by
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
wallace@bible.org

First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, no where in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. No where am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only 'holy' Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

[Brother Hicks' Comment: This is the typical "logic" of the people who put their faith in men and error filled manuscripts rather than God. Books such as The Making of the NIV by Bible pervertor Kenneth Barker show forth this type of give people partial truth or total lies in order to draw them into the web of deception that the new "bibles" are in. It is hard to find any Bible correctors that will just deal with the truth, no, instead they play on emotions and make blanket statements that try to give the impression that Bible believers think the way they want you to think they do.

Mr. Wallace wants "to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life," but if he is honest he has no idea where this inerrant, inspired, and final authority for faith and practice can be found if he rejects the King James Bible. The MSS (manuscripts) disagree with one another and are filled with errors (depending on which manuscript you are comparing with the others). So you cannot hold any one of them and say that you have the inerrant, inspired, word of God, and the common practice of piecing out the MSS in a vain attempt to have the word of God in many sources is ridiculous. All of this is the vain attempts of Christ-rejecting men who refuse to accept that God could preserve His word in a sensible and edifying way.]

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that some monks were just about to publish their edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to 'back-translate' the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge-viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text-did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus' third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was 'made to order' to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been 'created' by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the 'King James only' advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.

[Brother Hicks' Comment: This is a point that proves my point that almost all of these Bible perversion defenders have to try to give half-truths in order to scare people into believing their lies. Erasmus was a humanist as Mr. Wallace points out, but he purposely leaves out the point that a humanist then was merely someone that generally studied and taught. He would not be defined as a humanist in the sense of the humanists of today which are wicked. Even Hank Hanagraaff, a committed Bible perversion defender, is honest enough to point out that Erasmus was not a humanist as we define it today and that it was not bad then. Compare the way the term Christian was used by the heathen to describe the Christ-like believers in the early church (Acts 11:26; 26:28) in comparison to the way it is thrown around to apply to anyone who believe in God today. We cannot read modern perversions of the true meaning of words into the old and accurate usage.

Also, while this guy is supposed to be an associate professor of New Testament Studies, he is so unlearned in the New Testament and the New Testament MSS evidence that he says, "To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century." As I have proven in my commentary on 1 John, the following is the proof for 1 John 5:7-8 being included in the text:

Part of this verse [1 John 5:7] and v.8 are left out of some early MSS. What is left out is "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness." Most modern versions wickedly leave this portion called "the Johannine comma" out, but it is clearly in the original MSS as is seen by the facts that Cyprian (200-258 A.D), the Bishop of Carthage, quoted it as being written by John (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, p.418, 423); It is sited by Athanasius (350 A.D.) and Tertullian (200 A.D.); It is attested by the Latin church fathers Psedudo-Cyprian (4^th century A.D.), Priscillian (died 385 A.D.), the Speculum (5^th century A.D.), Varimadum (4^th century A.D.), and Fulgentius (died 533 A.D.); Vigilus of Thapsus quoted it in the 5^th century; Both the Codex Montfortii and the Vulgate contain it; The words are in perfect harmony with the rest of Scripture. It is most likely that the verse was taken out by Arians or Anti-Godhead people in the early church. Yet, it could have been the orthodox that foolishly and wickedly removed it because the Sabellians could twist it to prove their doctrine (i.e. that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one in the sense of being identical). The argument that the Johannine comma does not appear in any MS before the 12^th-16^th century is erroneous in view of the facts above. It only was questioned when Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the N.T., to which he restored it in a later edition upon finding it to be in the text. His first edition was made with this portion left out due to questions of its origin, but the truths above clearly show it to be Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and any taking away from it damns the soul (Rev. 22:18-19). All of the above proves without a shadow of a doubt that 1 John 5:7 belongs in the text, but also good Gk. grammar does. This is due to the truth that "that bear record" (v.7) and "these three" (v.8) become masculine. Why would they be masculine if it was not due to the influence of the masculine "Father" and "Word" that people are trying to rob from God's word? Otherwise they would be neuter due to their having no masculine influence, but they are not. Thus, not only is the "Johannine comma" in the texts, but it is required for good Gk. grammar!

From what we have seen thus far this defense of rejecting the Bible for "scholarship onlyism" is based upon lies and half-truths.]

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

[Brother Hicks' Comment: This is another false statement. Either this man is very ill informed OR he is blatantly lying in order to deceive the easily led astray. The King James Bible has never undergone any revision, and even if you were to deceptively call the various editions released "revisions" there were four released and not three. (Please read The Four Editions Of The 1611 King James Bible: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 for more information on this issue.) Thus, his question is based on a false premise and deception.]

Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning-e.g., 'suffer the little children to come unto me.' Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language which not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?

[Brother Hicks' Comment: This is such a weak argument that many Bible perversion defenders WILL NOT make it! This man is supposed to be an associate professor of New Testament studies, so I will assume that he understands the New Testament Greek language. He should know very well that Greek words are used in the New Testament that would not have been understood by everyone reading the New Testament. Should we water it down for those few that do not or refuse to understand? Of course not! This is the same for the King James Bible. Why are these people who teach such against people learning new words? Could it be that they want to keep people ignorant and dependent upon them, the "scholars," for truth?

The King James Bible has a self-contained dictionary that makes its words clear by the context. Take the example he gave, "suffer the little children to come unto me." When any sensible English reader reads that they can immediately tell that "suffer" is used in a different sense then it is in the modern degenerated English. Yet, even modern English dictionaries include one of the meanings of "suffer" being "to put up with or allow." Thus, the real issue gets down to whether we want to dumb-down the word of God to help the unlearned, or do we want to educate the unlearned and not tamper with the word of God?

His argument that because people are ignorant and pervert and twist the Bible that that is a good enough reason to go after watered-down "bibles" is utterly erroneous. This is the same argument made by atheists trying to do away with the word of God, and it is hard to comprehend why he would want to take the same position as the atheists in regard to the Bible.]

Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.' But the Greek has 'strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.' In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).

[Brother Hicks' Comment: No, the King James Bible advocate would not admit to the foolishness of your claim Mr. Wallace! He himself is guilty of straining "at [not out] a gnat" all the while swallowing a camel! Once again he falsifies his evidence and then gives you no truth to go to. He cannot show you the word of God, for he is clinging to scholarship instead of the Bible.]

Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that 'you would understand it if you were spiritual'). Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.-in short, the language-comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than He intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the Scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where 'receive', 'welcome' shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man).

[Brother Hicks' Comment: He says nothing here that would be an argument against the King James Bible. He is simply trying to get the reader to equate problems (whether real or of his imagination) with some King James Bible advocates with the King James Bible itself. This would be like blaming the constitution of the United States for various Presidents' problems.

Also, the King James Bible is not hard to understand for the average reader and the willing heart. It IS true that it may be difficult for the unlearned, yet so would any book. This is no reason to keep the unlearned in the state of ignorance, rather it is a good reason to teach them to read better that way they can be more productive.]

Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther's fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther's Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die.

[Brother Hicks' Comment: Once again he tries to get you to equate the King James Bible advocates with the issue of whether the King James Bible is correct. This is erroneous and intentionally deceptive. Seeing that not one King James Bible advocate alive today has had any say ever in the readings in the King James Bible it is only a sign of a weak and desperate argument when one tries to base his rejection of the Bible on what some who claim to love it do or say.]

Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals-who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith-prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation!

[Brother Hicks' Comment: After reading this I started to wonder if maybe Mr. Wallace uses picture-book Bibles for his teachings. He uses the type of reasoning that would be used to deceive a child, but with less of the effect. So, simply because a lot of people embrace Bible perversions is a reason to accept it? You can make a point here, but this same line of reasoning could be used to "prove" many cults that have huge followings.]

Finally, though it is true that the modern translations 'omit' certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the Scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc.

[Brother Hicks' Comment: This is nothing more than opinions and theories. This is the typical sayings of the new "bible" defenders. Notice that he gives NO proof for what he says. No, these people simply want you to believe what they say. They may claim otherwise, but they want you to have your faith in them for the word of God, and that is why they try to attack the Bible on such a weak basis as the arguments seen in this article. Anyone that continually points to themselves as the authority upon which we are to base our beliefs should be rejected. We are to base our beliefs upon the word of God, and men like this only want to convince you that the word of God cannot be found except in their theories on how it should read and what should be removed or added to it.]

I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those 'mountains.' We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world which is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria!

Addendum

One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books villifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. [Brother Hicks' Comment: Apparently he has not been reading his own works. Notice how he is not specific in saying what books he is talking about. This is to discredit all the books defending the Bible in an attempt to get you to look to him and other scholars for the word of God.] Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! [Brother Hicks' Comment: This is a total and utter lie! I see from this article that this man is a habitual liar and the Bible is clear on who the spiritual father of such a person like this is (John 8:44; Revelation 21:8). Wescott and Hort for example have been proven to be total heretics, and yet their updated New Testament is used in the translation of most of the modern "bibles."] Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between 'who' and 'whom'!). [Brother Hicks' Comment: He does not consider the taking out of words important, rather just trivial? See my article called Verses taken away by the Bible Perversions that shows a few of the words and phrase taken out of the Bible by the new "translations."] Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000-and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who villify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

[Brother Hicks' Comment: The first part of this paragraph (starting with the fourth reason) is a half-truth. Many of the differences are extremely minor and would not change the translation a bit, BUT some are major (1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:7-8; etc.). While this man may not be at all concerned with having the very words of God, true believers are concerned and want every word of God (Matthew 4:4) so that they can live! If he wants only a few of the words of God and not EVERY word of God, then that is for him to answer to God to, but to dare try to take one's faith out of the Bible and replace it with absolutely nothing (for he offers no better translation and no solution to find the "real" word of God) is damnable (Revelation 21:18-19). This is the product of Satan inspired men who's inflated ego's keep them from ever seeing the simplicity of the truth.]

You can get ICQ at www.icq.com and ICQ me at ICQ #29231018! If you do not have ICQ but would like to initiate a chat with me then click here!

---

---

web hosting • domain names
web design • online games