AUTHORIZED VERSION VINDICATED #17
by
Benjamin Wilkinson PhD
CHAPTER XI
Blow After Blow Against the Truth
(Revised Texts and Margins)
THERE are many who claim that the changes in the Revised
Version did not affect any doctrine. Bishop Westcott reveals the
contrary. His utterances prove that the Revisers worked
systematically during the ten years of their task to make
alterations that by a repetition of details they might alter
articles of faith. This we have shown in the previous chapter.
They did not use the margin to indicate changes in the Greek text
as directed by Convocation; on the contrary they choked the
margin with preposterous readings designed to carry out "the
scheme" of Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot. "There is some hope,"
wrote Westcott to Hort, before revision began, when prospects of
a complete textual revision seemed small, "that alternative
readings might find a place in the margin." And they did, only
to sow, broadcast, doubts about the sacred utterances.
A further word from Bishop Westcott to show how
systematically the Revisers worked in making changes:
"For while some of the variations which we have noticed are in
themselves trivial, some are evidently important; but they all
represent the action of the same law; they all hang together;
they are samples of the general character of the Revision. And,
even if we estimate differently the value of the particular
differences which they express, we can certainly see that they do
express differences; and they are sufficient, I cannot doubt, to
encourage the student to consider in any case of change which
comes before him, whether there may not have been reasons for
making it which are not at once clear."
To show that it was the settled purpose as well as the
definite expectation on the part of the leaders in the movement
for revision, that doctrine should be changed, I will now quote
from the outstanding agitator for revision, who was also chairman
of the English New Testament Revision Committee, Bishop Ellicott:
"Passages involving doctrinal error. Here our duty is obvious.
Faithfulness, and loyalty to God's truth, require that the
correction should be made unhesitatingly. This class of cases,
will, however, embrace many different instances; some of real and
primary importance, some in which the sense will be but little
affected, when the error, grammatically great as it really may
be, is removed, and the true rendering substituted. For instance,
we shall have, in the class we are now considering, passages in
which the error is one of a doctrinal nature, or, to use the most
guarded language, involves some degree of liability to doctrinal
misconception."
I. Tradition Equals Scripture According to the Revised
1.
2 Tim. 3:16
KING JAMES: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."
REVISED: "Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable."
In this, the Revised follows the thought of the Douay. This
change in the Revised indicates that parts of the Scriptures may
not have been inspired. Therefore; as we are not able to judge
what is, and what is not inspired, the Catholics say that
tradition tests the inspiration and gives us the correct meaning.
The tradition of the Catholic Church corresponds to the higher
criticism of the so-called Protestants, only with this
difference, that the Catholics claim their higher criticism to be
infallible. On this point we will quote the note in the Douay on
this very passage, 2 Tim. 3:16.
"Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all
these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian
faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures,
which Timothy knew from his infancy. That is, with the Old
Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking
along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the
interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered
both the book, and the true meaning of it."
The Dublin Review (Catholic), July, 1881, speaking of the
changes in the Revised Version, shows clearly that Catholics see
how the Revised reading robs Protestantism of its stronghold, the
Bible. It says:
"It (Protestantism) has also been robbed of its only proof of
Bible inspiration by the correct rendering of 2 Tim.3:16."
Also the "Interior" says on this change:
"It is not very probable that Paul would utter an inconsequential
truism of that kind. No one need be told that a Scripture
inspired of God would be profitable, that would be taken for
granted; but what has needed to be known was just the truth that
Paul wrote, that'all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.'"
Knowing the views held by the Revisers, such a change as
this
could be expected. Many controlling members of the English New
Testament Revision Committee believed that "there may be parts of
the canonical books not written under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit."
2. John 5:39
KING JAMES: "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life."
REVISED: "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in
them," etc.
The command of the Saviour to search the Scriptures, as given in
the King James; establishes them as the source of life eternal
and the authority of true doctrine. The Revisers destroyed this
command. Is not this changing a fundamental doctrine?
On this point the Dublin Review (Catholic), July, 1881,
says:
"But perhaps the most surprising change of all is John 5:39. It
is no longer 'Search the Scriptures,' but 'Ye search;' and thus
Protestantism has lost the very cause of its being."
Other changes of passages, which we investigate following
this, affect the great doctrines of truth; the change now under
consideration affects the very citadel of truth itself. The
Church of England Convocation, which called the Revision
Committee into existence, authorized that Committee to correct
only "plain and clear errors" in the Received Text. Neither
Convocation, nor Protestant England expected it to be changed in
thousands of places.
When the Revised Version declares that parts of the Bible
may not have been inspired of God, (as in 2 Tim.3:16), the
defendant is forced to bear witness against itself. So far as the
Revised Version is concerned, the change destroys the
infallibility of that glorious citadel of revelation which for
centuries had been the standard of truth.
11. A Deadly Blow Against Miracles
I.
John 2:11
KING JAMES: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of
Galilee."
REVISED: "This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee."
The word "miracle" is found, singular and plural, thirty-two
times in the Authorized Version of the New Testament. Alas! What
desolation has been wrought by the Revised! In twenty-three of
these instances, the word "miracle" has entirely disappeared. In
the case of the other nine, although the term is used in the
text, its force is robbed by a weakening substitute in the
margin. While in the Old Testament, it has disappeared from the
Revised in the five instances where it occurs in the Authorized.
Modern religious liberalism finds consolation here. So the
Revisers have exposed believers in the Bible to the ridicule of
unbelievers because they describe the supernatural events of the
New Testament by belittling words. To describe the supernatural
in terms of the natural, indicates doubt in the supernatural. If
we persist in calling a mountain a molehill, it is evident that
we do not believe it is a mountain.
The Revisers, in persistently describing supernatural events
by ordinary terms, have changed doctrines respecting miracles.
And if they made such fundamental changes in these thirty-two New
Testament texts, all there was on the subject, what is this, but
systematic depravation of doctrine?
III. Doctrine of Conversion Undermined
1.
Matt.18:2,3
KING JAMES: "And Jesus ... said ... Except ye be converted,
and become as little children."
REVISED: "And He ... said ... Except ye turn, and become as
little children."
FERRAR FENTON "Then Jesus ... said: I tell you indeed, that if
you do not turn back."
Not only in this text but in all the rest (seven texts
altogether), "be converted" has been changed to "turn." On this
point we will use the following quotation which speaks for
itself:
"The Rev.Homersham Cox writes to the 'Church Times' in favor of
the New Revision because (as he says) it alters 'be converted'
into 'turn,' the former implying that the sinner is converted by
another, that is, the Holy Spirit, and the latter that he turns
or converts himself. He says: 'I have here given every passage
without exception in which the word converted in the passive
voice occurs in the older translation. In every one of these
instances the passive form is avoided in the new translation. The
change seems to be one of incalculable importance. The former
version teaches men that they are converted by a power external
to themselves; the later version teaches them to turn themselves.
In other words, the doctrine of superhuman conversion disappears
from the New Testament, and thus the main foundation of modern
Evangelicalism. is destroyed. Only a few Sundays ago it was my
misfortune to have to listen to a long 'Evangelical' sermon, the
whole burden of which was that men could not convert themselves.
This pernicious tenet is preached every year in myriads of
sermons, books, and tracts. I rejoice that it is now shown to be
unscriptural.'"
Also Dr. Milligan, commenting on this change in Matt.18:3
and in Acts 3:19, says that "the opening verb, though passive in
form, is properly rendered actively, and the popular error of men
being mere passive instruments in the hands of God thereby
exploded."
The dangerous doctrine of salvation by our own effort is
exalted; and the miracle-saving power of God in conversion, so
far as these texts are concerned, is thrust out of the New
Testament.
The Revised changes the doctrine of conversion, and that
change is a complete reversal of the doctrine.
IV. No Creation: Evolution Instead
We shall present a series of Scripture texts to exhibit how
the Revisers made the Bible teach the origin of the material
universe by evolution instead of by creation.
S.Parkes Cadman explains clearly how the German brain,
working in theology and higher criticism, manifested itself in
science and history, thus influencing Sir Charles Lyell to
produce his "Principles of Geology," which heralded the advent of
Evolution and contravened the cosmogonies of Genesis. Lyell
altered the whole tone of Darwin's thinking, and Darwin's
inquiries were vindicated in a revolution foreshadowed by
Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." In
this, Newman followed Mohler of Germany, and started the great
ritualistic movement in the Church of England, which blossomed
out into Revision. Both Westcott and Hort leaned heavily toward
Ritualism and Evolution.
Bishop Westcott says:
"Again 'world' answers to a plural or singular, 'the
ages,' or 'the age,' (Greek ....), in which creation is
regarded as a vast system unfolded from aeon to aeon, as an
immeasurable and orderly development of being under the condition
of time, of which each 'age,' or 'this age,' and 'the age to
come,' has its distinguishing characteristics, and so far is 'the
world.'"
This truth, he says, is "consistently preserved" in the
margin. That is, the unfolding of the 'vast system" from "age to
age" (evolution), is consistently preserved in the margin. In
other words, the Revisers consistently, consciously, and
intentionally, by their own confession, maintained the basal
theory of evolution in the margin. On the importance of "age" and
"ages" in the margin, I quote from Dr.Samuel Cox, editor of the
Expositor:
"And here I may remark, in passing, that in such marginal
readings as 'this age' and 'the coming age' which abound in our
New Version, there lie the germs, latent for the present, of far
larger doctrinal changes than either of those which I am now
suggesting."
1. Hebrews 11:3
KING JAMES: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were
framed by the word of God."
REVISED: "By faith we understand that the ages have been framed
by the word of God." (Margin.)
On this Westcott says:
"In this connection we see the full meaning of the words used of
creation in Hebrews 11:3: By faith we understand that the worlds
(the ages, i e. the universe under the aspect of time) have been
formed by the Word o f God ... The whole sequence of life in
time, which we call 'the world' has been 'fitted together' by
God. His one creative word included the harmonious unfolding on
one plan of the last issues of all that was made. That which is
in relation to Him 'one act at once' is in relation to us an
EVOLUTION apprehended in orderly succession." (Caps. Mine).
Bishop Westcott's interpretation of God's work in creation
is evolution, making room for the long geological ages.
Hort considered Darwin's theory of evolution "unanswerable."
Westcott and Hort, whose Greek New Testament was the basis
of the Revised, injected evolution into the Revised Version.
2.
Col. 1:15,16
KING JAMES: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
of every creature: For by Him were all things created."
REVISED: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of
all creation; for in Him were all things created."
Dr.G.Vance Smith, a member of the English New Testament
Revision Committee, commenting on Colossians 1:15,16
says:
"Is it not therefore probable that, in the very different
phraseology of Colossians, he is speaking of the promulgation of
Christianity and its effects under the figure of a spiritual
creation? ... Is it possible to think that this language can
refer to the material creation?"
The new language of the Revised in the judgment of this
Reviser, hinders the application of these texts to a material
creation, as in the King James, and limits them as a spiritual
application to Christianity.
3.
Hebrews 1:2 (last part)
KING JAMES' "By whom also He made the worlds."
REVISED: "Through whom also He made the ages." (Margin.)
By this change the door is opened to spiritualizing away
creation.
V. The Person of Christ
The "Person of Christ" is the evangelical phraseology used
to express a doctrine which is taught in a way that tends to
Rome.
Some make it the central principle of all doctrines, and
especially of ritualistic practices. This is shown by the
following words from a ritualistic clergyman:
"Let every one who hears you speak, or sees you worship, feel
quite sure that the object of your devotion is not an idea or a
sentiment, or a theory ... but a real personal King and Master
and Lord: present at all times everywhere in the omnipresence of
His Divine nature, present by His own promise, and His own
supernatural power in His Human Nature too upon His Altar-Throne,
there to be worshiped in the Blessed Sacrament as really, and
literally, and actually, as you will necessarily worship Him when
you see Him in His beauty in Heaven."
This ritualistic clergyman believed that preachers (or
priests) have power to change the wafer into the actual body of
Christ.
1.
1 Tim.3:16
KING JAMES: "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh," etc.
AMERICAN REVISED: "And without controversy great is the mystery
of godliness; He who was manifest in the flesh," etc.
On the change of "He who" for "God," Bishop Westcott says:
"The reader may easily miss the real character of this deeply
instructive change. The passage now becomes a description of the
essential character of the gospel, and not simply a series of
historical statements. The gospel is personal. The gospel 'the
revelation of godliness' is, in a word, Christ Himself, and not
any propositions about Christ."
The Revisers made this change which confounds Christ with
the movement He instituted, the gospel, and leads our minds away
from Christ, the person on His heavenly throne, to Christ, the
bread of the Lord's supper, (Mass), on the ritualistic
altar-throne.
What is this, if not a change of doctrine? Bishop Westcott
was conscious of the change the Revisers were making in this
reading.
On this the Princeton Review says:
"Making Christianity a life - the divine-human life of Christ -
has far-reaching consequences. It confounds and contradicts the
Scriptural and church doctrine as to the Person of Christ."
2.
Acts 16:7
KING JAMES: "But the Spirit suffered them not."
AMERICAN REVISED: "And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not."
The Douay is like the Revised. On this change Dr.George Milligan
says:
"Acts 16:7 ... the striking reading, 'the Spirit of Jesus' (not
simply as in the Authorized Version 'the Spirit') implies that
the Holy Spirit had so taken possession of the Person of the
Exalted Jesus that He could be spoken of as 'the Spirit of
Jesus.'"
By this change they identified Jesus, the second Person of
the Trinity, with the Holy Spirit, the third Person. (Well
technically, the Godhead is not three individual persons sitting
together in heaven - it is God the Father and Christ at His right
hand - that is all you can find in the New Testament - Keith
Hunt). The evident purpose of this change is to open the way to
teach ideas of the Person of Jesus different from the generally
accepted Protestant view. As the Princeton Review says concerning
the doctrine of the Person of Christ as held by Dr.Philip Schaff,
President of both American Committees of Revision, and by his
former associate, Dr.Nevin:
"It is impossible to understand the writings of Drs.Nevin and
Schaff on this whole subject without a knowledge of the
pantheistic philosophy ... It led men to look on the church as
the development of Christ, very much as that philosophy regards
the universe as the development of God."
VI. The Virgin Birth
1.
Isaiah 7:14
KING JAMES: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son."
REVISED: "Behold the maiden (margin) shall conceive and bear a
son."
This change gives room to doubt the virgin birth of
Christ. Dr.G.Vance Smith says:
"The meaning of the words of Isaiah may, therefore, be presented
thus: 'Behold the young wife is with child.'"
VII. Change in the Doctrine of Atonement
1.
1 Cor.5:7
KING JAMES: "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for
us."
REVISED: "For our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even
Christ."
One writer thus registers his indignation upon the
change made in this passage:
"Mad? Yes; and haven't I reason to be mad when I find that grand
old passage, 'For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for
us' - a passage which sounds the keynote of the whole doctrine of
redemption - unnecessarily changed into, 'For our Passover also
hath been sacrificed, even Christ'? And we have such changes
everywhere. They are, I believe, called improvements in style by
their authors - and certainly by no one else."
That Christ our Passover was sacrificed is an historical
fact; that He was sacrificed "for us" is a doctrine and the very
basis on which the gospel rests. Take away the fact that He died
"for us," as the Revisers did in this text, and there is no
gospel left.
The leading Revisers, in particular, Westcott and Hort,
rejected the idea that Christ was our "substitute and sacrifice"
Of course, Dr.G.Vance Smith, the Unitarian member of the Revision
Committee, did the same. The widespread refusal today by
Christian ministers of many churches to admit we owe this debt to
our Lord Jesus Christ, who in His divine Person died in our
place, is largely due to those influences which gave us the
Revised Version. Changes which on first reading seem slight, when
examined and read in the light of the intentional change, are
seen to be fatal.
VIII. A Blow Against the Resurrection of the Body
1.
Job 19:25,26
KING JAMES: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall
stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."
AMERICAN REVISED: "But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and at last He will stand up upon the earth: and after my skin,
even this body, is destroyed, then without my flesh shall I see
God."
What need is there of a resurrection of the body, if,
without our flesh, we can see God? The tendency to make the
resurrection from the tomb only a spiritual event is as great
today as in the first Christian centuries.
2.
Acts 24:15
KING JAMES: "That there shall be a resurrection of the dead
both of the just and unjust."
REVISED: "That there shall be a resurrection both of the just and
unjust."
The omission of the phrase "of the dead" makes it easier to
spiritualize away the resurrection.
IX. Doctrine of the Second Coning of Christ Radically
Changed
1.
Matt.24:3
KING JAMES: "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end
of the world?"
REVISED: "What shall be the sign of Thy presence (margin) and of
the consummation of the age." (Margin.)
"The consummation of the age" in no sense means the same
thing as "the end of the world." "The end of the world" is the
appointed time for human history, under the reign of sin, to
close. The earth must be purified by fire before being again
inhabited by man. "The consummation of the age" might mean only
some change from one epoch to another, national, scientific,
educational, or dispensational. How systematically this
substitution is thrust forward in the margin by the Revisers is
shown by its recurrence in the other passages in which the phrase
"end of the world" occurs, namely, Matt.13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20.
A similar substitution is found in Heb.13:21.
Another depravation in the doctrine of the Second Coming of
Christ is the substitution of "presence" for "coming" in the
margin of the text under consideration. "Presence" does not mean
return; it rather signifies continuous nearness. But "coming"
refers to Christ's Second Advent in glory, at the end of the
world, to raise the righteous dead and confer immortality on all
righteous living or resurrected. How systematically the Revisers
have gone about this, displacing the true idea of the Advent, may
be seen in the twenty other verses where "coming" as it refers to
Christ's Second Advent is changed into "presence," namely, Matt.
24:27,37,39; 1 Cor.15:23; 2 Cor.7:7; Phil.1:26; 2:12; 1 Thess.
2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess.2:1,8,9; Jas.5:7,8; 2 Peter 1:16;
3:4,12; 1 Jno.2:28. These marginal changes give notice that the
ordinary orthodox interpretation of these verses is not a sure
one. Westcott, one of the Revisers, says:
"His advent, if it is in one sense future, is in another sense
continuous."
According to Westcott, Christ came at the time of Genesis,
first chapter, at the fall of Jerusalem, and many times in the
past: in fact, is "coming" to us now.
2.
Phil.3:20,21
KING JAMES: "Who shall change our vile body that it may be
fashioned like unto His glorious body."
REVISED: "Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that
it may be conformed to the body of His glory."
The change in us indicated by the King James according to
this
and other Scriptures, is a change that occurs only at the Second
Coming of Christ; it is a physical change of tangible reality.
But the change called for by the Revised may occur at any time
before His Coming, or be continuous; it may be a change from
abstract vices to abstract virtues.
3.
2 Thess.2:2
KING JAMES: "That you be not soon shaken in mind ... as that
the day of Christ is at hand."
REVISED: "That ye be not quickly shaken from your mind ... as
that the day of the Lord is now present."
When an event is "at hand" it has not yet come; but when it
is "now present" it is here. Without offering an opinion which is
the correct rendering, there is certainly here a change of
doctrine. If the day of the Lord "is now present," it is in no
sense, "at hand."
4.
Titus 2:13
KING JAMES: "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious
appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ."
REVISED: "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
By changing the adjective "glorious" to the noun "glory,"
the Revisers have removed the Second Coming of Christ from this
text.
In the King James Version the object of our hope is the
appearing of Christ, which is a personal and a future and an
epochal event. In the Revised Version, the object of our hope is
changed to be the appearing of the glory of Christ, which may be
the manifestation among men, or in us, of abstract virtues, which
may appear at any time and repeatedly in this present life.
5.
Rev.1:7
KING JAMES: "He cometh with clouds ... and all kindreds of the
earth shall wail because of Him."
REVISED: "He cometh with the clouds ... and all the tribes of
the earth shall mourn over Him."
How great is the change intended here, let the Reviser,
Bishop Westcott himself, state:
"All the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him in penitential
sorrow, and not, as the Authorized Version, shall wail because of
Him, in the present expectation of terrible vengeance."
It is well known that many of the Revisers believed in what
they called, The Larger Hope, or Universal Salvation, which the
translators of the King James did not believe. Westcott admits
the Revisers made the change, in order to make the change of
doctrine.
6.
Acts 3:19
Here again the Revisers plead guilty to changing doctrine.
That the reading of Acts 3:19,20 was changed because the Revisers
held different views on the Second Coming of Christ from the men
of 1611, a member of the English New Testament Committee, Dr.
Alexander Roberts, testifies:
"Acts 3:19,20. An impossible translation here occurs in the
Authorized Version, in which we read: 'Repent ye therefore, and
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times
of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He
shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you.' For
eschatological reasons, it is most important that the true
rendering of this passage should be presented. It is thus
given in the Revised Version: 'Repent ye, therefore; and turn
again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so seasons of
refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He
may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, (even)
Jesus.'"
"For eschatological reasons" he says, that is, for reasons
springing from their view on last things, not for textual
reasons, it was "most important" to change the rendering. Most of
the Revisers did not believe there would be a personal return of
Jesus before the restitution of all things which the Authorized
rendering of this passage teaches.
Hort, another Reviser, says: "There is a present unveiling
of Him simply as He is, without reference to any special action
of His, such as came to St.Paul on his conversion. There are
apparently successive unveilings of Him, successive Days of the
Lord. There is clearly indicated, a supreme unveiling, in which
glory and judgment are combined."
G.Vance Smith, another Reviser, says: "This idea of the
Second Coming ought now to be passed by as a merely temporary
incident of early Christian. Like many another error, it has
answered TO transitory purpose in the providential plan, and may
well, at length, be left to rest in peace."
Thus this Reviser dismisses the Second Coming of Christ as a
temporary, erroneous idea among the early Christians.
X. Blows Against the Law of God--The Ten Commandments
1.
Rev.22:14
KING JAMES: "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that
they may have right to the tree of life."
REVISED: "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may
have the right to the tree of life."
Man keeping the commandments of God, and man washing his
robes in the blood of Christ, are two different doctrines, the
latter applies to forgiveness for past sins, the former applies
to so abiding in Christ as to avoid sinning, or breaking the
commandments. No man washes his robes by keeping the
commandments; that would be salvation by works. Shall we be
sinning and repenting (that is, washing our robes) as we enter
through the gates into the eternal city? Evidently not, since
three verses previous, verses 11 to 13, present the eternally
redeemed as settled in a holy and righteous condition obedient to
His commandments and ready to enter through the gates into the
city. The Revisers have dislocated this verse from its place
in the scheme of the last chapter of the Bible. If, instead of
being holy and righteous still, that is, keeping God's
commandments, the redeemed are sinning and repenting still, or
"washing their robes," they are not ready to say, "Even so, Lord
Jesus, come quickly." The entire book of Revelation is in
agreement with the King James translation of this verse, since
commandment keeping is an outstanding characteristic of those who
wait for the return of their Lord. (See Rev.12:17; 14:12.)
Revelation 22:14 gives final emphasis to this characteristic. The
Authorized rendering is clear and definite, but the Revised is
obscure and misleading.
2.
Acts 13:42
KING JAMES: "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue,
the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them
the next sabbath."
REVISED: "And as they went out, they besought that these words
might be spoken to them the next Sabbath."
The Authorized Version pictures to us the congregation,
composed of Jews and Gentiles. By this distinction it reveals
that a number of the Gentiles were present and desired all their
Gentile friends to hear the same message the next Sabbath. Since
the Sabbath came in for special mention (see verse 27), and since
the Gentiles requested a special meeting on the following
Sabbath, and waited for it, we see that the great truth announced
by Christ, that "the Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:28), was
brought home to the Gentiles. All this is lost in the Revised
Version by failing to mention the Jews and the Gentiles. Thus the
Authorized Version is consistent with itself throughout, a divine
harmony. Here the Revised strikes an absolute discord. Does not
this affect fundamental doctrine?
XI. Affecting Scientific Teaching of the Bible
1.
Mark 7:19
KING JAMES: "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into
the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?"
REVISED: "Because it goeth not into his heart, but into his
belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all
meats clean."
In the Old Testament system of sacrifices, God never
accepted the offering of an unclean beast. Moreover, He forbade
the use of unclean meats as food. In translating the above
Scripture, there is nothing in the King James which breaks down
this distinction.
Who said that the Revisers had the right to alter what God
anciently ordained?
"But by the change of a single letter in the Greek," says
Milligan on this passage, "a new reading is gained, and the verse
now concludes--'This He said, making all meats clean,' being the
Evangelist's comment upon what he has just recorded, a comment
that gains still further in significance when we remember that
St.Mark's Gospel was in all probability largely dependent upon
the recollections of the apostle Peter, who was taught in so
striking a manner that in God's sight nothing is
common or unclean. Acts 10:9-16."
Peter said that by the vision of Acts 10, "God hath chewed
me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28.
And later he said that "God made choice amongst us, that the
Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel." Acts
15:7. Who gave the Revisers the right to say that the vision sent
by God to Peter to break down the differences between Jew and
Gentile was sent to abolish the age-long distinction between
clean and unclean meats, and which exists in the very nature of
the unclean animals as contrasted with the clean?
2.
Luke 23:44,45
KING JAMES: "And there was a darkness over the whole earth until
the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened."
REVISED: "A darkness came over the whole land until the ninth
hour, the sun's light failing."
MOFFATT: "And darkness covered the whole land till three
o'clock, owing to an eclipse of the sun."
The Greek text of the Revisers on this passage and the Greek
text of Moffatt is the same; the Greek text of the King James is
different. The Greek text of the Revisers says there was an
eclipse of the sun, (Greek .... ). Moffatt honestly translated
his mutilated Greek thus, "owing to an eclipse of the sun." The
Revisers failed to do it. Since an eclipse of the sun is
physically impossible at the time of a full moon which was
shining the night of Christ's burial, this shows that the Greek
text of the Revisers, heralded among us with high praises, was
scientifically incorrect and impossible. Moffatt was true to his
Greek, even if he had adopted the same Greek MS. as the Revisers.
The Revisers were not.
X11.
The Ascension
1.
Mark 16:9-20
These verses which contain a record of the ascension are
acknowledged as authority by the King James, but separated by the
Revised from the rest of the chapter to indicate their doubtful
value. This is not surprising. Dr.Hort, the evil genius of the
Revision Committee, cannot say anything too derogatory of these
twelve verses. In this he is consistent; for he believes the
story of the ascension was not entitled to any place in any
Gospel:
"The violence of Burgon's attack on the rejectors of the
conclusion of St.Mark's Gospel seems somewhat to have disturbed
Hort's calmness of judgment, and to have made him keen-sighted to
watch and close every possible door against the admission of the
disputed verses. In this case he takes occasion to profess his
belief not only that the story of the Ascension was no part of
St.Mark's Gospel, but that it ought not to find a place in any
Gospel."
The rejection of the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel, or
rather setting them off to one side as suspicious, either indicts
the church of past ages as a poor keeper and teacher of Holy
Writ, or indicts the Revisers as exercising an extreme and
unwarrantable license.
WHOLE SECTIONS OF THE BIBLE AFFECTED BY THE REVISED VERSION
The Revised Version mutilates the main account of the Lord's
prayer in the Gospel of Matthew, by leaving out the words, "For
thine is the kingdom; and the power and the glory forever, Amen."
Matt.6:13.
It mutilates the subsidiary account of the Lord's prayer in
Luke 11:2-4, so that this last prayer could be prayed to any
man-made god. It omits "which art in heaven," from "Our Father,
which art in heaven;" leaves out the words, "thy will be done, as
in heaven so in earth," etc.
It is worthy to remark here that this mutilation of the
Lord's prayer in both these places was the subject of fierce
controversy between the Reformers and the Jesuits from 1534-1611,
the Reformers claiming Jerome's Vulgate and the Jesuit Bible in
English translated from the Vulgate were corrupt. The Revisers
joined the Jesuits in this contention, against the Reformers. Dr.
Fulke, Protestant, said in 1583:
"What your vulgar Latin translation hath left out in the latter
end of the Lord's prayer in St.Matthew, and in the beginning and
midst of St.Luke, whereby that heavenly prayer is made imperfect,
not comprehending all things that a 'Christian man ought to pray
for, besides many other like omissions, whether of purpose, or of
negligence, and injury of tim, yet still by you defended, I spare
to speak of in this place."
Matthew 17:21 is entirely omitted. Compare also Mark 9:29
and 1 Cor.7:5. On this the Dublin Review says: "In many places in
the Gospels there is mention of 'prayer and fasting.' Here
textual critics suspect that an ascetic bias, has added the
fasting, so they expunge it, and leave in prayer only. If an
'ascetic bias' brought fasting in, it is clear that a bias, the
reverse of ascetic, leaves it out."
It sets off to one side and brands with suspicion, the
account of the woman taken in adultery. Jno. 8:1-11. See how Luke
9:55,56 is shortened:
KING JAMES: "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."
AMERICAN REVISED: "But He turned, and rebuked them. And they went
to another village."
Acts 8:37. This text is omitted in the English and American
Revised.
Notice Eph.5:30:
KING JAMES: "For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and
of His bones."
AMERICAN REVISED: "Because we are members of His body."
Behold how greatly this verse is cut clown in the Revised!
See how, in 2 Timothy 4:1, the time of the judgment is
obliterated, and Christ's Second Coming is obscured:
KING JAMES: "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord
Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His
appearing and His kingdom."
AMERICAN REVISED: "I charge thee in the sight of God, and of
Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by His
appearing and His kingdom."
It changes Revelation 13:10 from a prophecy to a general
axiomatic statement, and, in the margin, places a black mark
against the passage:
KING JAMES: "He that leadeth into captivity, shall go into
captivity."
AMERICAN REVISED: "If any man is for captivity, into captivity he
goeth."
Without presenting any more examples, and the changes are
many, we will offer the words of another which will sum up in a
brief and interesting way, the subject under consideration:
"By the sole authority of textual criticism these men have dared
to vote away some forty verses of the inspired Word. The Eunuch's
Baptismal Profession of Faith is gone; and the Angel of the Pool
of Bethesda has vanished; but the Angel of the Agony remains -
till the next Revision. The Heavenly Witnesses have departed, and
no marginal note mourns their loss. The last twelve verses of St.
Mark are detached from the rest of the Gospel, as if ready for
removal as soon as Dean Burgon dies. The account of the woman
taken in adultery is placed in brackets, awaiting excision. Many
other passages have a mark set against them in the margin to show
that, like forest trees, they are shortly destined for the
critic's axe. Who can tell when the destruction will cease?"
Dublin Peview, July, 1981.
...................
NOTE:
As Wilkinson says, many indeed are the alterations and just
"vanishes" of words and phrases and sentences, in all the modern
New Testament Bibles that follow the Greek of Westcott and Hort,
based mainly upon TWO Roman Catholic manuscripts, ONLY coming to
light in the middle of the 19th century. These revisers gave the
modern Bible to modern people, who read every little if any, of
the Bible. Go to some modern Sunday observing churches, as I have
done over the years, and you will find few carrying a Bible
period! You will find music, and all kinds of entertaining
"stuff" thrown up on a stage and screen, to please the people,
but little real Bible reading or studying is done. And that study
which may be done by some churches, is often from the corrupt
Greek manuscripts of Westcott and Hort. And so as Revelation 12:9
says, Satan the Devil has indeed deceived the WHOLE world!
Keith Hunt
|
