?
6. does this mean that I may be in spiritual danger, and that I need to do much more research personally, for myself, and stop taking the word of some Pastors or leaders who are simply telling me NOT to worry about these issues, but to be warm and filled and go back to sleep ?
7. Do I need to undertand that even though some of these Pastors who "bless" all versions may have good intentions, that they may not have the gift of Biblical Discernment, and therefore they may not understand either their own need to do a great deal of personal research on this matter, so that they do not endanger the Congregation and individual Church members that they have been entrusted with ?
8. Is the church that I am going to either part of a denomination that now is Liberal or has turned its back on God or historic Christianity, or part of a group that is endorsing Unbliblical or Anti-Historic Practices such as Word of Faith or selling the Gospel by Trends such as using Church Consultants that are far more committed to Church NUMBER growth, and NOT the individual Spiritual Maturity of the Christians that are ALREADY there ?
____________________________________
The Real Question is what are you going to do with the information that was presented in this article.
Is the Information True ?
Is the Information Accurate ?
Is the Information documented ?
Do I - before God - have a responsibility if I am a Christian to accept and act on the information in this article ?
Am I comfortable in the knowledge, that some leaders under the guise of clarifying the text of the Bible, are actually changing that text, and changing MY understanding of what God wants to share with me through His Holy Word, the Old Testament and the New Testament ?
Do I understand that these "small" changes number from the hundreds to the THOUSANDS depending on which Modern Versions I use, and that these changes serve to cut away the clarity and the specific understanding found in the Greek New Testament, that these new modern versions are preventing me from understanding ?
Do I understand that most of these new Modern Versions were not developed because there was a genuine need, but because the teams of Bible Translators were Hired by PUBLISHING companies who are eager to make a profit on the Word of God, which remains the Number ONE bestseller every week of every year, and that these Publishers decided to cash in ?
Do I understand that the problem was that if these Bible Adjusters and Correctors did NOT make the changes that they chose to, that they would not be able to claim copyright protection, and therefore they would not be able to make a financial Profit from their new versions ?
Do I understand that there are Spiritual Forces that want to prevent me from having GREATER spiritual understanding about God, but that God himself is always in MORE of a hurry than I am, for Me to get to know HIM ?
Do I realize what my personal state of preparation will be, within me, when Islam becomes the Dominant Religion in the United States, as it is already in Europe, and how I will personally be required to defend my Faith, by argument and persuasion, using knowledge of the Bible and of History and of Christianity, and that God will rightly hold me accountable because I am claiming to be His Child and a personal follower of Jesus Christ ?
In view of these facts, should I try to set aside more time for the study of the Word of God, and more time for the study of History and the true history of the Christian Church, and to learn about how other Christians in the past, actually learned to have and to gain GREAT spiritual strength ?
If no one reaches out to help prepare me for the coming challenges, whose job is it STILL for me to be prepared to answer these challenges and questions ?
FREE Ebooks for your encouragement, consideration and learning (PDF) Page can be found here: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/free_ebooks_instant_downloads_pdf.htm
I Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts: and be ready always to give
an answer to every man that asketh you a
reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
II Timothy 2: 15
Study to show thyself approved
unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
FREE GENEVA BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT (1560) IN PDF
We invite your questions and comments, so please do not hesitate to contact us at
Please
Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe
Is not
correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.
Thank you
(XOFC Staff)
Core Universal Rights
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief