Why use a King James Bible? by Jim Pattison
A brief word of acknowledgment No thanks go to Perry Rockwood, who
on 2 occasions of personal discussion, refused to allow me to either
quote from or to post significant portions of his tracts or booklets on
this or other topics in a computer system.
Introduction
Most people are familiar with how I became a Christian, but for
those who have not heard, here is how it happened. I trust you will let
me tell it for it has an intimate bearing on the issue we are supposed
to be talking about. I became a Christian by listening to the "witness"
from a Mormon friend of mine. In the discussions which followed, it
became clear to me that what he was telling me was not in keeping with
the Bible. I did not know that much about the Bible except that it was
a very hard thing to read and understand when I was young. All I saw
was the King James while I was at home, and I still remember in Grade 4
Sunday School standing in front of the General session and reading
about Jesus being put in a sepulcher. I could not say the word and how
embarrassed I was. I was also told as I grew up that you needed to go
off to school to learn how to understand the Bible because it was so
hard to read.
When I was listening to my Mormon friend explain his faith to me, I
happened to mention this to a girl who lived in the same University
residence as I did. She invited me to her church. It was a Baptist
church (I had been told that Baptists were the scum of the earth while
at home), but I went anyway. It was there that I saw people who told me
that the Bible was God's way of communicating with us, and if we asked
Him through prayer to help us to gain insights, God would do that. They
did not use King James only, and neither do I to this day.
I accepted Christ as my Saviour after some discussion with them
about Christianity (and Mormonism). I went out and got a Bible of my
own (a Today's English Version) and found it fairly easy to understand.
I started depending on it less and less, especially when I was at a
Bible study on Psalm 1 and had to interrupt the leader to verify that
he was reading and expounding the same passage that I was reading. As
it happened, he was talking about the importance of some parts which
did not make it into the TEV.
I wanted to avoid telling anyone about the research I had done to
disprove Mormonism after I accepted Christ as Saviour, but the Lord
seemed to keep bringing people into my path who needed to know what I
had found out. One thing I found out was that the Book of Mormon had
undergone some pretty severe changes from 1830 when it was written by
Joseph Smith to the time I first had one stuck in my hand in 1980. In
those 150 years, there were in excess of 8,000 changes made in the Book
of Mormon. Can you imagine the shock that went through me the first
time I read that there were some 5,700 or more changes between the
Greek text that the KJV was translated from compared to the text that
all the other Bibles was translated from? It got worse though, for I
heard that there was something in excess of 24,000 changes in the KJV
when compared to the NASB which I had been using. I had been sharing
with some Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and these people showed me
some things which were changed in the newer versions that made a big
difference.
Before you say that if the King James is the most accurate, then
what about the rest of the world? I was not talking about the rest of
the world. We are talking in English right now, so let's stick to that.
If the Bible comes from the same Greek source as the KJV, nobody is
going to have trouble with it.
Before you say "OH BUT THE LANGUAGE IS ARCHAIC AND I CAN'T ALWAYS
UNDERSTAND IT", I will beat you to it. However, for reasons which will
become clear in the reading of the remainder of this, you will see that
the KJV is more accurate because of where it was translated from.
I like a quote from Mark Twain about the Bible. He said that others
thought the Bible was hard to understand, and that bothered them. As
far as he was concerned, the parts that bothered him the most were the
parts that he COULD understand.
For those who insist the KJV is too hard to understand, let me tell
you that a reading specialist who is an acquaintance of mine informed
me that the KJV is written at the level of our Grade 6. I have checked
out what he said with a program called PC-STYLE and found the highest
grade level I get on the Bible is Grade 7. This document will check out
typically about Grade 14 or 15 on its scale.
What we are supposed to be talking about. Textus Receptus is the
manuscript which the KJV was based on was used in the church almost
universally until 1881. It was the results of a text by Erasmus (1516)
Stunica (1546 and revisions in 1549, 1550, and 1551) Beza (1559-1598)
the Elzivirs (1624, 1633). The name came from the Elzivirs which
described their work as with the manuscript commonly received by the
people. (13)
There are 5,000 changes made between texts from which the NIV and
KJV are translated.( 8 p.17)
The Alexandrian Text is the one which all other translations are
based on and it has been used since 1881. Some history of how the
Alexandrian text came to be is needed. Justin Martyr (approx 100 A.D.)
was a pagan priest who mixed Gnosticism with Christianity.(2) Tatian
was a disciple (approx 150 A.D.) of Justin Martyr who also embraced
Gnosticism. (2) Clement was a disciple (approx 200 A.D.) of Tatian. He
taught that there was no heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ,
and no infallible Word of God. (2) Clement also set up a school in
Alexandria where he taught a number of men his thoughts on the Bible.
Origen was a disciple of Clement and followed in the role of Clement at
the Alexandrian School. In addition, he felt that baptism was required
for salvation. (2) When Constantine took over leadership in 311 A.D.,
the country became officially Christian. In 330 A.D., Constantine
ordered 50 Bibles for churches on Vellum (animal skins). Eusebius was
sent to Alexandria to get them. They became the official version. (12)
Eusebius trained at the Alexandrian School with Origen. He was the
editor of two manuscripts - Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which the
early church leaders recognized as corrupt.(2)
In 385 A.D., Jerome (a follower of Origen and Eusebius) translated
the Bible into Latin for the Roman Church. This version was known as
Jerome's Vulgate or the Vulgate. It is still a standard work in the
Roman Church today. Greek became a dead language as far as the Bible
was concerned for about 1100 years.(12) Tischendorf in 1869 was the
first Protestant to find and use Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to
construct a Greek New Testament. (2)
It was not until 1516 that Erasmus published a Greek New Testament
that became the benchmark as far as New Testaments are concerned.(2)
In 1517, Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Church at
Wittenburg. Luther did not like Erasmus, but did use his New Testament
to translate the Luther Bible. Think about this one: Every Reformer (ex
Roman Catholic) left the Church of Rome and used a New Testament in the
line of the Textus Receptus. This includes Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.
Nobody used the other MSS until 1881. (2)
The first Bible which was printed using the techniques with which we
are familiar was in 1450 and was known by several names including the
Guttenburg Bible after the man who developed the process.
The first complete Bible in English was the Wycliffe Bible. John
Wycliffe was responsible for translating the Vulgate into English. (11)
Tyndale used Greek texts in the line which Erasmus used to make his
translation. It first appeared in 1526, and possession of a copy in
England was made a crime punishable by death.(11)
Miles Coverdale's Bible was published in 1535. His was the first
complete Bible in English and with Royal authority.
Matthew's Bible- The King's Printers engaged John Rogers to revise
Coverdale's Bible. He put his out in the name of Thomas Matthew (hence
the name) Rogers was a friend of Tyndale's before Tyndale was martyred.
The Taverner's Bible was a revision of Matthew's Bible and was
published in 1539. It was printed without the woodcuts which were a
prominent part of the Matthew's Bible.
The Great Bible got its name from the size of the pages. The pages
were 15" long and 9" wide. With regard to content, it was a revision of
both Tyndale's and Matthew's Bible.
The Geneva Bible was published from Geneva in 1557 (New Testament)
1560 (whole Bible) after many Godly people fled the reign of Bloody
Mary in England. Under Bloody Mary, the Great Bible was suppressed. It
once more became the authorized Bible under Elizabeth. It was revised
to give rise to the Bishop's Bible in 1568 and revised in 1572. The
need for another version of the Bible was felt, and in 1604, there was
a conference called and Dr. Reynold suggested a new translation. James
I consented to the idea because of his dislike of previous editions.
The measures taken to complete this version were the most complete of
any version and is to this day [1906] unrivaled for its simplicity,
compendium of literary excellencies and a more accurate translation of
the Bible. Bibles which are in the line of the Textus Receptus are
Erasmus' NT, Tyndale's Bible, The Geneva Bible, Coverdale's Bible and
the King James. (11)
How the KJV was translated. There were 54 men who were believers and
scholars that were called by King James to form the committee which was
responsible for the production of the King James Bible.(11,12) Due to
death and other causes, 7 were unable to serve. (11).The remainder were
divided up into 6 groups presided by Bishop Andrewes, and the Bible was
divided into 6 parts.(11) Each group received a portion of Scripture to
translate, and when each group was finished with the translation of
their section, it was passed on to each other group in turn, who
verified the translation was an accurate one. (11) When the Bible was
assembled, it was given to one of the groups to verify that the entire
Bible was translated accurately.(12)
The translation was divided up in the following manner:
Genesis to 2 Kings
Bishop Andrewes, President, Bishop of Winchester Bishop Overall,
Bishop of Norwich Saravia, Prebendary of Westminister Clerke, one of 6
preachers Layfield, Rector of St. Clement Danes Teigh, Archdeacon of
Middlesex Burleigh Bishop Kinge, Bishop of London Thomson Bedwell,
Vicar of Tottenham.
1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes
Professor Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew, President Master
Richardson, Master of Trinity Master Chaderton, Master of Emmanuel
Dillingham, Rector of Dean, Beds Harrison, Vice-Master of Trinity
Master Andrewes, Master of Jesus College Spaldynge, Fellow of St.
John's Archdeacon Byng, Archdeacon of Norwich.
Isaiah to Malachi
Professor Hardynge, Regius Professor of Hebrew, President of
Magdalen, President Rainolds, President of Corpus Christi Holland,
Rector of Exeter College and Regius Professor of Divinity Kilby, Rector
of Lincoln College Smith, Bishop of Gloucester and writer of Preface
Brett, Fellow of Chelsea College Fareclowe, Provost of Chelsea College
The Apocrypha
Master Duport, Master of Jesus, Prebendary of Ely, President Master
Braithwaite, Master of Gonville and Caius Master Ward, Master of Sidney
Sussex Downes, Regius Professor of Greek Bois, Prebendary of Ely Ward,
Prebendary of Chichester
Gospels, Acts and Revelation
Bishop Ravis, Bishop of London, President Archbishop Abbot,
Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop Montague, Bishop of Winchester Dean
Thompson, Dean of Windsor Sir Henry Savile, Warden of Merton Ravens
-Regius Professor of Greek and now Warden of Winchester Harmer -Regius
Professor of Greek and now Warden of Winchester
The Epistles
Bishop Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, President Hutchinson Spencer,
Fellow of Corpus Christi, Cambridge Fenton, Prebendary of St. Paul's
Rabbett Archdeacon Sanderson, Archdeacon of Rochester Dakin, Gresham
Professor of Divinity (11)
About the Translators
Dr. Lanselot Andrewes, the one presiding over the entire translation
spoke 20 languages fluently and spent 5 hours a day in prayer. Dr. John
Reynolds spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time
he was 8. Dr. John Boise spoke Hebrew by 5 and Greek by 14 and spent
from 4:00 am to 8:00 pm studying. Dr. Miles Smith spoke Chaldean,
Arabic and Syrian as well as English. Dr. William Bedwell was the
father of Arabic Studies in Britain and wrote Lexicons in Arabic,
Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean.(2)
In addition to the linguistic capabilities of these men, every one
of them was a believer. So when their credentials and accomplishments
are compared with the Revision Committee, there is an obvious
difference.
The Oxford Movement
Westcott and Hort were professors at Cambridge and liberal
theologians and unbelievers. (12, 6 p.230f) Some people I talked to
recently indicated to me that Westcott and Hort were Jesuits that were
out to subvert Christianity through diverse means. There is no evidence
that I have found to substantiate this statement, but it is a matter of
common knowledge that they were liberal theologians, denied the
inspiration and preservation of the Bible, and were peripherally
involved with the Oxford Movement- ( 6 p.230 ff) a movement in which an
Anglican minister named Newman went to the Roman Church with about 100
of his co-workers. This Oxford Movement started a few years before the
translation began in 1870.
Reformation thought in England during the 16th and 17th centuries
rested more in a national protest against Rome than in religious
appreciation of the Reformation. It cannot be denied that the men in
the Oxford Movement crossed from Protestantism to Catholicism when they
start teaching that justification is gained by INFUSION through
primarily the sacraments as well as other things. (6 p.206 ff)
Rockwood in his material on Westcott and Hort has some quotes which
I cannot use but can recommend them to your reading. They have to do
with the emphasis these men placed on the sacraments.
Westcott and Hort Translation
Westcott and Hort were outstanding Greek scholars at the time and
were asked to serve on a committee to revise the Bible. One member of
the committee to revise the Bible was a Unitarian. When believers asked
what input he might have in the process, Westcott and Hort said that if
they were to put the Unitarian off the committee, they would leave as
well. Since Westcott and Hort were outstanding scholars, the committee
decided not to ask the Unitarian to leave. (12)
The committee was asked to update the language of the KJV and make
it current with the language of the time. Westcott and Hort brought
their own Greek New Testament to the discussions, and pointed out the
divergence between the Textus Receptus and their version. The committee
met in closed sessions voted on how verses should be rendered in the
event of a discussion. (11) One of the committee said that votes
usually went with Westcott and Hort position because of their name and
position. (12)
Of the 7259 verses in the New Testament, there are not more than 10
or 12 where there was any weight found by Griesbach and Schultz (11)
for correction Hort was quoted as saying that evangelicals are
perverted and that evolution is an unanswerable theory. Westcott also
was quoted as saying that no one now (1881) holds to a literal
interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
The Westcott and Hort Text was also known as the Critical Text. It
had changes not just in English but in the Greek text which eliminated
or weakened many passages on the Eternal Divine Sonship of Christ, His
Deity and His equality with the Father and perfection.(13)
Westcott and Hort were the source of eclecticism. Hort declared in
1851 (before he began his translation) his antipathy to the Textus
Receptus. He set out then to depose the Textus Receptus from its
position as the only MS used. (8 p.31) To minimize the effect of the
number of manuscripts which support the validity of the Textus
Receptus, he reduced the power to one manuscript family. He postulated
that there were 4 manuscript families: Neutral, Alexandrian, Western,
Byzantine (=Syrian). (8 p. 26) Other researchers were able to delineate
3 MS families Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western. (8 p.32ff)
Hort was responsible for the theories used to make the new
translation. (8 p. 31) The basic premise of the Westcott and Hort
translation is that the NT is like any book. There was a statement a
priori that the NT was like any other book and that there was not
malice found in the Bible manuscripts (ie there was no evidence where
someone had deliberately set out to subvert documentary evidence). (8
p.32ff)
Colwell says that Hort found the possibilities here invaluable.
Suppose that there are 10 copies of a document and 9 are copied from 1,
then the majority can be disregarded. Firstly, a majority of MSS are
not necessarily to be preferred over the minority as being correct. (8
p.32ff)
Having reduced the Majority MSS to one voice, he went on to
demonstrate that this voice is inferior. It was necessary to prove that
the Syrian MS was posterior to the others (published later than them).
He decided that the Syrian text was not quoted from before Chrysostom
in 350 AD. This, he said could be found from both external and internal
evidence. External evidence was that no one's MSS expounding Scripture
quoted it before Chrysostom did. He also relied on internal evidence (
he also called this Intrinsic Probability) (15 p. 542). Hort's
postulate was that the less complete reading was the more accurate one,
shorter readings were preferred and the harder reading was also to be
preferred. His postulate was set forth because he decided that scribes
could complete readings with their own ideas (this is called
conflation) thus making them a longer reading and also clarifying the
meaning of the readings at the same time. Such hypotheses are set forth
in greater detail in the General Introduction in the Westcott and Hort
Greek New Testament.(15)
Intrinsic Probability is the same device used presently for the
Jesus Seminar. These people are trying to determine by voting on them
what the words Jesus is the most likely to have said and mark them in
read, the ones slightly less likely in pink and so forth. Intrinsic
Probability is just that- probability. It is only a guess as to what
the person actually might have said, but we are at a loss to know for
sure since the subject we are trying to accurately quote lived some
2,000 years ago or better.
An Evaluation of the Westcott and Hort Hypothesis
Should the Bible be treated the same as any other book?
Hort said there were no deliberate attempts to falsify the MSS.
Metzger disagrees, and says that Iraeneus, Clement, Tertullian,
Eusebius and others accused heretics of corrupting the Scriptures to
support their particular ideas. In the second century, Marcion expunged
all Jewish references to Jesus' background. Tatian made changes in the
Scriptures to support his ascetic views of life.
Changes were made to Scripture because it was central to the
teachings of the church, and not primarily due to the carelessness of
the scribes.
Determination of the nature of the original through the use of
genealogy is generally recognized as NOT POSSIBLE. (8 p.43) In the
examination of over 5,000 MSS, there has been only one parent-child
pairing found. The conclusion which we must come to thereby is that
Westcott and Hort did NOT use the method which they claimed. It is only
a series of assumptions. Since genealogical methods were NOT used in
the MSS of the NT, then it may not be used as a part of NT Criticism.
Furthermore, division of the manuscripts cannot be firmly made into the
4 families. (8 p. 49-51) There is an in depth discussion with regard to
the issue of conflation of texts in these pages. The depth of the
discussion is beyond the scope of what I intend to bring.
In one of the manuscripts which Westcott and Hort used, there is
repeatedly words and phrases dropped. It is far more likely the phrases
are dropped since it is in the minority of MS readings that are extant.
(8 p. 61) Writers copy each other that Chrysostom used the Byzantine
text MS, but there has been no proof one way or other of this set
forth. (8 p.63)
Is the harder reading to be preferred?
There is no proof of this preference being supported as of the date
of publication of "Identity of the New Testament Text". It is more
likely that a copyist may make a plain point obscure by trying to
clarify it than it is to clarify a difficult point. Because Hort was
more familiar with the Neutral Text himself and preferred it, it is
circular logic for him to choose the Neutral Text by the means which he
did (8 p. 88)
The Basis of Criticism
There are 2 types of Criticism of the Bible which we have to
distinguish here. First is "Lower Criticism" which is the analysis of
the text source to see about the reliability of the text. Lower
Criticism is what Pickering is resorting to in "The Identity of the New
Testament Text". In this book, he talks about a number of things,
including how the text reads quite a bit different with some
manuscripts than others. He brings in the malicious tampering aspect
and demonstrates the likelihood of this happening. Higher Criticism is
another type of Criticism. In this form, more than the reliability of
the text is enquired of. An evangelical might well ask the question
"Who wrote the book of Ephesians?" and the answer to this is "Paul
did". A New Evangelical who practiced Higher Criticism would ask the
question "Did Paul write the book of Ephesians?" Evangelical persons
would not normally ask such a question because of all the internal
evidences in the writings which people ask about. Historical Critical
Method is also known as Higher Criticism.
The first person who is generally regarded to use the Historical
Critical method in 1757 is a man named Johann Salomo Semler. He
regarded the Bible as the same as any other book (not inspired) and
talked about it CONTAINING the Word of God. Semler also revolted
against all supernatural phenomena and miracles. Anyone who thinks that
Historical Critical Methodology is neutral is misinformed. (4 ) From
what I have said about Westcott and Hort to this point, they too have
been using Higher Criticism. I previously told of quotes where Westcott
and Hort denied a number of the cardinal truths of Christianity.
The History of the Text
The basis of Lower Textual Criticism is that the oldest text is
closest to the original reading. The older the text, the greater the
chances of its survival in a majority of forms of text which are
extant. (Recall that the Textus Receptus is found supported by 80 to
90% of texts).
Are the Older Manuscripts necessarily better?
In a situation where there is no malice toward the manuscripts, the
older the manuscript,the better it would be. However, the value of
older manuscripts is nullified when there are deliberate alterations
being made and circulated. The oldest copy might also be the poorest!
(8 p.123)
Why are there no early Greek Byzantine MSS in Egypt? It must be
observed that MSS were made for USE. As Greek died out in Egypt, so too
would have the need for Greek versions. The Byzantine text is not found
in Egypt today, but versions very closely following the Byzantine text
are found.
Zane Hodges at Dallas Theological Seminary and others have said that
between 80 and 90% of all the manuscripts unearthed since 1611 have
agreed with the Textus Receptus.(4370 of 5255)
The New Translation, the RSV
Of the 95 men in the National Council of Churches who engaged a new
Bible, some 30 of them belonged to Communist front organizations.(2 )
In a book called "One Bible" on pp 33-35 there is a discussion of the
RSV and it tells there how 158 of 162 key verses were changed in
meaning. The changes undermine Christ's deity, calling him a divine Son
of God and yet a creature with a human father. Matt 1:16 in the RSV
footnote teaches that Joseph was the father of Jesus. In Matt 1:18-25,
Jesus is said to be born without the aid of an earthly father.(2 ) The
RSV does not hold a lot of importance in Evangelical circles these
days, so I will deal more with the ones which do.
The Good News Version
1. The Blood of Christ
Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22 teach that blood makes an atonement
for the soul. Romans 3:25 tells us that Jesus is set out to be the
propitiation for sin. Mention of the atoning blood of Christ has been
omitted from these verses: Matt. 27:4, 24,25 Acts 5:28 Acts 20:28 Rom
3:25 Rom 5:9 Eph 1:7 Eph 2:13 Col 1:14,20 Heb 10:19 1 Pe 1:9 Rev 1:5
Rev 5:9 (2 )
2. Sonship
"Begot" is an important word for it describes who the father is.
Verses where "Only Begotten" is removed from verses referring to Jesus
as God's Only Begotten Son. This "Only Begotten" tells us that God did
not have a son before or after Jesus' birth. Col 1:14 "through his
blood" is omitted Acts 17:26 "through his blood" is omitted 1 John 5:7
is omitted 1 Tim 3:16 is changed from God to he, weakening the support
for the deity of Christ. Luke 2:33 "Joseph" is changed to "Father",
thus becoming the father of Jesus
Passages Omitted
John 5:4 Acts 8:37 Mark 9:44,46 Rom 16:24 Matt 18:11 Mark 12:47 Mark
11:46 Mark 15:28 Mark 16:9-20 John 8:1-11 Acts 15:34 Matt 6:13 half the
verse Rom 1:16 "of Christ" is omitted.
1 Pe 2:2 "unto salvation" or "with regard to salvation" is added to
teach salvation by works. (2 )
NASB
Mt 1:25 "a son" replaces "her firstborn son" - reduces import of
Virgin birth Mt 19:16 "Teacher" replaces "Good Master" - reduces Jesus'
deity Mk 1:1 NASB footnote "Many MSS omit the Son of God". While Codex
Vaticanus includes the text, Codex Sinaiticus omits it. Mk 15:28 KJV
has this in its text, but is relegated to the margin in NASB Mk 16:9-20
KJV has this in its text, but is relegated to the margin in NASB Luke
2:14 "Peace on Earth, good will to men" KJV is replaced by "Men will"
in the Vulgate. (TBS 439) KJV John 6:69 And we have believed and are
sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God. NASB And we
have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy one of God.
KJV 1 Cor 5:7 ... For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us
NASB ... For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed for us.
The NIV
In the introduction to this work, the Greek text is an eclectic one,
but on examination of the readings, it is clear how much the committee
relied on the readings of Westcott and Hort. Mt 1:25 Omission of
"firstborn" Mt 5:22 Omission of "without cause" Mt 5:24 Omission of
"bless those that curse you" Mt 6:13 Omission of the doxology Mt 6:18
Omission of openly Mt 6:27 "Hour of his life" changed to "cubit to his
stature" Mt 9:13 Omission of repentance in sinners to repentance.
The theory behind the changes is that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus
Aleph represent the original text with a high degree of accuracy and
this outweighs the evidence of a unified block of the Textus Receptus
position. The ramifications are that many verses are confined to the
margin or deleted with the explanation (some late MSS add) or (some MSS
add). In one case at least, 2 manuscripts do not have the verse and 498
MSS does have it! (14 )
What about the New King James Version?
I have not had the opportunity to investigate this one as much as I
would like, but the information which I have seen so far indicates that
the revision did not stick to the guidelines which it gave itself.
Perry Rockwood has some material on the New King James Bible and there
is an article in the October- December Foundation Magazine on the
subject. I have not had the opportunity to investigate as much as I
would like to on this question.
References and Bibliography
1. Fuller, David Otis "Which Bible?" 2. Hutchings, Noah "Which is
God's Word?" in "Gospel Truth" July 1986 Southwest Radio Church, Box
1144 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 3. Lindsell, Harold 1976 "The Battle
for the Bible " Grand Rapids: Zondervon 4. -------- 1979 "The Bible in
Balance" Grand Rapids: Zondervon 5. Manning, E.C. "The King James
Bible" Canada's National Bible Hour 6. Neve, J.L 1946 "Theological
Thought in Great Britain" in "A History of Christian Thought" Volume 2
Philadelphia: Muhlenburg Press 7. Packer, JI "Fundamentalism and the
Word of God" 8. Pickering, Wilbur 1977 "The Identity of the New
Testament Text" Nashville: Thomas Nelson 9. Reynolds, Marion Foundation
Magazine and various other booklets Fundamental Evangelical Association
Box 6278 Los Osos Ca. 93402 10. Rockwood, Perry various tracts,
booklets and tapes People's Gospel Hour, Box 1660 Halifax NS B3J 3A1
11. Scott, Walter 1906 "The Story of the English Bible" London: Alfred
Holness 12. Starr, Roland "The King James Bible- God's Word" tape
recording, source unknown 13. Trinitarian Bible Society #439 NASB 14.
--------- NIV 15. Westcott and Hort 1926 "General Introduction to the
Greek New Testament" in "Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament" New
York: MacMillan
Permission is granted to copy this article as long as the authorship
and article is preserved in the form presently. Any alterations violate
this agreement. August 1989.