AboutDerrick Holland Expertise I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity.
Experience 23 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.
Question Derrick, I was submitted this answer by Brenda Martin on this board. I wonder what your answer would be regarding these comments...
Laurie you asked--"WHAT 'MISTAKES' ARE YOU REFERING TO IN THE KJV?"
The more striking differences consist of things appearing in the older versions that are not found in the later ones or that are shown only in footnotes. Why is that? Because most copyists' errors are additions to the text rather than omissions.
1. Bible scholars today agree that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) and
2. The first eleven verses of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John were not part of the original writings.
3. Neither were the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,” which are found at 1 John 5:7, 8 in the King James Version.
The Greek text from which the King James Version of 1611 was translated, is a text now rejected by true scholars because of the many mistakes, additions and omissions which mark it, so that the King James Version has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors.
Even within the KJV's themselves there are errors—“The Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!”
The translations of the Bible of which the King James Version was a revision were based upon a small number of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Many thousands of manuscripts have been found since then, some being as much as a thousand years older than those. The fact that these manuscript copies are older means they are closer in time to the original writings and are, therefore, more accurate, having fewer copyist errors.
Brenda
Answer Hey, Laurie. My, where to begin! Let me say that this is an issue that I am somewhat familiar with, but not necessarily an expert in either. That is o.k., because Brenda Martin is certainly not an expert on this subject either, as is clear from what she wrote. My expertise is JW doctrine, but I have done enough research on this topic to know that Brenda has MANY of her facts distorted, and many statements are outright false. I do not believe that she is intentionally lying to you, though. She isn't. She simply is relying on her Watchtower articles to give her factual information, and they have not done this. These statements of hers are VERY typical of what JWs usually say about the KJV.
What I am going to do on this topic, is to answer the issues you raised the best I can. And then, for further research, I am going to direct you to some web-sites that cover ALL of these questions very in-depth, yet, easy to understand. Since this is such an important issue with me (the KJV), I have posted some excellent links on my web site, to sites that deal with this topic in great detail. You will find them very informative. Just go back to my web page, and go to the page titled “LINKS TO OTHER CHRISTIAN SITES ABOUT JEHOVAHS WITNESSES”. When you get to that page, scroll down to the bottom and you will see the various links regarding the KJV. As I said before, these pages contain some excellent information, especially regarding Mark 16:9-20, 1 John 5:7, and the “older manuscript” idea.
Now, let me make a few comments....
Brenda said....”1. Bible scholars today agree that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) and 2. The first eleven verses of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John were not part of the original writings.
Answer....This statement is misleading, AT BEST, and dishonest, at worst.
Let's talk about the passage in Mark 16:9-20 first.....The fact is, SOME Bible scholars have QUESTIONED the authenticity of these verses , based on the fact that ONLY 2 old manuscripts do not contain them. The facts are:
1. Literally HUNDREDS of manuscripts DO contain them, while 2 do not. We know of at least 18 uncial manuscripts and 600 cursive manuscripts of the gospels, and ALL of these contain this passage as it is found in the KJV. So, the manuscript evidence for Mark 16:9-20 is 618-2!!!!
2. MOST Bible scholars DO accept the authority and genuineness of these verses. To say that “Bible scholars today agree” that these verses are not genuine, is simply NOT true. While some have questioned these verses, based on 2 manuscripts which are ancient, most accept them as genuine verses.
3. The 2 manuscripts that omit them are known as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. These are Catholic manuscripts, and are known for a fact to be corrupted and edited.
Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1481, and remains in excellent condition, due to its non-use. In the Gospels alone, it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. This manuscript WAS available to the KJV translators, but was rejected by them because of its unreliability. Something of note regarding this manuscript and the passage of Scripture in question....There is a BLANK SPACE at the end of the Book of Mark in this manuscript, indicating that the chapter was incomplete.
Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine's Monastery in 1844, very appropriately, in a trash can. This manuscript shows MANY evidences of tampering. On nearly every page, are found corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. And MANY scholars have stated that this manuscript is not reliable at all.
4. These verses have the testimony of ALL the church fathers, even the ones who lived BEFORE these so-called “oldest manuscripts” were written. They all testify that these verses are genuine, and refer to them in their writings. They also confirm that Mark was the author of them.
5. Finally, if we reject these verses, then Mark 16 ends in verse 8 with a very unlikely abrupt and awkward ending.
Laurie, the reason I am spending so much time talking about the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, is because these manuscripts are the basis for nearly every new Bible translation today. And when you hear people like Brenda, and others, speak of the “oldest manuscripts”, these are the ones that they are referring to.
And pretty much the same is true for the passage in John 8:1-11. To say that “Bible scholars today agree....were not part of the original writings” is simply a failure to honestly research this matter before giving you an answer. The FACT is, the large majority of extant manuscripts contain this story also.
Laurie, just remember one very important thing....ALL of these attacks on the KJV have their basis on one basic assumption....That these supposedly “older” manuscripts are better, because they are older. When this is shown to be false, the whole argument crumbles and falls apart!
Exactly WHY the manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are held in such high esteem, even though the evidence for their tampering is unquestionable, is anyone's guess. Probably because Satan has such a hatred for the true Word of God.
As for the Scripture in 1 John 5:7, there is excellent evidence for believing that this is inspired Scripture. Think about it....If you didn't believe in the Trinity, would YOU like this verse?? On the websites that I referred you to earlier, their are some excellent articles regarding the authenticity of the “Johannine Comma”, which is what 1 John 5:7 is commonly called.
These people can talk all they want about this verse not being in the oldest manuscripts, but again, they never seem to bother to explain WHY this passage is QUOTED as being genuine by many of the church fathers BEFORE even Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written! I realize the church fathers were not infallible, and many even held to false doctrine. That isn't the point, though. Whether or not they all held to true doctrine, their testimony as to whether or not a verse EXISTED in their day, carries great weight. That is another reason that I say there is great evidence of early tampering of manuscripts, especially be heretics such as Origen in Alexandria, Egypt. Plus, there are many Latin copies of the original manuscripts, which pre-date Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that contain this verse.
But to me, one of the most compelling reasons to believe in the genuineness of this verse, is in the context itself. If you remove this passage, then you completely destroy the parallel between the earthly witnesses, and the heavenly witnesses. Yet, it is obvious by a simple reading of the text, that the writer was trying to draw this parallel.
Also, another point is worth mentioning. It is highly unlikely that this verse was a later addition, because of the use of the phrase “the Word” in verse 7. Why would it not say “the Father, THE SON, and the Holy Ghost”??? There would certainly be nothing wrong with saying it this way, this would be the more logical choice for someone who was adding the verse later. But it doesn't. Instead, it follows John's pattern of calling Jesus “the Word”. John is the only writer to refer to Jesus in this way, and this gives strong support to John being the author of this verse, also.
Laurie, please see some of the many available articles on this verse that are found on these websites. This used to be one of the verses that I wasn't sure about either, but after reading ALL the evidence, my doubts were put to rest.
There is no way I can cover each of these verses in the depth that I would like to, or could. If I did, I would be typing for the next 3 days straight. But I would like to make a few more comments on Brenda's statements, some of which were downright untrue.
She said....”The Greek text from which the King James Version of 1611 was translated, is a text now rejected by true scholars because of the many mistakes, additions and omissions which mark it, so that the King James Version has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors.”
Answer....First, of all....The KJV has NEVER been CONVICTED OF ANYTHING! For there to be a conviction, there must first be some proof of error. And the facts remain that there has NEVER been one single error proven in the KJV, despite all the modernist's attempts to do so. Let alone a conviction! I cannot even imagine where a statement like that comes from.
Secondly, notice her statement that the KJV text is a text “rejected by true scholars”. This has a very obvious implication to it....Namely, that only the scholars who agree the KJV has mistakes are TRUE scholars. This is identical to the argument that I have often heard evolutionists use....”True scientists believe in evolution”. The implication here is, that if you don't believe in evolution, you are not a TRUE scientist, and if you don't believe the KJV has mistakes in it, you are not a TRUE scholar. Just WHO gets to define the terms, anyway??
By this statement, one must conclude that God isn't a true scholar either, because He made a promise to preserve His Word, FOREVER, without error. Psalm 12:6-7 states....
“The words of the LORD are PURE words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times (seven is the Biblical number of perfection). THOU SHALT KEEP THEM, O LORD, thou SHALT PRESERVE THEM from this generation, FOR EVER.”
Laurie, someone is wrong. It is either God, or these so-called scholars and experts.
Just ask Brenda THIS question, and see what her answer is....WHICH BIBLE ON EARTH IS PERFECT, WITHOUT ANY ERRORS?? WHERE IS GOD'S WORD TODAY?
She cannot answer this question, because she (and others) believe that errors have crept in, and all we have are translations, some better than others. But they cannot point you to a PERFECT Bible. Only KJV believers believe they have a perfect copy of God's Word. Yet, God said that we would have just that. Again, someone is wrong.
Brenda also said....”The translations of the Bible of which the King James Version was a revision were based upon a small number of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Many thousands of manuscripts have been found since then, some being as much as a thousand years older than those. The fact that these manuscript copies are older means they are closer in time to the original writings and are, therefore, more accurate, having fewer copyist errors.”
Answer....Exactly where she got her information here is anyone's guess. Anybody who has studied this subject AT ALL, knows that the KJV comes from is called the MAJORITY text, the basis for the Textus Receptus. And it is called this for a reason....it is based upon the majority of extant manuscripts.
Again, the whole basis for this argument they use, is not the number of manuscripts, but the supposed AGE of them. You can see this flawed argument right here in her statement....
“The fact that these manuscript copies are older means they are closer in time to the original writings and are, therefore, more accurate, having fewer copyist errors.”
Unfortunately, Brenda mentions “copyist errors”, but completely forgot about WILLFUL TAMPERING AND EDITING. And it is a FACT that these manuscripts were tampered with. She says that just because something is older, it MUST be better. This is ridiculous, and false. As we have already stated, many of these verses in question were quoted much earlier than the writing of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But because these manuscripts may not contain these verses, they are assumed to be non-genuine. In most cases, it amounts to these 2 corrupt manuscripts vs. the overwhelming majority of existing manuscripts.
I know this has been a very lengthy response. But there were so many inaccurate statements made, I wanted to respond to them with more than just my opinion. It is obvious to me that very little, if any, true research went into this answer she sent you. Again, she trusted the Watchtower to provide her accurate responses in their articles, and they didn't.
One final point in closing....It is amazing to me that she refers to “true scholars” and “authorities” rejecting the text of the KJV, yet these same scholars are nearly UNANIMOUS in their rejection of the NWT as being one of the sorriest “translations” ever produced. Even these KJV-rejecting “authorities” would recommend a KJV over a NWT ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
I hope this answer has been helpful, albeit very long. If I can be of any further help, please let me know.
