ANSWER: 31 Any fundamental found in any version is found purer or more frequently in the King James Bible thus making the King James Bible the best of the field.
EXPLANATION: Most people who claim to be able to find the fundamentals in other versions forget that the very fundamentals which they claim to be able to find, were originally taught them from a King James Bible.
Following are just a few doctrines which can be found in other versions but found in a weaker state than in the King James Bible. (The versions mentioned are used as a cross- section of versions available and do not necessarily include or exclude others.)
1. The deity of Christ is watered down in Acts 3:13,26, 4:27,30 in the New King James Version, the New International Version and New American Standard Version where Jesus is called God's "servant" instead of God's "Son."
2. The doctrine of Hell is watered down in Luke 16:23 in the New King James Version and New American Standard Version where they transliterate "Hades" instead of translating it as "Hell."
3. The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch is eliminated in the New International Version and New American Standard Version where Acts 8:37 is removed from the text.
4. The Ascension of Jesus Christ is left out of Luke 24:51 in a New American Standard Version.
5. The virgin birth of Jesus is denied in the New International Version and New American Standard Version in Luke 2:33 where Joseph is called Jesus' father.
6. The doctrine of the Trinity is either removed or questioned in I John 5:7 where the New American Standard Version and New International Version remove the verse and then split verse 6 and manufacture a false verse 7 and in the New King James Version where a note casts doubt on its authenticity.
These are just a few corruptions in the texts of today's modern versions. It is not an exhaustive list by any means.
It may be stated that such criticism of other bibles is "nit-picking". But, let it be remembered that, if you can find a particular doctrine in a modern bible, let's say, 200 times and you can find the same doctrine more times in the King James, then the King James is stronger.
ANSWER: 32 The majority is ALWAYS wrong.
EXPLANATION: In Matthew 7:13, 14 Jesus points out a great Bible truth. The majority of the population will not get saved.
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
This passage teaches us that the majority of people on the earth at any given time will wrongly reject Christ and go to Hell.
Even a casual look at the Bible will show that the majority is always going to be wrong.
The majority of people rejected Noah's preaching and died in the flood.
The majority of people perished in Sodom and Gomorrah.
he majority of Israel worshipped Aaron's calf in Exodus 32.
The majority of Israel rejected the ministry of the prophets such as Jeremiah.
The majority of people rejected Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.
The majority of people alive today reject Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world.
It would seem that throughout history, it has always been a small group of people who have had a heart soft enough to accept God's revealed truth.
The fact that the majority of Bible "scholars" and preachers reject the King James Bible is entirely scriptural. And WRONG.
ANSWER: 33 No. There is nothing wrong with the translation of "pneuma" in Roman 8:26.
EXPLANATION: The refutation of this popular though feeble charge against the integrity of the Bible comes from three sources. First, the Greek language itself, secondly, the hypocrisy of Bible critics and thirdly, from Jesus Christ Himself. (Since the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, His testimony should hold considerable influence.)
First, the word translated "itself" in Romans 8:26 is "pneuma" which means "spirit." (Since the "spirit" is like air (Genesis 1:7, John 3:8) we use the word "pneumatic" to describe things that are air operated.) In Greek every word has its own distinct gender, masculine, feminine or neuter. Masculine gender is denoted by the article "o," feminine by "a," and neuter by "to." The word for spirit, "pneuma" is neuter, a fact which is known to even first year Greek language students. Thus, the King James Bible correctly translates pneuma "itself" because it would be grammatically incorrect to translate it "himself" as many of today's inferior translations do. Since critics of the King James Bible like to deride it for pretended "mistranslations" of the Greek, it seems hypocritical indeed to criticize it here for properly translating the Greek. Then to add insult to ignorance they laud other versions such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, and New King James Version which INCORRECTLY render pneuma as "himself."
Secondly, in adding to their hypocrisy and exposing their disdain for God's Bible, these same critics, who become indignant at the Holy Spirit being called "it" in Romans 8 in a King James Bible, will promote translations such its the New American Standard Version and the New International Version which call God a "What " in Acts 17:23. The Authorized Version correctly renders it "Whom."
Thirdly, and most convincingly, is a statement that Jesus Christ makes in John chapter 4 while dealing with the woman at the well.
Jesus, completely unintimidated by twentieth century scholarship, doesn't hesitate to say to the woman in< verse 22, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."
To whom is Jesus referring to by the word "what?" The next verse defines His statement perfectly.
<"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him."
Thus we see that Jesus finds referring to His own Father as "what" in verse 22 a non-issue. While the mighty mice of twentieth century scholarship would translate an entirely new version over it. Even though they, in their own casual conversation, find no offense in referring to the Holy Spirit in the neuter.
Which will you follow'?
ANSWER: 34 Yes.
EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.
ANSWER: 35 Yes.
EXPLANATION: Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture.
It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and II Timothy 3:16.
It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See I Peter 2:2.
It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening Scripture.
It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but you will never be a threat to the devil by growing.
ANSWER: 36 No, they support it.
EXPLANATION: The Dead Sea Scrolls which were found by an Arab shepherd boy in 1947 in the Qumran caves near Jericho, Israel have no ill effect on the Bible.
Their text actually agrees with the King James Bible. This fact makes them unattractive to scholars desiring to overthrow the perfect Bible. So, other than commenting on the irony of the way in which they were found, they are largely ignored.
The translators of the King James Bible did not need the Dead Sea Scrolls since they already had the Textus Receptus which they match.
ANSWER: 37 So what? Read it anyway.
EXPLANATION: Someone once said, "God will give you a steak, but He won't cut it up and feed it to you."
Consider these facts:
God has gone to all the trouble to inspire the perfect originals. He has collated the books of the Old Testament and New Testament and documented their authenticity. He has preserved His words against attack from Roman Catholic tyrants and Alexandrian philosophers. This process has cost Him the lives, homes and families of some of His most faithful servants. He assembled the very best scholars in history and had them translate it into the world's language (English) in its absolutely purest form.
And then YOU gripe about the "thee's" and "thou's".
Shut up and eat your steak!
ANSWER: 38 No.
EXPLANATION: The New King James Version is to the English Bible what the Alexandrian manuscripts are to Greek. A corruption of a pure text by men who hold the deplorable doctrine that the Bible cannot be perfect (regardless of what they may say when they preach) and must be corrected by the feeble intellect of man.
The New King James Version unlike most modem translations is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts instead of the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. Unfortunately, the men doing the translation work view the Bible as imperfect. They would vehemently deny this charge in public because their jobs depend on it, but in fact they do not believe that ANY Bible is perfect. Not even their own New King James Version! Thus, to them, the Bible is lost ("settled" in heaven) and the minds of scholars are the only hope of rescuing its "thoughts" from oblivion.
Many of the men on the board of translator may indeed be great preachers and pastors, but that by no means entitles them to correct the Bible.
Sincerity cannot improve on perfection. Thus, instead of making a good thing better" they have only managed, for all of their trouble, to make a "perfect thing tainted".
It must he remembered, there is a great deal of prestige in sitting on the board of translators of a "modern" version of the Bible (Matthew 23:5-7).
ANSWER: 39 Not only is the New Scofield Bible NOT a King James Bible, it is not even a "Scofield" Bible.
EXPLANATION: The first and most weighty reason why the New Scofield Bible is not a Scofield Bible at all is shamefully simple. Dr. C.I. Scofield did not edit it. Dr. Scofield died in 1921! Barring a very "selective" resurrection, it is impossible for a man who died in 1921 to edit a book in 1967.
The publisher's justification for a new "edition" is that Dr. Scofield, whose reference Bible was first published in 1909 added material and published another edition in 1917. But it is an author's preogative to alter his own works, but that certainly does not give others, more than 45 years after his death, a blank check to make alterations and then sign his name to it!
If we altered the ending of "Macbeth" we would be less than honest to claim that the change met Shakespeare's approval.
Secondly, the editors exercised great liberty in changing attributes of Dr. Scofield's reference work that Dr. Scofield himself felt important enough to include in his work. In the introduction to their doubly dishonest 1967 publication they admit such changes.
New Scofield: "Among the changes and improvements in this edition are: important word changes in the text to help the reader; a modified system of self-pronunciation; revision of many of the introductions to the books of the Bible, including designation of the author, theme, and date; more subheadings; clarification of some footnotes, deletion of others, and the addition of many new notes;: more marginal references; an entirely new chronology; a new index; a concordance especially prepared for this edition; new maps; and more legible type. Some of these features are explained below."
By their own words, they admit to altering Dr. Scofield's text (the King James Bible), introduction of books of the Bible, notes, marginal references, chronology and many other features.
Did Dr. Scofield give his approval to these changes? Not unless one of the nine committee members had the witch of Endor conjure him up as she had Samuel!
In fact, the publisher even admits that the changes made were arbitrary choices of the revision committee.
"Each position taken represents the thinking or conviction of the committee as a group."
What are the results of such shenanigans? One example will suffice. Let us examine the footnote found in Acts 8:12 of the New Scofield Bible concerning baptism.
"Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is recognized as one of two sacraments - the other being the Lord's Supper. Since early in the Church's history three different modes of baptism have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping)."
Here we see that the nine revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) believe that there is a difference between the true Christian church and Protestant "communion". Might I ask? When one group is defined as "Protestant" what is the other group called?
Secondly, the nine apostate revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) claim, without scriptural proof that Christians baptize by pouring and sprinkling as well as immersion.
Remember, the footnote is found in a S-C-O-F-I-E-L-D of 1967. A book which claims on its title page that a dead man (Dr. Scofield) is one of its editors.
What does the footnote for Acts 8:12 in the REAL Scofield Bible of 1917 which had a living Dr. Scofield as its editor say?
Nothing. There IS no such footnote!
That's right! The New "Scofield" bible has a "Scofield" note added after the death of "Scofield" the editor which the REAL Dr. Scofield never approved of and never had in a text anytime in his life time!
I ask you, is this honest?
Proof that the New Scofield Bible isn't a King James Bible is found on almost every page where the margin notes the twin Bible reading as "KJV". The text of the New Scofield Bible is NOT a King James Bible and it is NOT a Scofield Bible.
It might be noted that in recent years the size and shape of the New Scofield Bible has been changed to more resemble the Scofield Reference Bible. Many Christians who desire a true Scofield Reference Bible have purchased a New Scofield Bible by mistake.
The "Bible" business is lucrative. Isn't it?
ANSWER: 40 No.
EXPLANATION: The New International Version is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield Version which are handled separately in this book) are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.
A few of the corruptions found in the New International Version and New American Standard Version are found under a previous section dealing with fundamentals. This work is by no means an exhaustive study of the many problems with these error riddled versions.
We suffice it to say, "You can't get good fruit from a bad tree." (Matthew 7:17, 18)
