ANSWER: 41 They strengthen the King James Bible.
EXPLANATION: There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no new READINGS found.
Many critics of the Word of God have used the argument of "new evidence" that the King James translators didn't have as a basis to degrade its authority. The fact is, that the King James translators had all of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them today.
One of the most prominent manuscripts which has been discovered since 1611 is the Sinaitic manuscript. This witness, though horribly flawed, was found amongst trash paper in St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1841 by Constantine Tischendorf.
Sinaiticus is a sister manuscript of the corrupt manuscript, Vaticanus. Both read very similarly. So, although the Sinaitic manuscript was discovered over 200 years after the Authorized Version was translated, its READINGS were well known to the translators through the Vatican manuscript which was discovered in 1481 and also through the Jesuit Bible, an English translation of 1582.
So we see that there are no readings available today to scholars which were not already in the hands of the King James translators. We might further add that an honest scholar will admit that this "great number of newly discovered manuscripts" that are trumped abroad, agree with the Greek text of the Authorized Version rather than challenging it.
ANSWER: 42 No. Some may seem easier to read, but none are easier to understand.
EXPLANATION: One of the primary advertising gimmicks used to sell modern English translations is that they will be easier to understand for the potential customers. The customer, having been assured that he/she cannot possibly understand the "old archaic" King James gratefully purchases the modern English Bible and unknowingly condemns themself to a life of biblical ignorance. Modern English translations may be easier to read but they are not easier to understand.
Let's look at the equation in simple terms. If the "archaic" language and the "thee's" and "thou's" of the King James Bible really do hamper the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in communicating His message to the Christians, then several things should be true of one or all of the raft of modern English translations on the Bible market today.
1. If modern English translations, such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Version, and Today's English Version were easier to understand, then the Holy Spirit's message to the Christian would flow freer and accomplish greater spiritual victories in the lives of God's people on an individual basis. Yet it is sadly evident that this is not happening.
In fact it is only too evident to any objective observer that today's Christians are more worldly and less dedicated to Jesus Christ than their nineteenth or even early twentieth century counterparts who were raised on and read the King James Bible. Surely a Bible that was "easier to understand" would have dramatically increased successes in battling sin, worldliness and carnality, but this JUST HAS NOT HAPPENED.
2. Secondly, if the modern English translations were really easier to understand then I believe God would show a little more gratitude for them by using at least one to spark a major revival in this nation.
It is elementary to see that if the "old archaic" King James Bible has been hampering the desired work of the Holy Spirit, then God should be eager to bless the use of any translation that would be easier for His people to understand.
Again, it is all too obvious that no mass spiritual awakening of any kind has been initiated by any one of today's modern translations. Today's modern translations haven't been able to spark a revival in a Christian school, let alone expected to close a bar.
In fact, since the arrival of our modern English translations, beginning with the ASV of 1901, America has seen:
1. God and prayer kicked out of our public school
2. Abortion on demand legalized
3. Homosexuality accepted nationally as an "alternate life style"
4, In home pornography via TV and VCR
5. Child kidnapping and pornography running rampant
6. Dope has become an epidemic
7. Satanisrn is on the rise
If this is considered a "revival" then let's turn back to the King James to STOP it.
In fact, the ONLY scale used to claim success for a new translation is how well it sells. This depraved Madison Avenue sales system should set alarms ringing in the Christian. Instead, deluded by television, they dutifully nod and remark that, "It must be good, everybody's buying one."
Is there any "good" coming from modern translations? Surely. The publishing companies are making millions.
Today American Christians are spiritually anemic. They turn instead to their favorite "Bible psychologist" for help rather than Scripture. America as a whole is as morally decayed as Sodom and Gomorrah. (Ezekiel 16:49).
Where is the spiritual help and hope that an "easier to understand" translation should bring'?
Instead, perhaps we are in this desperate condition because of those very translations.
ANSWER: Undoubtedly.
EXPLANATION: It is a great irony that many of the critics of the Bible claim rather indignantly that the devil is behind the battle over the King James Bible. In this they are correct. But somehow they have managed to assume that it is the people claiming perfection for the Bible who the devil is guiding. Is this a correct assumption? Let us consider the history of the battle.
From the time of its publication in 1611 the King James Bible has grown in popularity. Although not mandated by the King to be used in the churches of England, it did, in a matter of a few years, manage to supplant all of the great versions translated before it. Though it was not advertised in the Madison Avenue fashion of today's versions, it soon swept all other versions from the hearts and hands of the citizenry of England and its colonies.
With the conquest of the British Empire behind it, it crossed the Atlantic to the United States. Landing here it overwhelmed the double foothold of the Roman Catholic Church planted previously under the flags of Spain and France.
It then began to permeate young America with its ideals. Its truths led to the establishment of an educational system, based on Scripture, that was unparalleled in the world. It instilled in men the ideals of freedom and personal liberty, thoughts so foreign to the minds of men that their inclusion in our Constitution could only be described as an "experiment" in government.
It commissioned preachers of righteousness who, on foot and horseback, broke trails into the wilderness and spread the truth of the gospel and of right living. In its wake was left what could only be described..."one nation, under God..." This accomplished, it set out for the conquest of the heathen world. Bible colleges (Princeton, Harvard, Yale) were founded. Mission societies formed. And eager young missionaries began to scour the globe with little more than a King James Bible and God's Holy Spirit.
But these activities did not go unnoticed by Satan. He who had successfully counterfeited God's church, ministers and powers certainly could not be expected to let God's Bible roam the world unchallenged. Through agents such as Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, he published his own translation in 1884. (The New Testament had been published in 1881.) Though there had been sporatic personal translations between 1611 and 1884, this new translation, called the Revised Version, was the first ever to be designed from its outset to replace God's Authorized Bible. It failed to replace God's Bible, but the arguments of its adherents were the first shots fired in a nearly 400 year battle for the hearts and minds of God's people concerning the authority and fidelity of Scripture.
In 1901 another round was fired in the form of the American Revised Version, later called the American Standard Version. (An intentional misnomer since it never became the "standard" for anything.) This version, other than being the darling of critical American scholarship met a dismal end when, twenty-three years later, it was so totally rejected by God's people that its copyright had to be sold. (Does this sound like God's blessing?)
The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised Standard Version. This sequence of events has repeated itself innumerable times, resulting in the New American Standard Version of 1960, the New Scofield Version of 1967, the New International Version of 1978, and the New King James Version of 1979 to name a few.
The process has never changed. Every new version that has been launched has been, without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible. Furthermore, they have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscript. (Although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy.)
THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged" attack.
While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible colleges.
Soon sincere, naive, young, Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers, would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals". That non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief behind.
Soon stalwartness gave in to acceptance and fidelity to a perfect bible became fidelity to one's "Alma Mater". Young graduates, disheartened and disarmed by their education, found themselves in pulpits across America parroting the professor's shameful criticism of the Word of God. They readily accepted new versions hot off the Alexandrian presses.
Then, when some Christian approached them claiming to believe the Bible (one you could hold in your HAND, not a lost relic from bygone days) was word perfect (a belief they had once held before their education stole it from them) they felt threatened. They try to dispel this "fanatic," this "cultist". Finally they look this faith filled Christian in the eye and piously ask, "Don't you feel that the devil is using this Bible version issue to divide and hinder the cause of Christ?"
"Undoubtedly," comes back the answer "But I'm certainly glad it's not MY CROWD that he's using."
Who's side are YOU on?
Additional Note:
Here's something that you need to think about. If we King James Bible believers have our way, a Preacher would stand in a pulpit to read Scripture and everyone else in the church would read from the same Bible. Isn't that UNITY?
But if the Bible-correctors have their way everyone would read from a different bible. That's confusion. And who is the author of confusion? (I Cor. 14:33)
ANSWER: 44 Two unsaved Bible critics.
EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
ANSWER: 45 No.
EXPLANATION: The Greek language as found in the New Testament and the modem Greek language spoken in Greece are so vastly different from each other as to be non-interchangeable one with the other.
The faulty assumption that a "Greek" would be equipped, due to his nationality, to change the English Bible is humorous at best and arrogant at worst.
No man, Greek or otherwise, has been inspired by God to change the Bible.
Teaching "from the Greek by a Greek" may sell many books and lead to a rich Greek, but it certainly doesn't lead to a better understanding of God's word.
ANSWER: 46 "Ruckmanite" is a name Bible critics call anyone who disagrees with them.
EXPLANATION: Peter Sturges Ruckman was born in 1921. He has spent years studying the manuscript history of the Bible. He received his doctorate in philosophy from Bob Jones University.
He has personally founded or helped to found dozens of churches. He is the founder and president of the Pensacola Bible Institute in Pensacola, Florida, where he has trained hundreds of preachers, missionaries and Christian laymen. He has also authored over forty books and Bible commentaries.
He is, without a doubt, the most outspoken champion of the King James Bible in this generation. He is considered an extremely dangerous foe to the Bible critics who teach that God has not preserved His Bible perfect. (In spite of Psalm 12:6, 7).
His arsenal consists of an above average intellect, years of studying Bible manuscripts and a caustic delivery. This abrasive preaching style so offends (and scares) today's limpwristed "soldiers of the Lord" that they shrink from any confrontation with him, OR the facts he presents.
ALL Bible critics claim to believe that the Bible is the "perfect word of God without a mixture of error." They make this claim to deceive the people in their congregations. They live in fear that a member of their congregation will pick up one of Dr. Ruckman's many books and discover the difference between someone who "claims" to believe that the Bible is perfect and someone who really does.
Many Christians on their own, have concluded that the Bible (King James Bible) is the absolute perfect word of God. They, in complete innocence, will question their pastor's "improvements" on scripture and suddenly find themselves denounced as a "Ruckmanite. " In many cases they have never even heard of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.
This denunciation is a simple yet desperate tactic. No Christian wants to be guilty of "following a man." Therefore, the Bible critic reasons that if Bible believers can be accused of "man following" they will discard their conviction and humbly follow them.
I once met a preacher who rejected the thought of being grouped with Bible believers because he would then be a "Ruckmanite." He claimed, " I don't follow any man."
This sounds very pious. He later informed me that he was a "Calvinist." (A follower of the teachings of the man, John Calvin).
So, today, anyone who really believes that the Bible is the perfect word of God without a mixture of error AND can produce it instead of just talk about it can expect to be called a "Ruckmanite" by someone who feels threatened by their faith and confidence.
ANSWER: 47 Why settle for "nuggets" when you can own the whole mine?
EXPLANATION: Most "nuggets" that preachers find in the Greek exist only in the fantasy of their minds.
First, anyone who believes that the Bible is the perfect word of God, cannot believe that it can be improved on... even by them. Most men who discover "nuggets" are filled with a prideful humility through which they believe that God is going to show them something in the Greek that no one else has found. Then they can "humbly" impress their preacher friends with their monumental "grasp" of the original language.
They do not, regardless of what they say in the pulpit, really believe that the Bible is perfect as it stands, in English OR Greek. Therefore they never read their Bible with a desire for the Holy Spirit to help them understand it. They instead "pray" that He will show them some better way to translate some Greek word.
Since the Holy Spirit never does this, they usually resort to "The Greek Game". This game can be played by anyone. Even if they have had no training in the Greek language. Simply put, all that the pseudo-scholar needs to do is to own a Young's Concordance. In the very back of a Young's Concordance is a list of the Greek and Hebrew words used in the Bible. Under each word given is a list of the different ways that that particular word was translated in the King James Bible. All the eager critic needs to do is to interchange the English words used.
For example, take the Greek word "haplotes." It was translated five different ways in the Authorized Version:
1. bountifulness II Corinthians 9:11
2. liberal II Corinthians 9:13
3. liberality II Corinthians 8:2
4. simplicity Romans 12:8, II Corinthians 1: 12
5. singleness Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22
Now, in order for our zealous scholar to humbly display his massive intellect, he must find a verse where "haplotes" is translated, let's say, "singleness" or way #5. Such as Ephesians 6:5.
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters ac- cording to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;"
Then in his preaching, when lighting upon his prearranged victim" he makes some statement that is critical of the King James translators for having poorly chosen this translation. Then he chooses one of the other words into which it was translated, say, way #3 or #4 and takes 10-15 minutes to expound on the virtues of his choice while ever pointing out sadly the poor choice of the Authorized Version translators. Of course, later when he reads a verse such as Romans 12:8, "Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness", where his pet Greek word is translated "simplicity" or way #4, he will reverse the process and expound on the virtue of choice #5. All the time lamenting, again, the poor choice of God's translators.
His audience, unaware of the ease with which this is accomplished, stares on in awe of his intelligence and tremendous grasp of the Greek language. They feel so fortunate to have a man of such caliber (.22 Blank!) to point out to them the errors in their Bible. And of course they are totally convinced by this charade that they, lowly peons that they are, can never truly understand the Bible as well as their exalted teacher, because they lack the "tools" he possesses from the Greek.
This scenario is NOT an over statement. I have experienced it first hand.
Once while listening to a self-impressed Bible scholar preach I marveled at the ease with which he duped his audience. He was reading Romans chapter 8. Upon reading a particular verse, he stopped at a particular word and stated, "Now the King James translators mistranslated the Greek word used here." Then he spent 10-12 minutes expounding on the merits of his choice of translation. The audience was duly impressed with this man's grasp of the "original language. " (I once heard a 14 year old boy do the same thing in a "preaching contest". You see, ANYONE can do it!)
The very next day I was listening to another preacher on the radio. Coincidentally this zealot was also preaching from Romans chapter 8. He also read the same verse and ALSO stopped at the very same word that the expert from the previous evening had accosted. He then stated, "Sadly, the King James translators did not properly translate the Greek word used here."
I then braced myself for a rehash of the previous evening's exposition. But it was not to be. For this particular scholar pointed out that the word in question should have been translated an entirely different way (choice #1 vs. choice #4).
He then, as the previous evening's butcher, expounded on the virtues of HIS choice over that of the King James translators, or last evening's expert. I was amazed! Two completely different men, two entirely different opinions. In fact, their only point of agreement was that the Bible could not possibly be correct as it was. I quickly consigned their esteemed (and humble) opinions to the garbage heap of education and accepted the choice that GOD had made for His Book in 1611.
A second method of finding "nuggets" is for someone with a limited understanding of Greek to do the same as the above, only they take their choice of words from the Greek Lexicon instead of the Concordance.
The result is always the same, the congregation is over-whelmed by the "depth" of his study, They are also convinced that they can never match his comprehension of the Bible without matching (Ha!) his comprehension of "the Greek."
A tremendous example of the fallacy of this method of Bible (?) study is recorded in Dr. David Otis Fuller's book entitled Which Bible? We quote it in its entirety.
"An interesting story is found in Walton's biography of Bishop Sanderson illustrating the truth of the old proverb, "a little learning is a dangerous thing." Dr. Kilbye, an excellent Hebrew scholar and Professor of this language in the university, also expert in Greek and chosen as one of the translators, went on a visit with Sanderson, and at church on Sunday they heard a young preacher waste a great amount of the time allotted for his sermon in criticizing several words in the then recent translation. He carefully showed how one particular word should have been translated in a different way. Later that evening the preacher and the learned strangers were invited together to a meal, and Dr. Kilbye took the opportunity to tell the preacher that he could have used his time more profitably. The Doctor then explained that the translators had very carefully considered the "three reasons" given by the preacher, but they had found another thirteen more weighty reasons for giving the rendering complained of by the young critic."
A third type of "nugget" is one which actually does not exist except in totally false statements made by a Bible critic.
The greatest example of this is found in the analogy of the two Greek words "agape" and "phileo". Both of which are translated "love" in John 21:15-17.
15 "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."
We have all heard this passage expounded by a pseudo-scholar. (Sometimes in complete sincerity due to acceptance of bad teaching.) The presentation is made that "agape" in Greek speaks of a deep, intimate, selfless love. "Phileo" on the other hand is little more than a casual "friendly" type of love. Our scholar then laments, almost tearfully, the constraints of the English language. He points out that the Lord actually says, "Peter ... lovest ("agape") thou me. (With a deep, intimate, selfless love) more than these?"
Peter responds, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love ("phileo") thee." (With a casual, friendly type of love.)
Our Bible critic points out that the Lord, not receiving the answer that He desires, asks again.
"Simon, son of Jonas, lovest ("agape") thou me?"
Peter, it is then pointed out, is unwilling to commit himself to such a deep relationship so he responds again.
"Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love ("phileo") thee."
At this point our Bible corrector points out that a saddened Saviour gives in to Peter's lack of commitment and changes His own choice of Greek words to "phileo".
"Simon, son of Jonas, lovest ("phileo") thou me?"
This sudden change supposedly shocks Peter into seeing his own spiritual infidelity to the Lord. Thus, saddened he answers.
"... thou knowest that I love ("phileo") thee."
Our false teacher then points out to his audience that there is no way to attain such depth of meaning from this passage using only the feeble English. Once more the trusty "Greek" has enlightened us as English can never do!
This presentation is tremendously effective and has only ONE flaw. The definitions given for "agape" and "phileo" are TOTALLY UNTRUE!
I am about to make a statement concerning "agape" and "phileo" which is not based on prejudice or opinion. It is based on careful honest study of the way in which "agape" and "phileo" were used in the Bible ("Our final authority in all matters of faith and practice) by Jesus Christ Himself and the New Testament writers. The statement is this: There was absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in New Testament times between "agape" and "phileo" and that BOTH are used interchangeably by Jesus Christ and the writers of the New Testament. REGARDLESS of what Greek grammars, Greek teachers and Greek preachers may say!
If you have been steeped in the false teaching of "agape" and "phileo" by your college professor or pastor, you will immediately (and with much prejudice) reject my supposition. ("How could such godly men be wrong?" Right?)
Yet, I will not attempt to prove it is true. The proof will come from Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter and John, and any other New Testament writer that I could have chosen for the comparison. But wait! They are not my final witnesses. The final and most weighty argument will be waged by YOU!
For years I have been giving a test in Bible Conferences in which I speak concerning this false teaching of "agape" and "phileo". A copy of this test is reproduced below. IF you have the courage and IF you can be honest with God and yourself, feel free to take it. Here's how it goes.
In part #I, I have reproduced quotes from the New Testament which were made by Jesus Christ using "agape" and "phileo". Without looking at a Greek New Testament or Concordance or any other help, use the false rules for "agape" and "phileo" given by critics of the English Bible. Read the quote. Decide whether Jesus is referring to "agape" love (deep, intimate, selfless love) or "phileo" love (casual, friendly love).Then put an "A" for agape or "P"" for phileo in the blank before the quote.
Part #II is identical to part #I except that the quotes are taken from various New Testament writers. Do the same as in part one, putting an "A" for agape and a "P" for phileo, using only the critics definition of these words. No guessing, no hunches. Use only their own rule.
After you have completed the test, turn to the answer sheet found in Appendix #1 in the back of this book.
JOHN 21:15-17 - AGAPE vs. PHILEO
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Read the Bible quote.
2. Put an A or P in the blank before the quote to signify your choice of the Greek word used, AGAPE or PHILEO.
DEFINITIONS:
AGAPE love: Deep, intimate, selfless love.
PHILEO love: Casual "friendly" love.
I - Comparison: How Jesus used AGAPE and PHILEO.
____ 1. Luke 11:42 the love of God
____ 2. John 5:42 the love of God
____ 3. Matt 10:37 He that loveth father or mother
____ 4. Rev 3:9 to know that I have loved
____ 5. Rev 3:19 As many as I love
____ 6. Matt 23:6 love the uppermost rooms
____ 7. John 12:25 He that loveth his life
____ 8. Luke 11:43 ye love the uppermost seats
____ 9. John 5:20 the Father loveth the Son
____ 10. John 16:27 the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me
II - Comparison: How other New Testament writers used AGAPE and PHILEO.
____ 1. II Tim 3:4 of pleasures more than of God
____ 2. John 11:5 Jesus loved Martha,
____ 3. John 20:2 the other disciples whom Jesus loved
____ 4. I Cor. 16:22 If any man love not the Lord
____ 5. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love
____ 6. I Cor. 16:24 My love be with you all
____ 7. II Tim 1:7 of power, and of love, and...
____ 8. Rom 12: 10 one to another with brotherly love
____ 9. II Thess. 3:12 abound in love one toward another
____10. Titus 2:4 women to be sober, to love their husbands
____11. Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives
____12. I Peter 2:17 Love the brotherhood
____13. Heb 13:1 Let brotherly love continue
____14. Titus 3:4 and love of God our Saviour
____15. I John 2:5 in him verily is the love of God perfected
If you have taken the test and if you have been honest, you have found that the TRUTH of the matter is that neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament writers acknowledged the false rule foisted on us by heady and high-minded Bible critics.
Thus we see that this little "nugget" is made only of "FOOL'S GOLD" and has never really existed except in the deluded minds of men.
Who will you believe? Jesus Christ or your Greek professor?
ANSWER: 48 Wrong.
EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.
Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries (sic) to come.
Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.
Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.
Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ei "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.
So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus" was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.
(For your convenience, Appendix #2 in the back of this book lists the many names used to describe both the Antiochian and Alexandrian texts.)
ANSWER: 49 No.
EXPLANATION: The company of men who did the translating of the Authorized Version was made up of Bible believing men from both the Anglican and Puritan churches. Their character and qualifications have been attested earlier.
Such a statement as, "The King James translators were nothing but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers," is one of those statements which is sadly not based on fact nor conviction. It is made with the hope of character assassination and an ultimate hope of overthrowing the authority of the King James Bible in the minds of believers.
It might be beneficial at this point to note what the King James translators were NOT.
They were not adulterers, as David. Nor were they murderers as Moses and David. Nor had any of them sacrificed any of their children to Chemosh or Molech as Solomon had in I Kings 11. Nor had they vehemently denied the Lord as Peter.
These short comings are not pointed out to bring disrespect on any of the writers of scripture. But are noted so that we should be a little more gracious in our description of the men whom God has chosen to use.
ANSWER: 50 You should be loyal to God, Who SHOULD be a little higher on your "loyalty list" than your college.
EXPLANATION: First, let's get it straight. You do not have an "Alma Mater." The term "Alma Mater" results from the combination of the Hebrew word for "virgin" (almah) and the Greek word for "mother" (meter). Thus when you speak of your "Alma Mater" you refer to your "Virgin Mother," a terminology which we fairly say can only be used by Jesus Christ. Thus, although we may have to use the more lengthy description "the college I attended" or just "my college," we show much more respect for Jesus Christ than to go around claiming that we have a "Virgin Mother" also.
Secondly, you should appreciate the time, trouble and effort that your college went through to educate you. Education does not happen by accident, thus you should be appreciative of what was done on your behalf.
Thirdly, "appreciation" taken into consideration, you do not owe your SOUL to your college as you do to Jesus Christ. Therefore you need not be "eternally grateful" to it in such a humiliating manner that you are not allowed to control your own convictions once you graduate.
The receipt of "Dear Preacher Boy" letters from the college President designed to pressure and intimidate you into "towing the college line" should carry no more weight than the 3rd class "Dear Occupant" mail which we all receive.
Jesus said, "The truth shall make you FREE" and any school which is constantly reminding you of your "debt" to them for "all we've done for you" is not interested in your freedom, but your slavery. You needn't feel any guilt in "respectfully" disregarding both their request and the claims.
Furthermore, if you went to a school where you paid your tuition, your room and board, and the other associated costs of your education, then you are totally free of any so called "debt" to your school. You may wholeheartedly appreciate the "sacrifice, vision, dedication, etc." of your school and its leaders, but your DEBT to it ended when you made your final tuition payment. Your degree was not given to you as a gift to show their benevolence. It was EARNED by your academic efforts and PAID FOR by your cold cash, not to mention a little "sacrifice, vision and dedication" of your own.
Your college did not give you your degree because it thought that it would be a "nice" gesture. They gave it to you because they could not refuse to. You had EARNED it by fulfilling the requirements that they demanded. Including paying your bill. (Plus interest in some cases.)
Thus if you find that the perfect Bible that your school spoke of really does exist, and you fear being alienated from your college and its "alumni", (Greek - "enlightened ones"?) then you should remember that your debt to Jesus Christ is REAL while your "debt" to your college is only imagined.
Which do you prefer to be alienated from, Jesus Christ or your college? They are NOT one in the same.
John 8:32.
