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 Thanks Derrick, I found that very helpful. There are a lot of myths out there regarding the KJV of the Bible. I used to hold to the NIV more until I was challenged to do a Bible comparison. I am suprised at the many deletions in the newer versions. It is my understanding that on the modern Bible translation committees, there were even unbelievers on them. I read a small brochure by David Cloud called "Unholy hands on God's Holy Book" and it was a real eye opener for me.
I also appreciated this link from your site:
It has a lot of info on it.
I do believe the more I have studied that the KJV of the Bible is undoubtably the Superior Bible, far more doctrinally strong, and have seen a lot of distain it seems even coming from the Christian communities sadly. We do know that Satan wants to reduce truth down to the very lowest common denominator, and is eagerly busy to destroy really sound doctrine from our Bibles. Now in the last little while, a whole wack of translations such as the NWT, Clearword study Bible, Eugene peterson's "The message" [which is really a new age perversion IMHO]
I still have much to learn regarding this issue though, and am looking forward to reading more on this topic.
Do you have any info on Johannes Greber, whom was a psycic medium the WT quoted from for years favorably? Apparently his "Bible" lines up very closely with the NWT.
-------------------------
Followup To
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.
Take care, and God bless.
Derrick
Answer Good evening, Laurie. Let me begin by saying that I have enjoyed reading your comments to the other JW experts, which have been posted on this board under the "Previously Asked Questions" page. It is a true blessing to see your burden for them, and the time you are taking to give them the truth of God's Word.
You mentioned that you used to hold to the NIV. I can also remember the day that I used and referred to other versions. Not necessarily the NIV alone, but many others. What a blessing it was to finally learn that there IS a perfect Bible, infallible and inerrant. There is no question the KJV has been used of God more than any 100 other Bibles put together. I normally do not make this a really big issue on this JW board, but I have thoroughly enjoyed discussing it with you, and reading your comments to Brenda regarding this issue. Reading some of her well-intentioned comments just shows how much inaccurate information is really out there.
I also realize that there are many true born again Christians who don't know the difference, and use other versions. Yet, they love God with all their heart. But this IS a very vital issue, because when we are dealing with God's inspired Word, nothing less than perfection will do. There is no room for error. I am glad that God preserved His Word perfectly, as He promised in Psalm 12:6-7.
I am glad the website helped you also. For all the false information out here, thankfully, there is some good and factual information also.
You asked me about Johannes Greber. This is a REAL sore spot with the Watchtower. So much so, in fact, that they have attempted sort of a cover-up of the facts.
The Watchtower cited Mr. Greber in support of his "translation" of John 1:1, which like the NWT, read "the word was a god." However, Johannes Greber was HARDLY a scholar. Instead, he was a spiritist who relied on "god's spirit world" for his "translation". His wife, who was a medium, often conveyed to Greber the renderings he should use in his "translation".
A question appeared in the April 1, 1983 issue of the Watchtower, under the section "Questions From Readers", which asked why they no longer quoted from Greber. In their answer, the Society tried to make it appear that they only learned of Greber's occult connections in 1980, and immediately ceased quoting his "translation". This is a blatant fabrication, however, because they knew about his occultism back in 1956! The February 15, 1956 issue of the Watchtower contains an almost full page article regarding Greber's spiritist practices. And even after that, they continued to quote him as an authority, until outside sources began making it public that Greber was involved in the occult.
This brings up 2 very intriguing questions....
1. Why would demonic spirits want John 1:1 to say that Jesus was "a god"?
(It should trouble JWs that demons agree with their NWT in this particular verse.)
2. If the Watchtower really had true scholars who supported the NWT's rendering of John 1:1, then WHY use a source like Johannes Greber in the first place??
Some information about Greber:
He was born in Germany in 1874, and was ordained a Catholic priest in 1900. It was around this time that he began to attend seances and communicate with spirits. He authored a book entitled "COMMUNICATION WITH THE SPIRIT WORLD OF GOD". In a brochure promoting this book, we read....
"Late in the summer of 1923 God's holy spirits contacted Pastor Greber. They revealed great truths to him and approximately two-and-one-half years later he was given permanent leave from the church...."
The brochure goes on to tell how Greber translated the New Testament. It says that through constant prayer for guidance, "God's Spirit World" clarified discrepancies and contradictions between the ancient scrolls and modern versions of the New Testament....
"At times he was given the correct answers in large illuminated letters and words passing before his eyes. Other times he was given the correct answers during prayer meetings. His wife, a medium of God's Spirit World, was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber."
In spite of knowing all this back in 1956, the Watchtower Society continued to quote Greber at least 7 times from 1962 to 1982! Here is where the cover-up occurs. In 1986, the Organization published a new PUBLICATIONS INDEX, covering the years 1930-1985. The claim that this Index "embodies all previously published Indexes". Subjects are listed under main headings and information is clssified by subject. On page 372, under the heading GREBER, JOHANNES, we find the reference to the above-quoted "QUESTIONS FROM READERS" in the April 1, 1983 Watchtower, and one reference to John 1:1 in the 1962 Watchtower on page 554. The other 6 times Greber was quoted were simply DELETED.
Here are just a few quotes from Greber' book, mentioned earlier, alongside quotes from the Watchtower's REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES. Notice how similar these quotes are, to what JWs believe....
"Christ's contention concerning His own person, concerning the source of His doctrine and the power which He possessed was, therefore, that He had received each and everthing from the Father. From Himself He had nothing. HE IS NOT GOD." (Communication With The Spirit World of God, p.333)
"And Jesus Himself never claimed to be God, but, rather, "the Son of God". Jesus was sent into the world by God; so by means of this only-begotten Son, God was with mankind" (Reasoning From the Scriptures, p.214)
"As you see, the doctrine of a triune Godhead is not only contrary to common sense, but is entirely unsupported by the Scriptures" (Communication....p.371)
"The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches" (Reasoning From the Scriptures, p.424)
Interestingly, Greber's book also taught that Christ was not raised physically, but in a spirit body. He went on to say that Christ's body was dematerialized. This is IDENTICAL to JW doctrine!!
This is an embarrasing part of JW history that they prefer not to talk about. In fact, most newer members are completely unaware of this connection with the occult.
I think this is some pretty good evidence against the NWT, produced by the WTBTS. In another post, a JW expert talked about the KJV being rejected by scholars. I think it is even more troubling that the NWT renderings were endorsed by demons! That should bother any JW who loves the truth.
Well, I am going to stop for now. Take care, and write if you have any other questions. God bless.
