Part 13 - The Usual Suspects

Among the various scriptural readings found in the King James Bible that Mr. Rick Norris criticizes in his book, The Unbound Scriptures, are "the usual suspects" that every anti-KJV critic brings up. These include 1. the Unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17), 2. Lucifer versus Morning Star Isaiah 14:12, 3. Three verses dealing with the deity of Christ (Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1), and 4. "the profession of our FAITH" Hebrews 10:23, instead of "the profession of our HOPE".

I have written separate articles concerning these four common objections which can be found at my website. Every King James Bible defender has to face these at one time or another, and they are not that hard to deal with once the facts are known.

1. 1. The subject of Unicorns is addressed at this site: http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/unicorn.html
2. 2. Lucifer versus Morning Star can be found at: http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/Lucif.html
3. 3. Three verses of the deity of Christ is here: http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/chrdei.html
4. 4. Hebrews 10:23 "the profession of our faith" is dealt with here: http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/profaHeb10.html

Another verse in the King James Bible that is often criticized is Isaiah 19:10.

Isaiah 19:10 "ponds for fish" versus "Anybody's guess"

On page 337 Mr. Norris asks: "Is Isaiah 19:10 a possible example of the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the KJV?" He also quotes a series of scholarly experts including James D. Price who claimed that in Isaiah 19:10 "all Hebrew manuscripts have a word which means "soul" while the KJV reads "fish" following the Latin Vulgate."

Mr. Norris says: "While the Catholic Douay-Rheims version from the Latin Vulgate has "fishes" in this verse, The English translation of the Masoretic Text BY JEWS has "soul".

Neither statement is completely true. The word "fish" does not come from the Latin INSTEAD OF the Hebrew, as we shall shortly see, and not all Jewish translations have "soul". The two Jewish translations found on the internet are completely different from each other and don't even come close in meaning. The Jewish Publication Society 1917 version says: "And HER FOUNDATIONS shall be crushed, all THEY THAT MAKE DAMS shall be GRIEVED IN SOUL", BUT the brand new 1998 Complete Jewish Bible does not translate this word as "soul" but omits the word entirely and gives a completey different meaning to the verse saying: "THE SPINNERS will be crushed, the HIRED WORKERS DEJECTED."

Here we begin to see the problems associated with this verse. "her foundations" = " the spinners", and "they that make dams" = "the hired workers". Say What?! And remember, both of these groups of Jewish translators went to "the original Hebrew texts" to come up with these entirely different meanings.

Mr. Norris continues with his list of scholars by telling us that Arthur Farstad, of the NKJV translation, also maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate with its rendering "fish" at Isaiah 19:10 in his book NKJV: In the Great Tradition, page 50.

James White, who wrote The KJV Controversy, also says the KJV has "fish" following the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew text.

So, after this impressive introductory attack on the King James reading of "fish" instead of "soul", let's take a closer look at what the various bible translators have done with this verse and why the KJB translated the word as "fish" instead of "soul".

Let's compare several versions and see if we can determine whether the KJB reading comes from the Latin Vulage, as Mr. White and Mr. Farstad assert or if it comes from a legitimate interpretation of the Hebrew text.

KJB - "And THEY SHALL BE BROKEN IN THE PURPOSES THEREOF, ALL THAT MAKE SLUICES AND PONDS FOR FISH."

This is also the reading of the Wycliffe Bible 1395, the Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 1950 Douay Version. Not only do these English translations render the Hebrew phrase found here as "fish" but so also do the Spanish Reina Valera versions of 1909 and 1960. The 1999 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras (Holy Scriptures) also reads as does the King James Bible. They all say: "todos los que hacen viveros para PECES." - FISH. If you don't know Spanish, you might recognize the similarity to Pices, or the sign of the fish.

Now, let's take a look at the various modern versions to see what they have come up with by going to "the original Hebrew texts".

NKJV - " And ITS FOUNDATIONS will be broken. ALL WHO MAKE WAGES WILL BE TROUBLED OF SOUL.

NASB - "And THE PILLARS OF EGYPT will be crushed. All the HIRED LABORERS will be grieved in soul.

NIV - "The WORKERS OF CLOTH WILL BE DEJECTED, and all WAGE EARNERS WILL BE SICK AT HEART.

The 2001 ESV - "THOSE WHO ARE THE PILLARS of the land will be crushed, and all who work for pay will be grieved."

NRSV 1989 - "Its WEAVERS will be dismayed, and all who work for wages will be grieved.

The 2001 Easy to Read Version - "The PEOPLE THAT MAKE DAMS TO SAVE WATER will have no work, so they will be sad."

The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible - " The SPINNERS will be crushed, the hired workers dejected."

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac - "And all those who make STRONG DRINK FOR THE DRINKING OF THE PEOPLE shall be humiliated."

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "And ALL THAT MAKE BEER shall be grieved, and be pained in their souls."

Coverdale 1535 - "All the PONDS of Egypt, all the POLICY of their MOATS & DITCHES shall come to naught."

Geneva Bible 1599 - "For their NETS shall be broken, and all THEY THAT MAKE PONDS shall be heavy in heart."

Bible in Basic English 1961 actually omits words reading: "And the makers of twisted thread will be crushed, and those who ... will be sad in heart."

The 1970 New English Bible - "Egypt's spinners shall be downcast, and ALL HER ARTISANS sick at heart."

See how reading a variety of translations can clear things up for us?

Now let's see what some other Bible commentators, who are not KJB onlies, have to say.

Adam Clarke - All that make sluices and ponds for fish-"All that make a gain of pools for FISH." This obscure line is rendered by different interpreters in very different manners. I translate gain, and which some take for nets or inclosures, the Septuagint is 'And all they that make barley wine shall mourn, and be grieved in soul.' I submit these very different interpretations to the reader's judgment."

John Calvin comments on this verse: "And all that make ponds. As to the word (secher) there is no absolute necessity, in my opinion, for translating it a net; for the derivation shews it, on the contrary, to denote a lucrative occupation. Where fishes are very abundant, they are also preserved in pools and ponds; because the fishers would otherwise be constrained to sell them at a very low price. Besides, when they throw a net, they are not always successful. He therefore follows out the same subject, "It will not be possible either to take or to preserve fishes. Pools will be of no use."

John Gill - "All that make sluices and ponds for fish; or, "all that make an enclosure of ponds of soul" ; or for delight and pleasure; that is, not only such shall be broken in their purposes, ashamed and confounded, and be dispirited, mourn and lament, whose business and employment it is to catch FISH, or make nets for that end, and get their livelihood thereby; but even such who enclose a confluence of water, and MAKE FISHPONDS in their fields and gardens for their pleasure, will be disappointed; for their waters there will be dried up, and the FISH die, as well as in the common rivers.

Robert Young gives the definition of "breathing creature" for Isa. 19:10.

Jamieson, Faussett & Brown - "all that make sluices, ‹"makers of dams," made to confine the waters which overflow from the Nile in artificial FISH-ponds."

They accurately portray what the verse and the first part of the chapter is talking about. Isaiah is speaking about those that made sluices or an artificial channel of water. These sluices were designed in such a way as to lure fish into them. Then once in the man-made pond the fish were captured and sold by those that made their livelihood thereby. We find that all such people that depend on these sluices will mourn and lament along with the fishers because their ponds will be dried up and their livelihood taken from them.

The word renderd "fish" in the King James Bible and other versions is the Hebrew word nephesh. This particular Hebrew word has a great variety of meanings even in the NASB, NIV and other modern versions.

For example, some of the meanings given in the NASB for this same Hebrew word include "a living being, a life, appetite, body, breath, corpse, CREATURE, craving, desire, discontented, heart, feelings, greed, human, hunger, livelihood, longing, men, mind, mortal, murders, number, passion, people, soul, person, slave, strength, thirst, throat, will and wish".

Likewise the NIV renders this same word as "life, soul, heart, people, appetite, CREATURES, spirit, body, corpse, needs, desires, dead body, hunger, members, being, feel, greed, perfume, slave, throats, wishes and zeal." The NIV concordance likewise shows that 46 times they did not translate the word at all. The Hebrew word can have a great variety of meanings depending on the context.

Isaiah 19:8 reads: "The FISHERS also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish." Then we have verse 10 "And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for FISH." Once the context is determined to refer to "sluices and ponds", we can reasonably conclude that type of the creatures that live in the ponds are FISH, not "souls".

As has been shown, other Bible commentators have agreed with the meaning of the reading found in the King James Bible and others versions. The meaning of "fish" in this context is derived from the Hebrew text itself, and not from the Latin.

The Latin Vulgate has nothing to do with the King James rendering here, but rather the KJB translators referred to the Hebrew text. So what if the KJB happens to agree with the Latin? All bible versions are going to agreee in many places. If the Latin has "Christ died for sinners" and the KJB says "Christ died for sinners", do we then conclude that the KJB borrowed this from the Latin? The translations found in Isaiah 19:10 are a matter of different interpretations and perspective; not a difference of Hebrew versus the Latin Vulgate.

A similar example of the literal word "soul" is found in the New Testament Greek in Revelation 16:3. The King James Bible says: "And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living SOUL (psukee) died in the sea."

However in the NIV, NASB, ESV we read every living "soul" translated as "every living THING", while the NKJV says: "every living CREATURE died in the sea." Obviously the word "soul" here refers to the fish and other sea creatures that lived in the sea. Are we then to criticize these versions as well for doing the same thing?

To repeat - not only does the King James Bible render this word as "fish" in Isaiah 19:10 but so also do the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1999, the Douay version 1950, Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Part 14 - The Preservation of the words of God

In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Mr. Rick Norris reveals a great deal about how he views the doctrine of the Preservation of the words of God.

On page 207 he says: "Most defenders of the KJV refuse to name any certain Hebrew or Greek manuscript as inerrant and pure or any one certain printed text as inerrant."

This seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. Norris has repeatedly referred to "the original Hebrew and Greek texts" knowing full well that there is no such thing on the face of this earth. He hasn't given us any certain Hebrew or Greek manuscripts either.

Most King James Bible believers I know do not name any specific Hebrew or Greek text as being the inspired, inerrant, and complete words of God because we do not believe this is where they are preserved. We have no problem with the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible, but there is no ONE single Hebrew text or ONE single Greek text that is like any other.

We believe God has promised to preserve His pure words on this earth till heaven and earth pass away, and that He has done so, both in the past and in the present. Today, and for the last almost 400 years they are found in the King James Holy Bible.

Mr. Norris asks: "If the KJV translators could use their reason, scholarship, or other fallible means to pick out any errors in the differing manuscripts they used, then translators today must also be permitted to use these means to do the same. Since the manuscripts and the various old translations they consulted had some differences, how did the KJV translators determine which reading was the providentially preserved one?"

What Mr. Norris fails to see here is the Providential guidance of Almighty God. He sees only the natural, limited talents of sinful man and assumes that the preservation of God's words depends on man's fallible reason and scholarship to determine the true readings. It is a totally humanistic and naturalistic point of view.

If God is providentially behind the multitude of conflicting and contradictory bible versions that keep rolling off the presses, then this God is very confused about what He said or didn't say, and what He meant when He said it.

I do agree with Mr. Norris when he says on page 239: "By acknowledging the positive degree and admitting that other imperfect translations such as the earlier English Bibles and Luther's German Bible are good, KJV-only advocates are also admitting that some other present day translations in various languages including English may also be good while imperfect."

Yes, we do not deny that God can and does use imperfect Bibles in both English and other languages. Where we differ from the Bible of the Month Club promoters is that we believe there is one perfect, complete, inerrant, pure Holy Bible on this earth right now.

God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible in their language. The Scriptures tell us that the gospel would be preached to every nation and that God will have a great company of the redeemed out of "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" - Revelation 7:9. Every imperfect bible I am aware of has enough of God's true words in them to bring people to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. They all contain the gospel of salvation through faith in our crucified and risen Lord. We do not dispute this but affirm it.

We repudiate the idea that ONLY those who read the King James Bible can get saved or serve God in any way.

However we do believe the promises of God regarding the preservation of His words have been literally fulfilled. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation.

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

Mr. Norris brings up the common argument about why should we think that only the English translation of the King James Bible is the pure words of God and not the Spanish Reina Valera or Luther's German. Isn't it a form of sinful pride to think that WE have the pure word of God and others do not?

First, let me say that I firmly believe in the sovereignty of God. "He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" - Ephesians 1:11. God could have placed His pure words in Spanish, or German, or Swahili if He had wanted to do so. As Rick says on page 273: "The issue of Bible translation is not about what God COULD DO but about what God HAS ACTUALLY DONE."

I am an American, but I do not consider any American bible (ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.) to be the pure words of God. The pure word of God is an ENGLISH Bible from England. Before 1800 the Bible had been translated into only about 40 languages world-wide. God alone sees the end from the beginning and He knew what He would do with the English speaking people and the English language, which in 1611 was spoken by only about 2% of the world population.

Previous English bibles were good but not perfect. They contained minor theological errors and were not textually complete, but they were far better than the modern ones being used today. We believe God providentially preserved His perfect words and placed them in the Holy Bible, which later became known as the King James Version. Once it became firmly established as THE Bible of the English speaking people, who by the late 1700's had spread the influence of the British empire to the far ends of the globe, God raised up primarily English and American Christians to carry out the great modern day missionary movement. From the late 1700's to the mid 1950's the Bible was translated into hundreds of foreign languages and they were all based on either the King James Bible itself or the general Hebrew and Greek texts behind it. This is the sovereignty of God in action and what He ACTUALLY DID.

Mr. Norris speaks of "the original Hebrew and Greek texts" and yet he cannot produce them for us nor tell us where to get a copy of this mystical Final Authority. What God did NOT DO, was preserve His complete and inerrant words in any single Hebrew and Greek manuscript Rick demands we name, nor which Mr. Norris himself can point us to.

There are two fundamental reasons I believe the true and pure words of God are found today only in the King James Bible - 1. the Sovereignty of God Almighty, and 2. something so simple and yet extremely profound - The Truth and nothing but the truth.

Only the King James Bible always gives us the Truth unmixed with theological, historical or factual error. Again, I suggest you read the article I put together called No Doctrines are Changed? and compare the examples of doctrinal error with the older English bible versions and especially with today's modern versions.

Some modern version promoters will admit that there are untrue or misleading statements found in their versions, but they insist we must compare all the verses together to get the correct doctrine. I believe God always tells us the truth in every verse of Scripture, and only the King James Bible meets this standard. "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5. "Therefore I esteem ALL thy precepts concerning ALL things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128.

I have noticed at various Bible clubs on the internet and from books like those of James White and Bob Ross, that many modern version promoters are Calvinistic in their theology. For those who are Calvinistic Baptists like C.H. Spurgeon, or the Baptist street preacher John Bunyan who also wrote Pilgrim's Progress, or believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, as did John Newton who wrote Amazing Grace, or Agustus Toplady who wrote Rock of Ages, and as were most of the King James translators themselves, I suggest you read the article titled Calvinism and the KJB.

If you are a Calvinist and are concerned about the truths of what you think the Bible teaches concerning these doctrines, then compare the King James Bible to your NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV or whatever you presently use. All the modern versions water down or change the truth and even create contradictions with the rest of Scripture.

I personally am not much concerned if a Christian is a Calvinist or an Arminian, or what some like to call a Calminian. This is not my personal battle or main area of interest. I believe everyone who has repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as his only Lord and Saviour is forgiven their sins and will be in glory. When He appears, then shall we know even as we are known. In the meantime, we all "see through a glass darkly" and none of us has a complete understanding of all revealed truth.

Regarding the doctrine of the Preservation of God's words, Mr. Norris makes some statements that I find to be irrational and contradictory. He says on page 312: "Many KJV-only advocates seem to overemphasize the variations between existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. By exaggerating variations between manuscripts and the variations between translations, KJV-only advocates may unintentionally promote a feeling of uncertainty about the accuracy and preservation of God's Word. The accuracy of our present-day New Testament text depends on the multiplicity of the manuscripts."

That Mr. Norris could draw these conclusions is mind-boggling to me. We are not overemphasizing anything; we are merely pointing out to people what is blatantly obvious to anyone who would take the time to actually read and compare the different Bible versions. Rather it is the fact that there are literally thousands of words missing from most versions today and hundreds of verses have totally different meanings, that there is doubt arising about the certainty of preservation and accuracy of the New Testament as well as the Old. How in the world he can say "the accuracy of our New Testament text depends on the multiplicity of manuscripts" is a mystery to me. I confess I do not understand this way of thinking at all.

Mr. Norris tries to downplay the textual differences that exist by quoting Edward Goodrick who says: "If all the uncertain words were assembled in a 500 page Greek Testament, they would occupy only four-tenths of a single page." (Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God, page 57)

Now I ask any of you who are aware of the textual differences that exist between the King James Bible, NKJV, TMB, and Green's MKJV, which are generally based on the Traditional Greek Text, and those like the NASB, NIV, ESV which are generally based on the Westcott-Hort texts, if all the variants between these two types of bibles and the Greek texts behind them could fit on 20 or even 30 pages of a 500 page Greek N.T. The present UBS Greek text is 886 pages long, and only some of the thousands of textual variants are listed on its pages, yet numerous pages are a third or even half full of these partial variants right now. And this is not ALL of them!

Again, I would suggest that you look at this PARTIAL list of the missing verses, words and phrases that exist between the King James Bible and versions like the NASB, NIV, and ESV. Then try to put all that on four-tenths of a single page if you can. Be sure to see both sections.

Part 15 - KJB Only versus Latin Vulgate Only Argument

One common complaint I hear all the time and mentioned by Mr. Norris in his book is that we who believe there is only one Bible that is the pure, complete, and infallible word of God is that this is similar to the Catholic view concerning the Latin Vulgate.

Allow me to briefly address this accusation. The Council of Trent met from 1545 to 1563 in an effort to rally the forces of the Catholic church to combat what they considered the heresies of the Reformation and their Bibles.

The Catholic church decided that the Latin Vulgate should be their official bible and none other allowed. Problem was, even when they made this decree, there was no settled text or single Latin Vulgate considered authoritative. Their own language reveals this. Here is a quote taken from the Council of Trent's own decree issued in 1556 "Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, IF IT BE MADE KNOWN WHICH OUT OF ALL THE LATIN EDITIONS, NOW IN CIRCULATION, of the sacred books, IS TO BE HELD AS AUTHENTIC,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold." (end of quote)

A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, p. 120).

There are several fundamental differences and similarities to what the Catholic church tried to do with the Latin Vulgate, and the Bible version issue as it stands today.

The Differences:

First - the Catholic church wanted to place the words of God in a DEAD LANGUAGE which most people could not read and they forbad translations into other languages to be made. Thus they were keeping the words of God out of the hands of the common people and making them dependent on a special class of priests to interpret it for them.

Second - This official bible had no settlted text at the time the decrees were made. There were several competing Latin Vulgate bibles circulating at the time and one was not settled upon till 36 years later.

Third - This official bible was produced by an apostate church which denied salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ; denied salvation outside of this Catholic church system, and established a special group of priests who alone could interpret the Scriptures for us.

The King James Bible believer does not deny salvation to anyone who happens to read any Bible version other than the KJB. We approve of the translation of Scripture into other languages, desiring only that they attempt to follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and the meaning as found in the King James Bible, as best as possible and not omit some 3000 to 4000 words, including 17 to 24 whole verses, from the New Testament as do versions such as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV. All these modern versions just mentioned also depart frequently from the Hebrew texts that underlie our King James Bible.

The Similarities:

First - the modern versionist has no settled text, just as the Council of Trent did not when they made their decree. The Greek text that underlies the modern versions such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, etc. is in a continual state of flux and constant change. Every new version changes the actual TEXT, as well as the meanings of other verses, from the previous versions.

Second - The modern versionist would likewise place the Final Authority in the hands of a special group of religious leaders - the scholars. They affirm that no translation is the inspired words of God and that we must "go to the original Hebrew and Greek texts" (which don't even exist). Thus they remove the common people from the words of God by appealing to DEAD LANGUAGES as their final authority.

However, it is painfully obvious that these same scholars cannot agree among themselves WHICH Hebrew and WHICH Greek texts are authentic. This is similar to the case of the conflicting Latin Vulgate versions that were circulating at the time of the decree of the Council of Trent in 1556.

Third - The everchanging Greek text now used to translate most modern versions is compiled by men who themselves are apostates who believe no Bible is inspired and much of what we do have is "ancient folktale, popular legend, and traditions penned by unknown authors". (See Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini, and the other liberal editors of the UBS Greek text.)

Satan counterfeits every spiritual truth. If there really is One true Holy Bible, then the devil will say there is only one true bible and it is the Catholic bible. Guess which bibles today generally OMIT ALL THE SAME VERSES from the New Testament as do modern Catholic bible versions. You got it.

Part 16 - Where Was the Word of God Before 1611?

Mr. Norris finally gets around to asking the big question we've all been waiting for. King James Bible believers are always hit with this zinger as though this will finally shut the door on our "man-made theory" that God has actually preserved His complete, inerrant words in One Book called the Holy Bible. They ask us: "Well then, were was the true word of God BEFORE 1611?"

Those who promote the modern bible versions do not believe any Bible is the inspired, infallible, preserved, and pure words of the living God. They tell us "the original Hebrew and Greek" is their final authority, hoping no one will notice that there is no such animal on the face of this earth. They don't have it, have never seen it, and wouldn't recognize it if it fell on their heads.

There are no original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts anywhere. There are several different Hebrew texts plus the conflicting Dead Sea Scrolls. There are over 25 different conflicting Greek texts. The multitude of modern versions, like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, depart scores of times from the Hebrew Masoretic texts, and often not in the same places. They are also based on very different Greek texts than that of the King James Bible, though none of them always follows the same Greek text as the others. The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek text as the KJB and the meaning has been radically changed in scores of verses. They often differ among themselves in both text and meaning, and contain several proveable theological errors.

We who believe God meant what He said about preserving His words are ridiculed as being ignorant fanatics who follow a man-made doctrine. Isn't it ironic that the Christian who believes we have the inspired and inerrant words of God today in a Book we call the Holy Bible is called a heretic, while those who deny any Bible or text is the inerrant word of God is looked upon as a great scholar?

We believe God is the sovereign ruler of history and has preserved for us today all His pure words in the King James Bible. God knew what would become of the English language and how the great modern missionary movement of the late 1700's through the 1950's would be carried out by American and English missionaries carrying one Bible and translating it into hundreds of foreign languages and dialects. No Bible in history has been used, honored and hated as much as the King James Bible.

God also knew the great battle concerning the preservation of His words would take place during the times of the falling away from the faith before the glorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think it quite possible that we are living in those times now. Never before has the Holy Bible itself been under such fierce attack. The supreme irony is that those who now attack the King James Bible are those who call themselves Christians.

God has promised to preserve His words, not in every language or to every people, but in such a way as they would be known by many of God's believing people. The Lord Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter 1:25

We who believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant word of God do not place our trust in the King James translators. We do not defend their comments in the Preface, nor their theology, nor their marginal notes. We trust in God alone Who has fulfilled His promises to preserve His inspired words. He just happened to use the believing men of the 1611 Holy Bible as His instruments to continue this preservation.

"Well, where was the pure word of God BEFORE 1611?"

It will greatly enlighten your mind if you ask the Bible critic the same question. They don't know where it was before 1611, or more importantly, where it is now. A very good educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation. Theodore Beza, whose Greek text was used by the KJB translators, traces the Waldensian believers from around 120 A.D. to the Reformation. They were killed off by the thousands and their Bibles were burned by the Catholic persecutors. The Waldensians believed in the priesthood of every believer and the doctrines of grace. Then God's perfect words passed over to what was named simply The Holy Bible, later to be known as the King James Version. That is where they remain today in all their purity.

Regarding the Old Latin, which is not the same thing as the Catholic Vulgate, Agustine and Tertullian both speak of this ancient version as existing since 157-190 A.D.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1915 has this to say concerning the early Latin and Syriac translations of the Holy Bible.

"The claim of Christianity to be the one true religion has carried with it from the beginning the obligation to make its Holy Scriptures, containing the Divine message of salvation and life eternal, known to all mankind. Accordingly, wherever the first Christian evangelists carried the gospel beyond the limits of the Greek-speaking world, one of the first requirements of their work was to give the newly evangelized peoples the record of God's revelation of Himself in their mother tongue. It is generally agreed that, as Christianity spread, the Syriac and the Latin versions were the first to be produced; and translations of the Gospels, and of other books of the Old and New Testament in Greek, were in all probability to be found in these languages before the close of the 2nd century."

In his book Final Authority, William P Grady quotes John Burgon on pages 33-34 concerning the reliability of a version over any single manuscript. "I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient Version outweighs any single Codex, ancient or modern, which can be named: the reason being, that it is scarcely credible that a Version can have been executed from a single exemplar (copy). A second reason for the value of ancient versions is in their ability to exhibit a text which antedates the oldest Greek manuscripts. Readings which are challenged in the Authorized Version for their non-existence in the 'two most ancient authorities' (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, fourth century) are frequently discovered in the Syrian and Latin translations of the second century."

In his book An Understandable History of the Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp Th.D writes: "The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other fundamental groups throughout Europe."

David Fuller confirms this fact: "It is clearly evident that the Latin Bible of early British Christianity was not the Latin Bible (Vulgate) of the Papacy. The Italic Bible (AD157) - Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 AD and was known as the Italic Version. The renowned scholar Beza states that the Italic Church dates from 120 AD. Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity."

We have only a very small portion remaining of all the Bibles and manuscripts that ever existed. Perhaps as little as one one hundreth, so there is no sure way of knowing what the other manuscripts and Bibles said - just as we do not have the "originals" and can't prove what they said. Of those that remain, no two are exactly alike in every detail, but of the approximately 5,000 portions and fragments that we have today, about 95% agree about 99% of the time with the King James Bible readings. The other 5% differs a great deal even among themselves, and it is this 5% that is used in most of today's "bibles".

It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do. If you cannot believe God has kept His promise to preserve His words, then how can you believe He will keep His promise to preserve your soul? Can you have the one without the other?

Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired. Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith. In the same way we too have faith that God both inspired His original words and that He has preserved them through history and today they are found in the King James Bible.

The Old Latin Version and the King James Bible Readings

There are at least 17 entire verses omitted from the New Testament in such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB. The NIV omits all 17 of these verses, while the RSV, ESV omit even more, and the NASBs vary from one edition to the next, omitting all these verses in some editions and replacing some of them in others. The following whole verses are included in all, most, or at least some of the Old Latin copies. This information is confirmed by using the Nestle-Aland Greek text critical notes - certainly no friend to the KJB.

The following verses which are omitted in the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, etc. are all found in copies of the Old Latin texts. Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 9:55.56; 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7.

All these seventeen whole verses are found in the ancient Old Latin Version which dates from around 157 A.D., and was in use through the 1500's. These 17 whole verses are also found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. All of the major disputed textual readings are found this ancient Bible version that is approximately 200 years older than the Greek texts used in the translation of most modern bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, and the new ESV all of which are based primarily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

The critical text apparatus of the UBS usually lists only about 10 Old Latin manuscripts of the hundreds if not thousands that once existed. The vast majority of these Old Latin Bibles are no longer with us but were either burned by the Catholic persecutors or turned to dust with age.

Let's do the math. Found within these few remaining Old Latin copies are every one of the major disputed verses in the New Testament. Though men like Doug Kutilek try to discount the similarity between the Old Latin readings and the King James Bible by "practically at random" selecting individual words and phrases, he is basing his conclusions on only 1 to 10% of the evidence that once existed.

Even with these 10 or so remaining partial Old Latin manuscripts, all of the major and about 90% of the minor disputed readings in the King James Bible are found to exist. We cannot "prove" beyond all doubt that the hundreds or even thousands of other Old Latin manuscripts contained all the readings found in the King James Bible, but it is quite probable that they did. God said He would preserve His words through history, and we believe He has done so.

Brother Kent Hovind, a creationist and a KJB believer, gives a good illustration. He was once talking to a large High School group about the existence of God and an atheist said there was no "proof" of His existence. Mr. Hovind asked the young man if he knew everything. The youth admitted that he didn't know everything. Mr. Hovind then asked him if he knew half of everything. The young man said No, he didn't. Then Mr. Hovind said, Well, let's suppose you do know half of everything. Do you think that God could exist in that half of everything that you do not know?

Just as no one knows exactly what "the originals" said, because they no longer exist, we do have evidence that points us in the right direction, and we have the promises of God that He would preserve His words. I believe God's inerrant words were once found within the majority of the hundreds of Old Latin copies and now are found in the King James Bible.

The Principal Disputed Verses in the King James Bible

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall recieve the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV, NASB, RSV.

Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast."

John 5: 3b - 4 "waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37 "And Phillip 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."

Acts 9:5-6 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, but found in the Old Latin and the KJB.

Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUT OF OUR HANDS, COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." Again, all the capital lettered words are omitted in the modern versions.

Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

All these whole verses or the capital lettered portions of the others are missing or bracketed in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, but are found in the Old Latin manuscripts and in the King James Bible.

For those of you who may be interested in examining in more detail the examples mentioned by Doug Kutilek in his attempt to discredit the Old Latin version as compared to the King James Bible readings, I have addressed these in my article called The Old Latin Bible and the KJB Readings found here: http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

For me and thousands of other King James Bible believers, we confidently trust God has fulfilled His promises to preserve His inerrant words in a Bible we can actually hold in our hands, read, memorize, and believe every word. We take literally what our Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Where do you stand on this most important issue?

The new version promoter and King James critic has no final authority but his own mind or his favorite scholar to tell him what God probably said. He has no infallible Bible and takes great offence when you tell him you believe we do. He can't tell you where you can get a copy of God's pure words today, let alone where they were before 1611. "Thus saith the LORD" has been replaced with "Well, how does this version render it?"

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 17 - Final Thoughts

Some final thoughts in this Response to the book, The Unbound Scriptures, by Rick Norris.

I want to thank Mr. Norris for writing his book; not because I agree with his premise or his conclusions, but because it has caused me to think more carefully about this extremely important and crucial topic of the Bible version issue.

I have had to re-evaluate my whole position and examime why I believe what I do about God's words. It has also been very good for my prayer life, since I have had to continually ask our heavenly Father for wisdom, faith, and understanding; and this is always a good thing.

The basic beliefs of Mr. Norris are summed up at the beginning of his book by James D. Price Ph.D, one of the NKJV translators, who states: "Norris demonstrates that the doctrine of inerrancy can be successfully applied ONLY to THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, but not to any translation, including the KJV ... Norris shows that the doctrine of preservation can be applied properly ONLY to the text of THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS."

I hope that I have demonstrated in my Response that the only logical conclusion of this premise is that you end up with no inspired Bible, no Final Authority, and Preservation is reduced to a cloudy concept of hoping we have a general idea of what God wanted to tell us "out there somewhere".

I am sorry to see the church of the Lord Jesus Christ divided over this issue of the Final Authority of the Inspired words of God, but the Scriptures themselves teach us that both Satan and men corrupt, pervert, and wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.

I do not believe we KJB defenders will turn this thing around and get every English speaking person in the world to go back to the King James Bible. I have had way too much personal contact with modern version promoters to ever believe that they will change their minds. No matter what evidence or arguments you present, they continue to affirm that KJV-Onlyism is a man-made myth and that only the originals were inspired. Either they hold the "originals only" position, or they masquerade their unbelief by saying "All reliable versions are the inspired word of God", in spite of the fact that they differ from each other in literally hundreds of verses in both underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, and meaning.

As I understand the Scriptures, there will be a falling away from the faith before the glorious return of our Lord and Saviour. It is prophesied to so happen and nothing will change it. "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8.

However, God will always have some of His people who believe His promises to preserve His words are literally true and that we have them today. As our Lord so often said: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

The authority of God's inerrant words is being undermined today as never before. This will inevitably lead to a weakening of the faith of many of God's people. In spite of numerous "easy to understand" bible versions, or perhaps more accurately, BECAUSE OF the multitude of conflicting and watered-down bible versions out there today, we live in the most Biblically illiterate generation in America's history. We are a mile wide and an inch deep.

There is much about God, His word, and His ways that I do not understand. I don't know why Mr. Norris in on one side of this issue and I am on the other.

I can't explain why Christians who love the Lord believe so many different things about the Bible and what it teaches. Maybe one of God's ways of dealing with our pride is to humble us in the dust at that final Day when He reveals to us just how much we got wrong.

"And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day." Isaiah 2:17.

As Job said when God finally opened the curtains and revealed Himself to him: "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:5-6

I firmly believe that if we know anything that is true or do anything that is right, it is solely by the grace of God. Without Him we can do nothing.

"Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" 1 Corinthians 4:7

I hold the conviction that God has in fact preserved His complete, inerrant and inspired words in the Book we have today called the King James Bible. I believe this conviction comes from God, not because I am smarter or more spiritual than other Christians who hold a different view, but solely by the grace of God.

If I am wrong about this, then God will reveal the truth either in this short life on earth or definitely when I stand before Him on that coming Day. In the meantime, by God's grace, I will cling to His words, believing what is written in His Book.

"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts." Jeremiah 15:16

"It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law."

"Thy word is very pure; therefore thy servant loveth it."

"Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Psalm 119:126,140, 152, 160. May God encourage and guide each of you as we together "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." 2 Peter 3:18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Set, Parts 6 through 12

First Set, Parts 1 through 5

Return to Articles