HAVE WE BEEN LIED TO?
By Dr. Robert Joyner
In this article I will show the KJV Only group has repeatedly lied and misrepresented the facts, not just a few times, but over and over. This is the way they propagate their theory. Lying and deception is normal for them.
NEW AGE VERSIONS
Gail Riplinger’s writings are a good example of distortion, twisting the facts and outright lying. When I was sent an advertisement of her NEW AGE VERSIONS, it was evident this book was extreme and way out in left field. She claimed there was a hidden alliance between the new Bible versions and the New Age Movement. She asserted that the New Versions had occult origins. They would prepare the churches of the last day to accept the religion of the Anti-Christ and to receive his mark.
Anyone in his right mind knows that no Bible will do this. The New Age movement is not built on any Bible. The Anti-Christ will not have any kind of Bible. He will be against all Bibles. Later on I learned that many gullible people were buying Riplinger’s book. That is unbelievable, I thought.
When I saw a copy of her book, it was so evident that everything in it was slanted, twisted, or was a bald-faced lie. She could not get anything right. She even misquoted the KJV.
Everyone who has objectively investigated her NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS book has said virtually everything in the book is a misquotation, is misleading, is an error or is unsubstantiated statements.
David Cloud is a strong believer in the KJV Only view, but he said regarding NEW AGE VERSIONS, “It is the frequent error in documentation, in logic, and in statement of fact that gives cause for alarm. There are many good points made in the book, but it is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource.” Cloud went on to say that the book was not accurate in its references, the documentation was unreliable and it contained countless statements which were entirely unsubstantiated.
Riplinger claimed she was inspired by God to write her book. She said it was such a direct revelation from God, she hesitated to put her name on it. So she put G. A. Riplinger, which meant to her, God as the author and Riplinger as secretary. So she is saying that God is the primary author.
The Bible clearly says inspiration stopped when Revelation chapter 22 was complete. Riplinger is doing the same thing cults do when they add their books to the Bible. Gail Riplinger is a heretic. She is not worthy to be taken seriously. Yet thousands read what she says and do not question it. This is amazing!
How can someone with the degrees and training which Mrs. Riplinger is supposed to have, make such mistakes? The answer is this. Mrs. Riplinger is not a Bible scholar. All of her degrees, her teaching, and her writing had been in the area of interior design. When she taught at Kent State, it was in the Home Economics department. She taught interior design.
NAMES OF KJV ONLY BOOKS
Just the names of these crazy KJV Only books show the lack of logic the movement is built on. One is called THE FINAL AUTHORITY. Everybody should know the original Hebrew and Greek is the final authority. However, the purpose of this book is to show the KJV is the final authority. Another book is GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE. Of course God only wrote one Bible but the book tries to show God only wrote one version, which is entirely a different matter. But KJV Only folks don’t see the stretch here: the change from Bible to version.
Another book is THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME. The argument of this book attempts to tell readers that if something is different, it cancels whatever it differs with. That is faulty logic. A Ford and a Cadillac are different but one does not cancel the other. Both will carry you where you want to go. They both serve the same purpose. So Bible versions are different but they serve the same purpose. One version may be in old English, another in Modern English, but both serve the same purpose. KJV Only people can’t see this. Another book is, LET’S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE but the only evidence given is one sided and the only thing it proves is the lack of logic of the author. Is Logic and common sense being abandoned by modern preachers and Christians?
WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION?
The KJV Only group is so against dynamic equivalency (This term means that translators give the meaning, rather than a word for word translation). They contend the KJV is a word for word translation. Actually there is no such thing possible. All translators know this.
Among Bible scholars it is well known that the KJV translators used many words to translate just one Hebrew or Greek word. The Hebrew for “word” or “thing” is rendered by eighty-four separate English words. The Hebrew word for “face” uses thirty-four English words. For the Hebrew word “sim”, they used fifty-nine English words. The Hebrew word for “good” uses forty-one words to translate it. To translate the Hebrew word for “much” or “many” the KJV translators used forty-four words. The Hebrew term for “turn back” uses sixty English words.
On the other hand, the KJV sometimes uses only one English word to translate many original words. “Vex” appears 37 times as a translation for 23 different Hebrew or Greek terms. The word “vile” is used to translate 9 different Hebrew words. The word “ordain” is used to translate 10 different Hebrew words and 12 different Greek words.
The expression “God forbid” is found about 12 times in the KJV Old Testament, but the Hebrew text which is being translated has no reference to Deity. The Hebrew exclamation which the KJV translators translated “God forbid” means something to be rejected immediately and decisively.
The phrase “God forbid” is found about 14 times in the KJV New Testament. It is found throughout Paul’s epistles. However, the word “God” is not found in the Greek in any of these places. This expression is used ten times in the book of Romans alone. Examples are Romans 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15. This phrase in the Greek means “may it never be” or “Certainly not.” “God forbid” does convey the thought of the Greek, but it is not a word for word translation.
The Godly Hebrew people would never use a term like “God forbid.” To them it would be almost blasphemy. They would consider it taking God’s name in vain. Some Old Testament scribes would not even write the name of God in the manuscripts. They would leave the space blank.
In the Old Testament the phrase “God save the king” is used about five times. In none of these passages does the word “God” appear in the Hebrew text. It simply means, “may the king live.” (Example: II Samuel 16:16)
The English people in the 1600s continually used this term, and the translators put it in here instead of translating it literally, “Let the king live.”
The expression “God speed” is used in II John 10-11. In the Greek, it is the usual term for “hail” and is usually translated as “greet” or ‘’greeting” in the modern versions. There is no corresponding word in the Greek for “God” in this verse.
All of the above examples are not literal translations. The word “God” does not appear in the original in any of these verses.
The word “yet” is found in the KJV almost 700 times. In about 332 of these cases STRONG’s concordance records no corresponding Hebrew or Greek word. The translators put “yet” in to make the meaning clearer or for stylistic reasons. My point is that the KJV is not always a word for word translation, as some people assert.
In Matthew 27:44 the KJV says, “They cast the same in his teeth.” The Greek means they “reviled” him. There is no word for “teeth” in this Greek text. The translators used a term current in their day instead of translating it.
We see from the above examples that the KJV does contain some dynamic equivalency. It is not always a literal translation and certainly not a word for word translation.
Actually the NASB is a more literal translation than the KJV. If the KJV Only people really wanted a literal translation, they would like it but instead they curse it.
VERSES LEFT OUT?
The KJV people ask, “Why do the modern versions leave verses and words out?” I think they have the question reversed. It should be, “Why does the KJV insert so many words and verses?” The fact is, the Textus Receptus and the KJV translators included most any verse or phrase that was in any manuscript, which was available to them. The modern versions put the verse in only if the manuscript evidence required it. This is more logical. The KJV is based on the Byzantine text, which is a derived text. It obviously incorporates into itself the earlier readings found in both the Alexandrian and Western texts. When manuscripts differed, they would put in both readings. For example, in Luke 24:53 the KJV says they were “Praising and blessing God.” The Alexandrian text says “blessing God.” The Western text says “praising God.” The Byzantine text joined both readings together rather than omitting one reading. Erasmus even put verses in out of the Latin vulgate. So there are verses and phases in the KJV that are not found in any Greek manuscript. Examples are parts of Acts 9:5-6 and Rev. 22:14. Remember it is just as bad to add to the Word as it is to delete.(Rev. 22:18)
At least when you read the modern versions you know the doubtful verses have been deleted. Therefore you know you are reading the pure word of God. When you read the KJV you may be reading a verse which is doubtful or is not in any manuscript in existence.
Actually many verses that are left out of the modern versions are repeats. For example, in Mark 9, the KJV says three times, “the fire is not quenched.” The Modern versions have it only once.
Talking about adding and leaving out verses, the 1611 KJV added 14 entire books, a total of 172 chapters, called the Apocrypha. Certainly no other version adds or takes away this many verses. The 1611 KJV is the worst version of all about adding verses. How dare the KJV Only people to even talk about leaving out verses! I know Peter Ruckman and others give silly excuses and explanations for the 1611 KJV containing the Apocrypha, but the bottom line is, the original KJV contained the Apocrypha.
To be KJV Only you have to abandon all logic, ignore the facts, spin your view, slant everything in your favor, and have the attitude, “My mind is made up. Don’t bother me with the facts. They don’t matter.”
THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT
Peter Ruckman says that anything that comes from Alexandria, Egypt or Rome, Italy must be wrong. Anything that comes from Antioch, Syria must be right. (See Ruckman’s booklet,The Monarch of the Books) Therefore the Greek manuscripts, which came from Antioch, must be good and the ones that came from Alexandria and Rome must be bad. This is some kind of geographical prejudice. This is like saying, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Yet Christ did come from there. God does bring good things out of bad places. He brought Christ from Egypt when He was two years old. He brought Israel out of Egypt. There is no teaching in the Bible that God only brings good things from certain geographical locations.
Ruckman tries to make people believe all the heretics came from Alexandria and Rome while all the good guys came from Antioch. (CHRISTIAN HANDBOOK, p. 56-76) Yet you know that in every section within our country today, you have some of God’s people and you have the cults and some in-between. Every big city has good people and bad. It has true believers and heretics. It has always been this way and it always will be. For anyone to say all the heretics were in Alexandria and Rome and all the Bible believers were in Antioch, defies all common sense. You do not have to be a church historian to know this. All you need is a brain. Just look around and tell me one place, which has all good or all bad.
Church history shows that Antioch, Rome and Alexandria each had Bible believers and heretics, just like every other place.
The reason why most scholars believe the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts are good is because they are older. Which means they were copied less. When the originals were written, a copy was made. Then a copy of the copy was made. Then a copy of the last copy was made, and so on. Errors occurred during this process. The manuscripts, which came from Alexandria and Rome, go back so far they could have been copied directly from the originals. We don’t know that they were, but certainly they were copied less times than the much later manuscripts used for the Textus Receptus, from which we get the KJV.
In other words, the Alexandrian Manuscripts are the oldest, while only later manuscripts support the Textus Receptus text. The argument against the early manuscripts by the KJV Only cult is they are weak on the deity of Christ. We showed in chapter three that this is not true. The NIV, translated from these manuscripts, is stronger on the deity of Christ than the KJV translated from the later manuscripts.
WESTCOTT AND HORT
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort are the main scholars the KJV Only advocates love to hate. Gail Riplinger and others have misquoted and misinterpreted what they said. They even quote W.W. Westcott and attribute it to the scholar B.F. Westcott. Riplinger and others quote B.F. Westcott’s son when he said his father had investigated spiritualism. They use this against Westcott. They fail to give the conclusion his son wrote, “such investigations led to no good.” Dr. Stewart Custer in his book, THE KING JAMES CONTROVERSY, gives three pages of quotes from the books of Westcott and Hort showing conclusively they were Christians and Bible believing scholars. He shows they believed the Bible was the Word of God. They believed in the deity of Christ; the virgin birth; the blood atonement; that personal faith in Christ is what saves; Christ is the creator and Lord of all; His one sacrifice is complete and sufficient, etc.
If one wants to continue to believe Westcott and Hort were apostates, that is up to them. However, the facts show Westcott and Hort were Bible believing Christians. Yes, they believed in sprinkling babies and in other rituals of the Church of England. But remember, the KJV translators were members of the same church and believed the same doctrines as Westcott and Hort. If the KJV translators did not believe what the church of England stood for, they were hypocrites to remain in it. So many people brag about the King James translators being so smart and knowledgeable. If they were so smart, why did they belong to the Church of England? Why were they not Baptist? The Fact is, King James and the Church of England hated Baptists.
It is well known that King James hated Baptists. He said he wanted to “harrow out of England” all Baptists. The King James Version was rejected by Baptists when it first came out. When the Baptists first came to America, they brought the Geneva Bible, not the KJV. In fact, some of the first Baptists to arrive here had been run out of England by King James.
King James, in 1612, imprisoned a Baptist preacher named Thomas Helwys for a tract he had written opposing the state church (Church of England).
John Bunyan, a Baptist and author of PILGRIMS PROGRESS, spent many years in the Bedford prison because of persecution from the Church of England (which King James and the KJV translators were part of).
In the early days of this country, when the Anglican church (Church of England) was the state church in Virginia, they persecuted, imprisoned and beat many Baptists. Thomas Jefferson, the second governor of the state, made religious persecution illegal. But when they had the power, the Church of England and King James hated and persecuted Baptists. Yet today, many Baptists want to idolize this Baptist hating king.
The KJV translators, when they presented their new translation to the King, said he was as “the sun shining in its strength.”(Dedicatory To The Most High and Mighty Prince, James. Page 1 of the 1611 KJV) Of course, this expression in the Bible refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Many people today, like the KJV translators, would exalt King James to a place he could never deserve.
A heavy Catholic influence was exhibited in the KJV from the time of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who compiled the Greek text. The reason he put I John 5:7 in his Greek text was because the Catholic church threatened to excommunicate him if he didn’t. This verse is found in only two late Greek manuscripts. It is not found in the Majority text. Erasmus knew it did not belong in his Greek text. But the worst thing to a Catholic is ex-communication, so he put it in. He also put in other verses from the Latin Roman Catholic Bible.
The Church of England was started by Henry VIII because he wanted to divorce and re-marry. Catholics do not allow this, so King Henry left the Catholic church and started the Church of England. He made it the state church. Of course, his church was patterned after the Catholic church. Remember most of the KJV translators were members of the Church of England. This is why they have a page for a holy day in front of the 1611 KJV dedicated to the “blessed Virgin.”(see appendix C) This is the reason they refused to translate the Greek words for “baptism” and “deacon.” They transliterated them. This means they just spelled them out in English. If they had translated them, it would have conflicted with their practice of sprinkling instead of baptism. “Deacon” would have to be translated as “servant” instead of the high office as the Catholics and Church of England practice it. It seems the great KJV translators were cowards and chose to bow to King James instead of doing what they knew was right.
The fact that the 1611 KJV contained the Roman Catholic Apocrypha is undeniable proof of Catholic influence. No truly Protestant or Baptist version of the Bible would contain this abomination.