Response:

This is a complex discussion, but I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

The issue for me is not the King James, but rather the Greek Texts that are the basis of the English translations. Of course, your decisions concerning the Greek Texts will determine what English Bible you use.

In a nutshell, there are two Greek texts: the Textus Receptus, which is also sometimes called the Traditional Text, or the Majority Text; and the Westcott/Hort (named for the two men who put it together) text, which is also known as the Minority text, the Eclectic text, the Alexandrian text, or as some call it, the "oldest and best" manuscripts. (I personally disagree with that last statement. They are not always the oldest, and they are not the best!)

These two texts disagree with each other about 7% of the time, which may not seem like a lot, but it would amount to a disagreement every 14 verses. Some of these disagreements are word changes, but most of them are word removals. For example, the Westcott/Hort text does not include the last 12 verses of Mark, nor the story of the woman taken in adultery, just to give two examples. Since Christ said that no jot or tittle would be lost from the text, we know that both of these texts can not be correct. Some have said that as long as the general idea is there, that is sufficient, but we know that the Bible says that every WORD of God is pure. If God inspired His WORDS, and preserved the very letters (jots and tittles), then we can not say that it does not matter what Greek text a person uses. We are left with several options. Either both are correct (impossible- things that are different are not the same), or both are incorrect (impossible, for then God did not preserve His Word), or the Textus Receptus is right and Westcott/Hort is wrong, or W/H is right and TR is wrong. Obviously, one of these last two is the correct position.

Which one is correct? Again, let's see what the Bible says about Itself, and what history tells us about these two texts.

1. God told us that He would preserve His Word through all generations. The TR has been the text of "Christianity" for 1800 years. It was only in the mid 1800's that these "oldest and best" manuscripts were discovered. (It is interesting to note that one of these manuscripts was found buried in the library at the Vatican, and the other was found in a pile of papers to be burned at a monastery at Mt. Sinai) That does not sound like preservation to me. It sounds like God lost them, and had to rely on two unsaved Anglican priests (Westcott and Hort), to deliver His Word to the world.

2. God said that the Holy Spirit would guide believers into all truth. Of course, we know that "Thy Word is Truth". Which text was the Holy Spirit guiding men to throughout history? The Textus Receptus. If the W/H is the Truth, why did God's Holy Spirit not lead Christians to it?

3. God told us that the natural man would not receive the things of the Spirit, for they were spiritually discerned. Believers have always understood that to mean that unbelievers can't understand the Bible because they are not led by the indwelling Spirit. However, if the W/H text is the correct one, it was discovered by unsaved men, and determined to be the Word of God first of all by unbelievers. Mainline Protestants in their liberal seminaries accepted it. Then the new-evangelicals, those believers who do not function in a Biblical or spiritual manner, accepted it. Who was the last group to accept it? The Fundamentalists, and many of them still have not (including me). This order is completely opposite of what the Bible says. Those who walk closest to the Lord would have accepted this new Bible, and the liberals would have rejected it. But that is not what happened. (Just as a side note, the Latin Catholic Bible is very similar to the W/H Greek text)

4. Peter said that during His day people were corrupting the Word of God. Does it make sense that people who were corrupting the Word of God would make it stronger, or weaker? It seems obvious that corrupters would attempt to water down the Scriptures. Many of the verses and words missing or changed in the W/H deal with the deity of Christ. It is interesting to note that a fundamental Baptist missionary told me once that one of his seminary professors, at neo Gordon Seminary, told the class that the best translation ever done of the W/H text (which that professor used, by the way), was the New World Translation. Who uses that translation? Jehovah's Witnesses. And what do they deny? The deity of Christ! Interesting! We know from the Bible that the stronghold of first century Christianity was Antioch. This is the area from which many of the TR manuscripts come, although they are found in many different languages, and many different areas. We know from history that the Gnostics, about who John warns in the first century, were centered around Alexandria, Egypt. The Gnostics denied the deity of Christ, because they denied the possibility of the Incarnation. Where do those "oldest and best" manuscripts find their source? Alexandria, which is why it is sometimes called the Alexandrian Text. In fact, the third of the three main manuscripts used by the W/H folks is called Alexandrinus, because of its discovery at Alexandria.

5. God is not the author of confusion. Yet the W/H manuscripts disagree with themselves thousands of times in the Gospels alone. That is not true of the TR manuscripts. Which W/H manuscript is correct? The modernist tells us that only the textual critic can determine that. Must we now revert back to having the priest or the church tell us what the Bible says?

6. Hebrews tells us that the Bible is quick and powerful. What was the text of the Anabaptists, and those other groups who suffered at the hands of Catholicism for the cause of Christ? The TR. What was the text of the Protestant Reformation? The TR. In fact, history tells us that some of those who, during the Reformation, got saved out of Catholicism got saved through the Catholic Bible, but upon conversion changed to the TR. What was the text of the great revivals throughout history? The TR. What is the text of Catholicism? The W/H. What is the text of dead mainline liberalism? The W/H. What is the text of Neo-orthodoxy and new-evangelicalism? The W/H. Is there a pattern here?

7. Some say that only the originals, which we do not have, carry any authority. But Paul told Timothy that from a child he had know the "holy Scriptures". Paul knew that what Timothy was reading was the holy, set apart, and pure Word of God. He also tells Timothy that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God", and he calls what Timothy is reading "Scripture". Paul obviously believed in the preservation of the very words of God. In fact, the possibility exists that Paul was referring to a translation, for although Timothy was a Jew, he and his family would have been fluent in Greek. Either way, Paul knew that accurate copies and translations carried the weight of inspiration, though they themselves were not individually inspired. Today, you could be called a heretic by the W/H crowd for believing this very thing.

We could go on, but I think this will suffice. It is pretty clear to me that the TR, (because it lines up with what the Scriptures say) must be the correct text, which would make the W/H the incorrect text.

This is why I say that it is a Greek issue. Having established the TR as the correct text, then one must choose an English translation (or any other language for that matter) that is based on the TR. It should be a word for word (literal, formal equivalency) translation, as opposed to one that just gets the general idea across (dynamic equivalency). Remember, it is the WORDS that matter. Obviously, it should be an accurate translation: one that is well done in a scholarly fashion by people who understand the languages.

In the English language today, there is only one Bible that meets all these criteria: the King James Version. Virtually all the other versions (New American Standard, NIV, Revised Standard, New King James, etc.) are not based upon the TR, but rather on the W/H. (If the Greek is incorrect, then the English translation must be incorrect, too.) The KJV is an accurate, literal translation of the correct Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (we don't talk much about the Old Testament, for there is almost no debate there as to which Hebrew text is correct). Therefore, it is the only version I use for preaching AND for study. Why study from an English Bible that is based on an inferior and often incorrect text?

I am bothered by those who deny that God preserved His Word. Not only are they denying the teaching of Scripture, but from a practical sense they are not really sure if what they are reading is really what God said. I am equally bothered by those who say it doesn't matter. They are in effect saying that God did not preserve His Word. Even those who use the W/H text are on shaky ground, for they must admit that the possibility exists that new manuscript discoveries tomorrow may change their view of what is and is not the Word of God. In fact, I asked Dr. David Doran from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary that question in a meeting once, and he neatly sidestepped it.

If what we thought was the Bible could be changed by new discoveries in the 1800's, then what we think is the Bible today can be changed by new discoveries tomorrow. The W/H final authority is only as strong as the last archeological find. I thank God that I can trust in Him, and not archeology, for my authority.

One last point. I do believe that the possibility exists that there might someday be a new English translation which is an accurate, literal translation of the TR, which may update some of the old terminology found in the KJV. I wouldn't have a problem with that, provided it met those criteria. This separates me from the Ruckman camp, which believes that God did a new work of inspiration in 1611, that the KJV corrects the Greek, and that it can never be improved upon. I believe that the TR is the very Words of God, and cannot be improved. The KJV is an excellent, accurate translation of those Words, but could be updated to conform to changes in the English language. In addition, words like "baptism" and "church", though accurate, could be improved to "immersion" and "assembly". Though the existing translations of those words are certainly not wrong, a fuller meaning could be given.

I hope that helps. I probably bored you with detail. However, the bottom line is "what does the Bible say?'. We can debate majority vs. minority, and oldest vs. youngest. But there is no debate as to what the Bible has said, and our decisions must be made in conformity to IT.

By Dr Mark Montgomery Ambassador Baptist Church 1926 Babcock Blvd Pittsburgh, PA 15209 (412)477-3210