The Berean Blogs

Over the past few years and especially in the past year God has been really putting on my heart to research what is the correct bible, what is the correct doctrine, which doctrines are critical to salvation and which are not, what are we doing as a church, what man made traditions are we practicing that aren’t even biblical? I am going to write other papers on some of the things that the Lord has been teaching me on these subjects.

In this paper I want to share why I use the KJV bible. Around three years ago I stumbled on some research regarding the different text manuscripts that bibles are translated from. There are basically two manuscripts that all bible translations come from. Textus Receptus (aka majority text or received text) is the Greek text that has historically been used since the early 16th century. The Critical text is a newer Greek text that was created in the late 1800’s by two people named Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (more on them later).

The Received Text is based on ~5000 different manuscripts that agree with each other nearly 100%  and has been largely unchanged since its creation. It comes from the area of Antioch where Christianity first found its roots. 

The Critical Text is largely based off two manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus (discovered in catholic library) and the codex Sinaiticus which was found in a trash bin at St. Catherine’s monastery in the Sinai desert. Both of these manuscripts come from what is called the Alexandrian tradition which coincidentally (or maybe not) is where Gnosticism originated from. These two manuscripts have over 3,000 textual variations in the gospels alone.

Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by a person named Constantine Von Tischindorf and the Vatican allowed him access to the Vaticanus but it wasn’t until a couple decades later that Westcott and Hort compiled them into the Greek text known as the Critical Text. There is a whole backstory to Von Tischindorf that I won’t get into here but suffice it to say there is some controversy surrounding his proclamation that Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest and therefore the best manuscript.

Westcott and Hort are  interesting characters. On the surface they claimed to be Christian’s but letters they wrote to each other that were later published by one of their sons show that they were anything but Christians. They were very into the occult, they were very sneaky and manipulative, and they absolutely detested what they called that “vile Textus Receptus”. They formed a ghost society where they met and communed with dead people. They were also staunch believers in Darwin’s theory of evolution and didn’t understand why anyone would take the beginning chapters of Genesis literally. Because of their distaste for the Textus Receptus they compiled their new Greek text and under the guise of secrecy handed it over to the committee that was working on the Revised Version of the Bible that was to be an updated version of the King James Bible. This bible was released in 1881 and most theologians didn’t realize that it was based on a different Greek text then the King James Bible. They eventually found out as they used it and noticed all the differences between the two.

That is a very brief history of the two Greek manuscripts that are used today in our bibles. Now I will explain my story of why I switched from using modern bible versions to the King James Bible. I had been doing this research for a while and in this research I also studied what the differences between the two are. I was thinking they can’t be that much different or everyone would be talking about this, and for the most part they aren’t that different. And the differences are very subtle. I also think that people can come to a saving faith in Jesus by reading the newer versions of the Bible, but I also think that traditional knowledge based on the KJV plays a role in that. I will put at the end of this paper a list of some of the differences that I think make a big difference. The one change that solidified my stance on using the received text is Acts 8:37. Modern Translations don’t have this verse or if they do it is usually as a footnote which makes us wonder if it really should be there. 

³⁶ And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

³⁷ And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

³⁸ And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

There are churches that believe that baptism is what saves someone. If you take verse 37 out then coming to that conclusion is much easier. Now in my attempt to see both sides of this textual issue I questioned whether the Received Text added this verse or if the Critical Text removed it. The clincher for me was when I stumbled onto an early church father named Iranaeus. Iranaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of John the Apostle. He lived during the mid 2nd century so was very close to when the apostles lived on earth. John the apostle was said to have died at the end of the 1st century (~96 AD). In his work titled Against Heresies he directly quotes Acts 8:37. This convinced me that the correct Greek manuscript was in fact the Received Text. As a side note, Iranaeus spent his ministry mostly trying to refute Gnosticism which I discussed earlier regarding the Critical Text.

Now I am not a staunch KJV onlyist. I realize that it uses many outdated words and can be harder to understand than modern versions of the Bible. I do consider myself a Textus Receptus onlyist I guess although I am not opposed to using the newer versions for examples of translations however where they differ I rely on the Received Text version of the Bible. This may change over time as I become more familiar with the KJB.

Now here is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. I do believe there is something more nefarious behind these newer translations then just textual differences. I believe they subtly create doubt into God’s word. God said in Psalm 12: 6-7 that his words are pure words and that He will preserve them from this generation for ever. How can that be if we have just found the more accurate manuscripts in the past couple hundred years? Many modern bibles have footnotes that state “other manuscripts say this” or “older manuscripts say this”. These footnotes can cause questions about what God really said. To me this is a lot like the first whisper of the serpent in the garden of Eden “Hath God said?”. His tactic from the beginning has been to get us to doubt what God really said. Did God really say adultery is a sin or that homosexuality is a sin? Did God really say he is the only way, truth, and the life? And that no one comes to the father but by Him? Did God really say hell is a real place and without Him you will spend eternity there? These are all very important questions that have real absolute answers if we are all looking at the correct words of God.

I believe that one of Satans tactics in these last days is to confuse the church and I also believe God is allowing this to sift the tares from wheat, the goats from the sheep. Instead of the gospel being offensive to the world (which the Bible says it should be) it has become like the world. In 2 Timothy 4:3 Paul teaches that in the future people will not endure sound doctrine, instead the will find teachers that will tell them what they want to hear instead of what God actually said. This is happening with more and more frequency. I believe that in order to stand strong in a world that is becoming more wicked and compromised we need to stand on the firm word of God and hold true to that absolute truth.

Here are some of the verses that are missing or modified from the in modern translations.

John 7:8

ESV – “You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”

KJV – “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.”

Just one word missing (yet) makes Jesus a liar in the modern version

1 Peter 2:2

ESV – “like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation”

KJV – “as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

The modern version implies we are not saved at one time by grace, but that we are growing into salvation (based on our works)

2 Samuel 21:19

ESV – “And there was again war with the philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

KJV – “And there was again a battle in Gob which the philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the bother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam.”

Did David kill Goliath or did Elhanan? They can’t both be right

I will probably do a blog post on just the list of differences between version. There are many books and YouTube videos on the subject as well. As always be a Berean and search the scriptures for yourself. Pray and ask for guidance from the Lord and take a look at both sides of the debate. The modern version are definitely easier to read but I would rather do a little more work trying to understand what God really said then spend my days wondering if that is what He really meant. I also use a NKJV (ignoring the footnotes) and an SKJV (simplified KJV) and this helps me to understand better what particular words mean.