Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:35)

The Bible Version Dilemma.

The last 50 years or so has seen a great ‘explosion’ in the number of bible versions in English. Many bible studies are plagued by participants all showing up at home groups with their own preferred translation. Very few can explain their preference in any convincing way. Have all these versions been beneficial to their studies, or has bible version confusion decreased clarity?

Has the increase in versions increased bible literacy? It is up for debate whether the increase in choice has increased the amount of scripture reading taking place in English speaking countries. It certainly hasn’t lead to a revival in bible reading and bible literacy.

Is the Bible reliable?

The abundance of versions seems to have lent credibility to the secular attack on the bible. When making a choice on which bible to buy, if there are so many versions, a person may well question what translation is the most reliable? Is the bible at all still accurate? How many errors have crept in over the years? Some question whether the Bible is still God’s Word, or just a guide to what originally was intended, now left to the individual to decide what is still applicable?

That line of thought is of course faulty because it assumes God is not any longer involved in keeping His word the way He wants it, and translated the way he sees fit, despite our human frailties. (Refer to  Preservation,)

Preservation of the word.

The most serious effect of the various differing translations, perhaps even greater than the possible corruption of God’s Word, is that they erode the general view of the infallibility of God’s Word.  Is Satan’s  target the erosion of our confidence, whether or not we are reading Jesus’ exact words? When anyone is confronted with many differing versions, would a person not question what translation he should choose as the most reliable? And would  those words still be God’s words? (Refer to further preservation link Preserved Word of God – TG) for more detail.

Examples to check for yourself:

The new translations seem to have watered down the scriptures, blunting our ‘sharp swords’ of the Word. The watering down is achieved in four categories:

• Deletions: Entire passages or parts thereof removed. Refer to https://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html for all the NT deletions.
• Changes (obvious): e.g. the curious NIV  ‘flagellation verse’ of 1Cor 9:27 “..I strike a blow to my body (NIV)” vs “..my body, and bring it to subjection (KJV)”. No need to comment further.
• Changes (subtle): Changes that minimize salvation by faith only: e.g. “Are being saved (ESV)” replaces “are saved”(KJV) in 1 Cor 1:18,1 Cor 15:2, 2Cor 2:15. Salvation is a one time event upon believing and trusting in Jesus Christ, not a continuous process. Other changes minimize the Trinity.
• Additions: The addition of footnotes sow the seeds of doubt about accuracy. e.g. the NIV ESV footnote comments “omitted in some earlier manuscripts”. This is pernicious and without acceptable proof that these ‘manuscripts’ were actually earlier.

For a typical sample of deletions/additions/changes click 191201KJV vs OTHER BIBLE VERSIONS – TG Note this is by no means a complete list.

The Logical Historical Approach.

Rather than attempting to prove which version is the most reliable, which leads to hair splitting and not convincing anyone, lets use our logic. Let us simply look at the first few centuries of Christianity, and what the likely migration of Christianity into the greater Europe would have looked like. Greater Europe of the time encompassed Britain in the west to Russia in the east.For a very simplified history review from Jesus to 17th century England refer to the link Timeline 2000a. (NB: a draft version -under construction)

The spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

We can trace the origin of our current bible versions under the following topics:

1.  The initial spread of the gospel: (ref Paul’s mission trips, John’s letter  for a preview)
2. The spread of the first copies of the gospels and epistles. (ref http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/Apostles_TextusReceptus  for a preview)
3. Persecution and the further spread of the Gospel  (ref  for a preview) (ref http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/persecutions for a preview)
4. The  Greek NT documents in the Byzantine Empire  (ref http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/byzantanium for a preview)
5. The spread of the Greek NT documents through eastern Europe  (ref http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/scriptoriums for a preview)
6. The fall of Byzantium to Islam. (ref http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/fallofconstantinople)
7. The spread of the Greek NT documents to western Europe (ref http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/Renaissance for a preview)
8. The invention of the printing press. (ref Printing press for a preview)
9. Erasmus and the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus. (ref  Erasmus and http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/Erasmus )
10. The reformation. (ref Reformation  for a preview)
11. Translations into English. Note the 1611 and current KJV read identical except for spelling.(ref http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Parallel/56002001/KJV/KJV1611/TYN http://textusreceptusbibles.com)
12. COMPARISONS: KJV versus New Translations based on the Vaticanus  (http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/BurgonAlexandrian)

At the same time we will limit our initial study to the New Testament manuscripts only, which were written in Greek. Greek was the world language of the time, much like English is now. Refer to 190804 Greek New Testaments V2 (also the link  HM D1). The Old Testament source documents are discussed at the end of this post.

Attempts to corrupt the Word of God

In addition we will consider where any likely attempted corruptions of the bible would have come from. Only the very naïve will ignore the fact that Satan will have mounted attacks on the bible from the very first century. Is there any reason to believe this attack is not continuing to this day? It is no secret that false teachers, attempting to corrupt the gospel, arose simultaneously with the rise of Christianity. Peter and Paul already had to fight these men, as 1 & 2 Timothy, Thessalonians and Jude testify.

1. Persecution and the spread of the gospel:

If you were a Christian in Jerusalem in 40AD and had to flee for your life, where would you have gone? South to Sinai, Egypt and Africa or North into Asia-minor (Turkey of today). Note that Egypt of the day was a noted centre of the dark religions and the occult, especially the city of Alexandria. The rest of Africa was uncivilized.

It stands to reason that the great majority of common men would have gone north.

2. The spread of the first copies of the gospels and epistles.

Refer to  the relevant history section of http://textusreceptusbibles.com

3.  The spread of the Greek NT documents through eastern Europe

The great abundance of the Byzantine text.

Refer to the link: Eastern European text for the details of the initial spread of the gospel.

Considering the details given in the link above, nothing can dispel the evidence of the great number of manuscripts of Byzantine  origin as well as the evidence of great consistency among these 5300 manuscripts, which are now found dotted all over the libraries and universities of Europe. It is clear that reliable copies of the Greek New Testament were spread far and wide across all of central and eastern Europe.

Many years later, in 1510, when the printing presses were standing ready to flood Europe with printed bibles, they were waiting for the best Byzantine New Testament text they could find. The Swiss printers refused to touch the corrupt Latin bible, called the Vulgate. They wanted a reliable un-tampered Greek text to work with. Who could they trust?

Erasmus

Erasmus, the greatest Latin and Greek scholar of his time, was selected by the printers in Basel for this work. Erasmus had been studying the Greek New Testament manuscripts since before 1505. http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/Erasmus.  Even if Erasmus, under time pressure in 1515 while the printers stood waiting, at that time only had access to six supplied manuscripts in addition to his own  to compile his Greek New Testament with, God provided. The consistency of these texts, when later compared to other manuscripts of Byzantine origin, was so great that even enemies of the Erasmus’ work have to admit to it. They are forced to resort to minute and insignificant arguments, ladled with spoonfuls of emotion and rhetoric, to smear Erasmus’ work.

Of course there was a human element embedded in the Byzantine text that Erasmus used to compile the his work, called the Textus Receptus, or ‘received text’. That is why he placed all six handwritten manuscripts next to each other, to compare them verse by verse. It is easy to spot one stray verse or copy error, if five verses say one thing and one said another. Even today, we can easily determine ‘the odd one out’, if we were to determine in a similar way what the majority of the verses agreed on.

The reformation

In 1517, one year after Erasmus’ Greek text was published and spread throughout Europe, a German catholic scholar named Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church to a debate. He posted 95 points of debate on his church’s door. These points exposed the non-biblical character of the Catholic Church.

Luther gained immediate support, and the resulting reaction against the corruption of Christianity by the Catholics spread like wildfire. The newly perfected art of printing propelled Luther’s ideas and views into virtually every home in Europe. Luther translated the bible into German and Tyndale into English. The Dutch, French, Danes also had bibles in their own languages within decades. A great spiritual awakening was underfoot.

Many try criticize Luther for either doing too little, or for being too divisive and the cause of too much conflict. Too little, because he did not address and correct all the catholic corruptions and heresies. Too divisive, because exposing the ruling clerics was bound to cause a backlash. Understandably, from the catholic point of view, Luther was a threat and his work was to be discredited and neutralized at any cost.

Luther could never have been able to foresee all the multiple consequences of his actions, and the division it would create in society. His actions were the seeds towards change, with much political division and bloodshed accompanying it. But isn’t this exactly what Jesus said would happen? That a Christian, standing up for truth, exposing the lie, will initiate division? Isn’t the Word is likened to a sword for this reason? To separate the lie from the truth? Jesus did say:

Luke 12:51 “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:”

If we had to list the points of agreement between current Baptists of today and the early Reformation leaders, it would include:

• Salvation is (solely) through faith alone, by Grace alone, through Christ alone, according to the scriptures alone, to God’s glory alone, (the five ‘solas’,’latin for ‘sole’). All five points had been corrupted by the catholic church and Baptists would certainly have supported the Reformers,
• Agreement with the unique authority of scripture as the norming norm as opposed to church councils or episcopal decrees,
• The sufficiency of scripture for everything in life, with the exclusion of any kind of new private revelations,
• The rejection of a sacramental form of salvation (no need for ritual),
• Salvation is a gift if God, freely given to those who trust and believe in Jesus of the bible.
• To deny that any man, the pope, or the Roman Catholic clergy are God’s legitimate authorities on earth.
•  To agree that spiritual responsibility rests with the local congregation and congregant and not with a centralized church body,
• To agree that Catholicism is anti-Christian.

However, if this agreement with reformers included agreeing with everything Martin Luther believed, then Baptists would not have been ‘at home’ in the Reformation. Luther opposed adult baptism. In addition, Baptists would not agree with the later reformers, like Calvin, who added things to the gospel which should not be there. Calvin was influenced by Augustinian thinking, which led Calvin to produce his five points of Calvinism. Baptists would disagree with every single point of those five, and reject these as unbiblical. Refer to Choice and Calvin, and Appendix F.

• Nevertheless, all bible believing Christians can be thankful for Luther’s courage of loosening the catholic grip on society and initiating the understanding that every person can read and own their own bibles independent of church organizations.

English translations: Which Greek base text?

Of all the bibles in currently in print, it is only the King James Version, and to a degree the New King James Version, that derives from the Byzantine New Testament Greek text. We contend that the Byzantine base text is the only Greek text that can be trusted as the most authentic base text. This seems very radical, but anyone making the effort to research the origins of their bible version, will quickly see that all bible versions other than the KJV (i.e. the NIV, ESV, NLT, RSV, etc.) derive from the 1881 ‘Westcott and Hort’ Greek text. These two men managed to convince the academic world that their compilation was better than the Byzantine text, despite the fact that all historic evidence points to the opposite.

The ‘new’ Greek text.

Westcott and Hort’s Greek text derives from three Greek manuscripts. The Codex Sinai(ticus), the Codex Vatican(us) and  the Alexandrian Codex. Together with some snippets called papyri, these are now designated as the Alexandrian text type. By a similar application of history and logic, it can easily be shown that the Codex Sinaiticus, found in a monastery in the Sinai desert, was likely to be corrupt to start off with, and with preciously little backup. Where backup was presented, guess where that came from? None other than the Vatican, with also a single document, the ‘Vaticanus’.

The Alexandrian Codex and papyri speak for themselves. They were found among Gnostic writings specifically denounced as heresies by the church fathers. The gospels of Thomas and Mary, and the ‘Book of Truth’, all clear departures from the faith, have the same Alexandrian heritage. For a very detailed documentary on the above watch  https://youtu.be/ukRCVDmiAts

Catholic Church a reliable source?

A simple question, to start of with, is to ask why the Catholic church, which has fought tooth and nail throughout the centuries to keep the bible away from the common man, would suddenly hail the discoverer of the Codex Sinaiticus, von Tischendorf, as a hero. Easily accessible history accounts that von Tischendorf had an audience at the Vatican with a number of Cardinals on his way to the Sinai.  After Tischendorf’s ‘discovery’ of the new manuscript, the Vatican also suddenly ‘discovered’ a forgotten manuscript in their archives which supported Tischendorf’s document. Why would the catholic church, who previously burnt and executed people who were caught in possession of a bible and made it their aim to destroy the bible-centered reformation, suddenly support a new Greek New Testament?  For a detailed history to back up the above, watch the “Lamp in the dark” series by Chris Pinto (YouTube link above https://youtu.be/ukRCVDmiAts , and the remainder of the series).

Most academics wrong?

The main question remains the following: Why on earth would one trust a small number of Alexandrian documents with a ~30% variance (forming the Westcott & Hort New Testament)  over 5300 documents with a 1-2% variance? (forming the Textus Receptus). How is it possible that academics can be blind to such overwhelming evidence? Refer to HM P2

You may object: “How can it be that most academics and colleges are wrong on this”? It is the same question raised in the evolution vs. creation debate. “How can all those evolution professors be wrong?” Surely they can’t all be wrong? Yes, they are, they are wrong as ~99% of Pharisees were wrong in Jesus’ day.The simple answer is that academics are the most likely candidates to value the opinion of men too highly, regarding their approval too highly.

That is the nature of deception, once a person swallows a lie he will defend it as the truth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Those accepting the ‘Westcott & Hort’ new testament went wrong in precisely the same manner as the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, the ‘professional academics’. They would not accept the overwhelming evidence that Jesus operated in the power of God and the Holy Spirit because He did not fit their perceptions. Acceptance and laudation among themselves and the commendation and applause of men had become their idol.

The danger zone for academia is that their jobs and their department grants  are locked into a system of compliance. Their ‘reputation’ among their peers is likely to cloud their thinking. Are they still independent readers of God’s word? Are they valuing the Word’s guidance more highly than the doctrines of their peers? Perhaps it is such men whose leadership should be trusted least of all. Rather do your own research and trust the evidence of history.

A hero?

You may now also ask: “Does this mean that Erasmus should be considered a hero, and that those who contributed to the new bible versions are all villains?” No, like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and any of the other reformers, Erasmus would also  have had his shortcomings. These were men that God used to influence history, but they remained just that, men. Men as likely to err in some fashion like all of us. No man is worthy to be elevated to hero status, every one errs somewhere along the way. We all need God’s mercy and forgiveness. Nevertheless God wants to use us, He accomplishes His purposes through us despite our failures.

As may be clearly seen in the Old Testament, God has his hand in all of history, despite the apparent chaotic outcomes. He is the only One we can trust. He is the only One who saves us (from ourselves, our fallen nature). The amazing thing is that He wants us to engage in this world even if we are going to mess things up somewhere. He wants us to give life a full go, relying on Him, on His Word and to acknowledge His presence with us along the way. Only He offers us the gift of gifts, Jesus Christ, as payment for our many omissions and sins.

Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. {12:3} Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. {12:4} And in that day shall ye say, Praise the LORD, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted. {12:5} Sing unto the LORD; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth. {12:6} Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee. (Isaiah 12:2-6)

For further detail of manuscripts relating to the Byzantine Greek text, refer to https://brandplucked.webs.com/byzantinetextlate.htm

Criticism against the TR and KJV (summary of https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/sorenson-ch10-3.html)

The charges that Erasmus was a Catholic are hollow. The more he studied the Scriptures, the farther he moved from Rome in his position. By life’s end, though never officially breaking with Rome, his associations were with Protestants; and he even espoused Anabaptist principles. The charges that King James I of England was a bawdy man and even a homosexual are unfounded. To the contrary, James Stuart was in many ways a devout man, married with children, and deeply interested in the things of God. Though unpolished and often lacking in social graces, there is no evidence of moral failure in his life. Such allegations have their root in bitter political enemies who vowed vengeance against him. The translators of the King James Version were demonstrably godly men with a degree of erudition never seen since in a body of translators. Moreover, the Anglican Church of 1600 was orthodox in its working as well as official theology. The charges against Erasmus, King James 1 and the translators are specious and without foundation. (see full article for more detail)

Vaticanus

There is no doubt that the Vaticanus Greek text, on which modern versions are based, must be viewed with great suspicion. The catholic church had been responsible for some of the greatest corruptions in Christianity. For a small sample refer to RC heresy list. The worst of it is the corruption of the gospel to a works-based gospel, requiring observance to rites and man-made rules to be saved. The Roman Catholic Church had teaches a corrupt view of salvation in which God initially infuses the individual with grace, but they must then cooperate with that grace and participate in the sacraments to achieve final justification. It is a faith + works salvation.

However, Jesus offers us salvation as a free gift, to be received while believing what He says is true, and not by our efforts to be ‘good’. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

The second worst offense is a centuries long Vatican imposition of prison and death sentences, for the simple ‘crime’ of a common man owning a bible. The Catholic church does not encourage a follower to read the bible. Why? Even a superficial reading of the bible will expose the heresies of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately all the modern Bible versions are based on the Vaticanus.

Modern Bible versions watering down the Word of God

With so many modern English versions in circulation it is easy to see that churches will naturally start gravitating towards a translation pleasing to all, probably one giving the least offense, the lowest common denominator. A translation that most people are comfortable with. Would that perhaps not also coincide with the translation that has the best marketing campaign in the bookstores and the most exiting commentaries perhaps? Anything is acceptable as long as it helps people read the bible, seems to be the logic.

The prophesied Apostasy (1 Tim 4:1 and 2 Thess 2:2-4), where Christians follow false teaching in great numbers, can only happen in a climate where the Word has been watered down, corrupted and misrepresented. The Bible is our only link to God’s Words, without it Christianity goes astray, is left powerless. At the same time such a climate can only exist where Christians prefer of the reasoning of supposedly educated men, whose philosophies leads them to folly. They forget that God’s power is more than sufficient to maintain His purposes with His own Word.

 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

Further examples to check for yourself:

True, unbelievers may still be saved using the modern Bible versions, because the gospel is still there. It is not possible to erase the gospel entirely, but the problem is deception. Many platforms for false teachers are possible when teaching from the modern versions, for example ‘being saved’ in 1 Cor 18 and 15:2, also in 2 Cor 2:15. There is no such thing as ‘being saved’ in the context implied here, that of a continuous process. The KJV correctly states ‘are saved’. The Gospel of John is 100% clear that salvation is a one-time event. Just as birth is a one time event, so is being born-again a one time event. It is not a process as the new versions imply. A process would imply that our efforts may have something to do with salvation.

Another easy to spot change in the new translations is that the word “hell” has been removed entirely from the modern bible versions.  It is nowhere to be found, it has been replaced by the pagan concept of ‘Hades’, even in the NKJV. Would you think that ‘Hades’ an easier concept to understand than hell?

Are the new translations not supposed to make the bible easier to understand? Or do they water it down, muddy it or dilute it? Does the vagueness make it more ‘palatable’ for modern sensibilities.

A further sample of deletions/additions/changes in sequential format may be accessed: click  KJVcompare 1 and KJVcompare 2 .

For a presentation-style comparison, refer to the later slides of the presentation 190804 Greek New Testaments V2.

Kings and Priests

An example of a subtle change would be Revelation 1:6: In the KJV we read: “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, {1:6} And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen” The new translations change this to “a kingdom of priests“. On its own it is a quite serious change, affecting our view, hope and expectation of our purpose in the millennium. However, Revelation 20:6 states that we will be ruling with Christ (we “shall reign with him a thousand years.”). We are His co-regents during the millennium. Hence the truth is still to be found elsewhere and the dilution, although serious, is compensated for.

Also read Rev 5:10 “And has made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” The serious reader of the bible is less likely to be affected by these corruptions, because they would be aware of the substantiating scriptures (We’ll find much backup in scripture on important doctrine). However, false teachers will use these single-verse corruptions to deceive weak Christians. For example, by using the corrupted Rev 1:6 verse above (a ‘kingdom of priests’), they may use it to substantiate their false ‘kingdom now’ theology. Google ‘NAR’ (new apostolic reformation) for more information

Internet misinformation: Unfortunately, it seems as if the attack on the Textus Receptus and the KJV has taken control of the internet. It is hard to find an objective article. However, the best test is to read your favorite New Testament chapters in the KJV for yourself, two or three times. The richness and authority of the Word will inspire and excite you. It does not take long to get used to the language. Although English is not our first language, we have grown to love the KJV. The scriptures have opened up wonderfully when reading the KJV.

For a reference and further explanations on the preservation of God’s word click https://creation.com/inspiration-of-scripture?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=%22The+Bible+is+inspired.%22+What+does+that+even+mean%3F&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2019.09.20

________________________________________________________

Old Testament versions.

Up to now we have only looked at the New Testament  source documents as used for the compilation of the Greek NT and the subsequent translation into English. The Old Testament source documents, fortunately, are much easier to trace, and the corruptions more easy to identify. For a presentation style summary of the Old Testament source documents, view the link 191109 OT Mss

Old Testament heritage

The Old Testament was passed down in four forms:

• The oral tradition – Hebrew teachers copied and memorized the text, then passed it down and transferred it orally from person to person over the years. Click Old Testament Source documents.
• The Masoretic text: – Compiled version of the oral tradition. (Hebrew) Refer to the link above for more information.
• The Septuagint:- (Greek translation of some Old Testament Hebrew documents)
• Dead Sea scrolls. (Hebrew writings, some of them with biblical content)

Introduction to the Septuagint and dead sea scrolls:

Have you ever wondered, when looking in the NIV Old Testament passages, at the bottom of the page, sometimes there will be a footnote that says, “In the Hebrew, it says…..”. If you have noticed this, you may be thinking: “I thought the whole Old Testament was written in Hebrew, that it was translated from the Hebrew”. So why does the NIV footnote then say, ‘This is what the Hebrew says’, and then present a translated text different to the Hebrew’?” Where does this NIV and ESV text then come from?

You’d be thinking, “I thought the NIV, ESV scholars were translating from the Hebrew.” Here is the big surprise, the NIV and ESV Old Testament is not totally translated from the Hebrew! Did you know that the modern versions don’t translate the whole Old Testament from the Hebrew? They’ll deviate from the Hebrew to go with what’s called “The Greek Septuagint”. This is a Greek translation of the Old Testament, because for some reason they seem to have no faith in the Hebrew Old Testament, that which has been passed down to us. They say, “Well, we got to go with the ‘older’ copies, which must be more reliable, and it’s the Greek Septuagint.” For some reason the Greek translation copy that survived the ages is older than the Hebrew copies. Does that make it more reliable than the original source language? Surely that is a huge assumption, presented with much rhetoric, but with no real backup.

These scholars then translate some Old Testament passages into English using a Greek OT Text! They translate the Old Testament from Greek, not the whole thing of course, but in certain places. They deviate from what the Hebrew says and replace it with the Greek. Then these scholars put a little note at the bottom that says, “Oh, by the way, here’s what the Hebrew says, but we skipped that.” Do you understand how outrageous this is?

• For more information on the Septuagint, click on the link Septuagint. also,
• For information  on the dead sea scrolls, refer to the link: Dead Sea Scrolls.

Personal Understanding:

We could not say that the new translations (NIV, ESV and the like) cannot used by God to speak to us, His people. Of course He does speak to us through His Word , in our spirit, by His Holy Spirit. There is such an abundance of truth is God’s Word that the efforts of some men and the ignorance of others which corrupt parts of it cannot possibly change it all. They may succeed in changing or corrupting some verses, but the truth will still come through in others.

Nevertheless, we clearly need to draw a line in the sand, to resist the corruption process and establish a benchmark. We need to realize that we already have a “go to” version in the KJV that can be trusted, and use this as the authoritative guide in our studies.

The most serious effect of the new translations, perhaps even greater than attempting to corrupt God’s Word, is that it attempts to erode the general view of the infallibility of God’s word.  Is Satan’s prime target not perhaps to erode our confidence in whether we are reading Jesus’ exact words? When anyone is confronted with the many differing versions, a person may well question what translation he should choose as the most reliable? Are the those words still God’s words?

Besides the attack on the individual’s confidence, the new translations have also lent credibility to the secular attack on the bible. Very few theologians will still have the confidence and faith to state openly that God has in fact preserved His Word, even he used fallible men to copy the original Greek and afterwards other men to translate it into English. Logically this attack is all too ridiculous. Could our Almighty Father, creator of the heavens, the earth and all contained in them, worker of great deeds and miracles, not accomplish a much simpler task, like preserving His Word?