Authorized Bible and its Background

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE AV NEW TESTAMENT (articles taken from Waymarks 1 - 40)

Reading was common in the 1st. century AD, as the following verses indicate:

Have ye not read? (Matt.12:3; 19:4); Have ye never read? (Matt.2l:l6); Thus the chief priests, Pharisees and Scribes could read. The elders could read (Matt.21:42); The Sadducees could read (Matt.22:31); A certain lawyer could read (Luke lO:26); The Jews could read (John l9:26); The Ethiopian also (Acts 8:28); and Philip (Acts 8:3O.); so could the ministers of every synagogue (Acts l3:2l: 15:21); also Simon (Acts l5:l5); and the saints at Corinth. (2Cor.l:15); and the saints at Ephesus (Eph.3:4); and the saints at Colosse (Col.4:,16); at least some at Thessalonica (1 Thes.5:27). „o All of these could read.
Many of those converted at Ephesus destroyed their Spiritist books (Acts l9:l9). Paul had many books and parchments (2 Tim.4:13). Peter, a Fisherman, could read and write. The apostles, elders and brethren wrote letters (Acts 15:23). The Corinthian believers wrote letters (1 Cor.7:1; 18:.3). Others were used of God to write the books of the New Testament. These were not all intellectuals and scholars. We conclude that the standard of literacy was high in Apostolic days. It is quite wrong to suggest that most believers were illiterate in those days.
Literacy was high throughout the Roman Empire and Grammar Schools were found in every city. Roman children however were normally taught at home and those of the ruling classes learned to read and write in Greek as well as Latin.

Early in church history the centre of Christian activity and missionary endeavour moved from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 11:19). Antioch was a highly cultured city of some half a million souls. It was the third largest city in the Roman Empire. Being in Syria. the language was Syriac ( very closely related to Aramaic). The New Testament Scriptures were first written in Greek but a Syriac translation was made from the original manuscripts which is considered by reliable scholars to be a 1st Cent. or early 2nd Cent. work. (J.N.D. agrees). This translation is known as the Peshitta, of which copies are extant, and agree remarkably with the Received Text, and hence with the A.V.

Eusebius tells us that the Apostle John began to collect together the writings of our N.T. and his disciple Polycarp completed the task in the 2nd. century. The writers knew they were writing Scripture of course, even as they wrote it. Believers did not need a convention of apostate clerics to tell them what was inspired of God and what wasn't.

The last of the N.T. writers was the apostle John, thus his writings completed the canon of Scripture and he began to collect all the N.T. writings together into one book. Eusebius tells us that Polycarp, a disciple of John, completed that work.

Further developments from the 2nd Cent. AD

A complete Bible was available from the middle of the 2nd Century. All believers knew what was Scripture and what was not. Believers began to make their own copies and believing in verbal inspiration, were very careful in their copying. Any individual mistakes would have been quickly remedied when they gathered together for their Bible studies. At the this time, the first version (translation) was produced. It was the Syriac Peshitta. Antioch in Syria had become the Church Headquarters. Still in the 2nd. C, came the Italic, the Gallic, and the Celtic (British) versions in Old Latin, and the Greek Catholic version. The Old Latin version was used by the Waldensian believers for the next 1000 years. All these were based on a common text described as Byzantine, which is identical to the Received Text of the A.V. The Greek mss. which had lain hidden for 1000 years came to light subsequent to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The vast majority of these Greek mss. were found to be Byzantine in character. Erasmus used a representative selection of these to produce his first Greek N.T. in 1516. Stephens followed on in 1550, then Beza, 1598, and then Elzevir produced his Greek N.T. In 1624. This text became known as the Received Text and has been shown to be consistent with the text existing in the 2nd.C.
English versions were then produced from the works of Erasmus and Stephens, viz., Tyndale's (1534), Coverdale's (1535), Matthews' (1537), The Great Bible (1539), Geneva (1560) and Bishop's (1568). In 1611 the King James Bible (A.V.) was produced. This was not strictly a revision, but a fresh translation of the Stephens text and diligently compared with all the other versions including Luther's. The language was kept as close to Tyndale's as possible. From Apostolic days the Church has never been without a bible. An unaltered one too, because God is faithful, Who promised to preserve His own word for all generations (Ps.12:6,7).
From the beginning falsified copies were made. Paul warned against the many which corrupt the word of God (2Cor.2:17). Others who would send out letters with his forged signature on them (2Thes.2:2). The few of such which have been found come mainly from the hot sands of Egypt, far, far away from the true source of Byzantine Gospel activity. (Remember Byzantium is the old name for Constantinople.) These corrupted mss. became the basis for the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582 which was an attempt at thwarting the work of the A.V. translators.
Greisbach, Lachman, Tischendorf and Tregelles all produced Greek N.T.'s based on the Jesuit Bible and its two underlying mss., Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Then, at the end of the 19th C., Westcott and Hort used the work of these men to concoct a further Greek Text for the Revised Bible. All modern versions are based on the work of these latter two men, both of them Mariolators.
There are therefore in effect two bibles. The A.V. with its pedigree going back to the autographs and regarded by many as the Book of the Reformation; and all modern versions, which are essentially Romish.
We are thankful for all the Lord's servants down through the ages who have laboured to place in the hands of the Lord's people a bible in their own tongue. For the English speaking nations that work was completed in 1611 A.D. The meanings of the handful of archaic words can be discovered from any good modern dictionary.

It is rather surprising to read the following, regarding Darby¡¦s version of 1878:-
"Responding to a critic of JND [Darby], W.Kelly wrote:-
It is to be hoped that but few professors of the Lord's name on earth could descend so low in the blindness of ill-feeling. No man is infallible; but the translator [J.N.Darby] thus recklessly assailed contributed to present the Scriptures in English, French and German beyond any man that ever lived; and no wonder, as he had adequate power, commanding knowledge of all helps, and spiritual acumen unequalled.¡¨ ¡V
Precious Truths Revived and Defended Through J.N.Darby; vol.3, p.4 1, by R.A.Huebner; P. T.P. 1995.

We suppose that this critic did not attack the character of JND, but found fault with his translation work. For that Kelly regarded him as worse than an infidel. Must we then bow to superior intellect and infinite spiritual prowess of just one man and allow the Bible that we have come to love to be wrested from our grasp and another, which denies the Lord in so many places, to be thrust in its place? Regrettably, JND was hostile to the A.V. and regarded it as inferior. We have already pointed out that French and German believers also have had a faithful translation of the scriptures for nearly 400 years. But JND believed that he could do single-handedly that which had taken several committees of multi-lingual biblical scholars to do in 1611, viz, to produce an English Bible. Not even the R.V. was the product of one man's efforts.

JND wrote of his own translation of the German N.T., "I believe we have in it the best and truest translation to be had, and the poor brethren find it very plain and easy to understand- far more so than anything they had" (Letters 1:241). What they had was Luther's translation.

Luther used the Greek N.T. of Erasmus and had the assistance of a committee of scholars (Melanthchon, Aurogallus, Caspar Cruciger, Justus Jonas). Proof reading was carried out by George Rarer, a Christian printer, and Christoph Walther. So Luther's Bible was not a one-man business as Darby¡¦s was in 1878.

All modern versions from the R.V. of 1881 are based on two or three depraved manuscripts. The A.V. Bible is based on the majority of manuscripts which themselves are vindicated by the versions (i.e. Syrian, Italic, Celtic, Gallic Bibles) and Fathers of the 2nd Cent. Those who deny a settled text and therefore believe in an evolving text necessitating constant revision argue that the A.V. has itself been revised a number of times. They speak of thousands of changes being made since the edition of 1611. This is a false charge, firstly because the vast majority of changes are modernisations of spellings. (e.g. ftarres is now written as stars). Secondly, most of the so called textual changes, on investigation prove to be no more than corrections of printing errors._F.H.A. SCRIVENER lists all the genuine changes and there are barely 100 of them, in his book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible,1611. Below are a few examples:-

1. this thing - this thing also (changed in 1638)
2. requite good - requite me good (1629)
3. And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)
4. chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)
5. now and ever - both now and ever (1638)

None of these changes compares with the multitude of doctrinal changes made in modern versions.

DEFINING SCRIPTUREA correspondent has sent me a list of questions passed to him that came from a RC allegedly converted from being an evangelical Baptist. There are eighteen questions in all which means they can’t all be answered in this rather limited publication.

The first two are,
1 Where in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible?
2 If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong in it, then is the Bible’s “table of contents” merely a human tradition? If not, why not?

The English speaking Bible believer knows that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and every word in his Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 is Scripture.
He knows by common sense that within the covers of his Bible, and on its pages are various helps such as a list of the books of the Bible, chapter and verse headings, subject headings etc and in the margins are numerous explanations, which are not part of Scripture.
The Lord referred to the Old Testament. He said It is written in the prophets (John 6: 45). None of those Jews queried the Lord as to what list of prophets He was referring to. They accepted the writings of the prophets in their Holy Book as Scripture. The testimony of Christ to the Scriptures is sufficient for the believer today. The Lord also quoted from the Book of Psalms when He said Is it not written in your law (John 10: 24). They did not reply that they were uncertain as to the authenticity of the list of Psalms.
Timothy knew what was Scripture. From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures (2 Tim.3:15). He never challenged them. The Bereans knew also ― they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17: 11). The Bereans had no problem with the canon.

Peter tells us how we obtained the Scriptures. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1: 21) They knew they were writing Scripture, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Peter knew it too. He refers to Paul’s epistles and other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3: 15,16).
If the apostles knew that their writings were on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures, being given by inspiration of God, it would be a very strange thing indeed if this fact were not communicated to those first century believers. That the disciples were thus instructed is evidenced in the preservation of Scripture through the ages. There were never any disputes over the canon of Scripture among believers. This has been the work of enemy from the beginning to challenge the authenticity of Scripture.
One may yet ask how we can be sure. Again, John 6:45 has the answer; It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. The child of God is taught of God. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. (1 John 2:20). And we don’t have to explain this to the unbeliever and scoffer.

We read in Romans 15: 4, For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Patience, comfort, and hope are largely lacking in the Bible critics. What scholar do you know who is patiently awaiting the rapture?


THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE
The doctrine of the preservation of Scripture is never preached among us. This must be because it is not believed. Yet there are a number of Scriptures that teach preservation .

For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119: 89. God’s unchanging word is from eternity
Unto them (the Jews; in particular the Levites) were committed the oracles of God. Rom. 3:1,2. They carefully guarded this commitment that came from heaven. There can be no conflict between the heavenly account and its record on earth.

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them. O Lord. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12: 6,7. God is faithful. The words settled in heaven will God keep safe on earth unto eternity.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever Psalm 119:160. God’s word, true from eternity and true in the “original” manuscripts remains true in every faithful copy, though perversions may abound on every hand.
The word of our God shall stand for ever. Isa. 40: 8.
The word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1: 23.
The word of the Lord endureth for ever. 1 Peter 1:25. Will not fade, will not wear out, and will not be subject to amendment from eternity to eternity.

Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. Mtt.24: 35, Luke 21: 33. Not a single word will disappear.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. 5: 18. It is not only the individual word that God has pledged to preserve; not only the letters in the word; but the strokes in each letter. This preservation is not lost in translation. We would not think for a moment that the mighty omnipotent God Who took such exquisite care of His word would be beaten by the need to express His word in different languages. God gave this human race its multiple languages at Babel.

If the word of God is preserved, where is it? The popular view is that God’s word exists in thousands of manuscripts and not between the covers of one single book. The popular view is that these manuscripts must be sifted through by the scholars who will tell us what is the “original” and what is not. What kind of God would do this to us?
The believer knows he has one Book he can trust. It is the Authorized Version. Paul wrote to Timothy, from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures and we know them too.


He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12: 48. A solemn warning for the textual critic and Bible scoffer.


THE PERFECT BIBLE IN 1610AD
Those who are taking great delight in rubbishing the AV Bible insinuate that if we insist that it is perfect then everything before it must have been imperfect, as must everything else since.
Firstly, I haven’t met anyone who insists that a particular edition is perfect. We know that the 1611 AV Bible had a number of faults. None of them had to do with the underlying Hebrew/Greek texts or with the translation itself. They were largely typological, printers errors, which could be, and were later, corrected.
Secondly, the inspired word of God is not limited to a particular language. It exists in any Bible translated faithfully from the Received Text.
Thirdly, we believe God is faithful and has faithfully preserved His word for the Church, though it may be found at any particular time limited to a particular area, people, or language in regard to perfection. We are speaking of The Bible rather than multitudes of manuscripts
One of the earliest Bibles was the Old Latin Version (Vetus Itala). It was translated from the Greek text described by some as Byzantine and which eventually became known as the Received Text. It was available before the end of the second century AD and was used by the primitive churches throughout the Roman Empire. Therefore Christians in Great Britain had this Bible and refused the “Modern Version” i.e. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate when the papist “missionaries” began to arrive after 250AD.
This Old Latin Bible held its own against Jerome’s Vulgate for a thousand years in Europe— until Latin itself became a dead language. We challenge the Bible critics to list its imperfections.
The reason why we expect God to give us a perfect Bible is because of the intimate relationship between the written Word and the incarnate Word. The Son of God, seen in the likeness of sinful flesh, was and ever is, without spot and blemish. So must be the Word of Scripture. We read Thy word is truth (John 17: 17). The various readings may make true statements but they are not truth. Christ said I am the truth. Alterations to the word of God cannot be truth; they are not God-breathed. God never inspired error. Critics deny the verbal inspiration and preservation of Scripture. Thus, perfect Saviour requires perfect Book. He said I have given them thy word. (John 17:14)

So we are able to make a statement of faith: All the words in my Bible, including words in italics, are the word of God. The italics are needed, usually, to give the full sense of the Hebrew or Greek. The translators had no obligation to put certain words into italics but did so for the benefit of the reader, that he might know that it was not possible to make a word for word translation. To suggest, as Penfold does, that these italicised words are not therefore a part of Scripture, the word of God, is mere mockery.

In my statement of faith, I did NOT say God inspired the AV Bible, or God inspired the italics, or God inspired the punctuation. It is that unbelievers resent anyone implicitly trusting their Bible.
Penfold writes that such a view is extremist and untenable. Yes of course! I was told this when I first got saved nearly 50 years ago. Any faith and trust in my Bible as wholly and absolutely the inspired word of God is extremist and untenable for this godless generation. Penfold objects to my faith because he has none himself.
Futile arguments are raised to condemn the God-honoured Authorized Bible. We cannot have a perfect Bible because Archbishop Bancroft made fourteen changes in it, and everybody knows that Bancroft was an evil man.
Whatever may have been the character of Bancroft, he did have authority to make changes. Some men have made their own translations of the whole Bible single-handed. The names Wycliffe, Tyndale, and J N Darby come to mind among others. One is certainly desperate to find fault if the man who appointed the translators is criticised for changing fourteen words! Apart from these few words, Bancroft left the translators entirely alone to do their work. Those words have been adequately dealt with elsewhere. I find the word church by far the most suitable, rather than congregation which in any case is not wrong, or the secular word assembly which again is not wrong but is used to define boundaries within Christendom.
What of Archbishop Bancroft? Was he not a tyrant? Maybe he wasn’t the only one associated with the translation never to have experienced a conversion. But God used these men. The Lord chose Judas to be among the twelve. And we have met more than one man, exercising oversight in the local assembly, whose behaviour has been despicable and his doctrines blasphemous. We still live in the day of the mixed multitude. But Bancroft was not entirely what some men paint him to be.

Adolpe Monod wrote, “when the Scripures speak it is God who speaks….There is no limit to the confidence and the submission that we owe to the Scriptures — no more limit than to the truth and the faithfulness of God.”
When I open my Bible I must believe that I am opening up the Scriptures—no more, no less—which are the flawless words of the living God. If I cannot, do not, will not, believe this I am an unbeliever.

M Penfold, a one-time Bible believer, reveals his contempt for God and His word by referring in his revised leaflet Is the King James Version Perfect to “King James Only perpetrators”. He thus regards Bible believers as criminals, deceivers.
Penfold pretends that Dr Ruckman —a one-time personal friend of his —is the world leader of the KJV Onlyists (i.e. Bible believers). Penfold knows this is a lie. Dr Ruckman is largely rejected by Bible believers because of certain views and practices to which he adheres. The inference we draw is that Penfold wants his followers to believe that all Bible believers are as cracked as Dr Ruckman.

We do however acknowledge that Dr Ruckman is an authority on the subject of Textual Criticism and Modern Versionism.

THE INFLUENCE OF ARCHBISHOP BANCROFT ON THE AV BIBLERichard Bancroft became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1604 and was “the chief overseer” of the Authorized Version of the Bible. He had at first opposed the suggestion of a new Bible translation but later became enthusiastic about it.
Critics of the Bible try to make much of Bancroft’s influence as grounds for rejecting the AV Bible. They point out, no doubt correctly, that “he was of a harsh and stern temper”, determined to maintain the Episcopalian form of state religion, very hostile to the Puritans and ruthless towards any who opposed him. He was determined to keep all ecclesiastical words in the new translation.
Bancroft had two areas of influence over the translation (excluding his 14 undocumented and therefore unknown changes to the final draft).
The first influence was the appointment of the translators. Considering his hostility towards the Puritans it is remarkable that we find some among the translators. The names of at least three are given by A McClure in his Translators Revived. They are John Reynolds, who proposed the new translation, Lawrence Chadderton, Thomas Holland, and Samuel Ward. There were certainly others because McClure wrote of the many Puritans who were opposed to the use of the word “church”. There were no better men available for translation work than those appointed.
The second influence was in the list of fifteen rules of translation. Only one need occupy us in this little article and this is rule no. 3. “The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word “church” not to be translated “congregation”. No other ecclesiastical words are specifically listed, so “bishopric” may be one of the fourteen changes that Bancroft insisted on in the final draft.
Bancroft then left the translators to get on with their work.

JOHN BOIS’S NOTES ON THE AV TRANSLATION
John Bois was a member of the Cambridge group of translators who played a major part in the final revision of the entire AV Bible. His father taught him Hebrew when he was five years old. He was admitted to St. John’s College, Cambridge, at the age of fourteen, becoming a fellow four years later. While still a freshman he became outstanding in Greek. He was such a grammarian that he was familiar with sixty different grammars, including Latin. His ability as a linguist led him to be chosen for the final committee of review charged with delivering the single master copy of the finished translation to the printers.
Bois’s notes, made during the final edition of the AV bible before publication, were deemed to be lost until Professor Ward Allen found them in the Corpus Christi College library in Oxford in 1964. These notes he then published in facsimile in 1969, in his book, Translating for King James.
The care and precision that went into the AV translation is revealed in his notes. Notes were made only where Bois considered the words of the translating committee to be inadequate in bringing out the full meaning of the Greek. However, though his recommendations were not always accepted, it is evident that great consideration went into every word used in the AV Bible.
Ward Allen gives several examples of Bois’s notes in his introduction to demonstrate their use in the translation, revision, and printing of the Authorized Version of the Bible. I give two examples below to show Bois’s scholarly approach in translation and to reveal how the modern approach frequently destroys the meaning of the passage. A study of all the examples in Allen’s book will bear this out.

1 Peter 1:11
Bois’s note; unto what, or what manner etc. the Spirit etc. had referenceand the great glorie.
AV: ...searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,...
This note is significant for two reasons: it occurs at a verse which makes one of the clearest statements in the New Testament of the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture; but despite the clarity of the general tendency of the verse, the exact meaning is disputed among English translations. Indeed, the particular meaning is still disputede.g., “what time or manner of time the Spirit... did point unto” (RV); “what person or time was indicated by the Spirit” (RSV)
It rejects the direct phrase of those translations [Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop’s, Rheims] to which the translators had been directed.... The note, then, sets up a distinct reading of a significant verse. And the distinction of the reading rests in the substitution of “what” for the “which” of the Rheims bible.

The AV Bible alone maintains the pure testimony to the divine inspiration of Scripture in what it was that the Spirit of Christ did signify.

1 Peter 3:18
Tyndale:...and was kylled, as pertayninge to the flesshe: but was quyckened in the sprete.
Geneva Bible:... and was put to death concerning the flesh, but was quickened in the spirit.
A. V.:...being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit...
Bois’s note: or, who was indeed put to death according to the flesh, but quickned according to the spirit.
The translators of the A. V. made two alterations in their wording from the interpretation which they had received from earlier versions. In introducing the preposition by, and in capitalizing Spirit, the translators of the A. V. referred the phrase to the Resurrection. They may have worded their solution in this way to avoid a popular but heretical view of the day which held that the flesh referred to Christ’s divine nature. The text of the A. V. precludes the possibility of one’s falling into this error. The note suggests that certain revisers objected to such a severe limitation of the meaning. The alternative permits an ambiguous reading of the text: “according to” extends the reference, so that one reads, “to the degree that the transformation of the flesh and spirit at death is effected.” Such a reading maintains the balanced structure of the Greek but prevents the heretical interpretation of the flesh as Christ’s human nature and the spirit as Christ’s divine nature.
The scholar, Ward Allen, shows again with this verse, the exquisite care taken by the A. V. translators. A precise formally equivalent translation of the Greek is made which at the same time preserves its theological meaning.
We note, looking through Bois’s notes, that the underlying Greek text was not challenged, apart from a handful of references to Beza’s Greek New Testament. The Greek Text, which became known as the Received Text, was regarded as settled and established.
It may be asked, why should not reference be made to other Greek New Testaments today (and there are plenty of them). The reason the Greek Texts of Greisbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland etc. are rejected by Bible believers is because all of these are based on manuscripts which have been shown up as depraved.
The manuscripts of the A. V. Bible have a proven pedigree. The A. V. translators were well aware of the existence of spurious manuscripts.

LANCELOT ANDREWESLancelot Andrewes was an outstanding scholar who served as chairman on the translation committee for the AV Bible. It is said of him,
There was his proficiency in languages, fifteen modern and six ancient (Lain, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic), which led Fuller to remark that he was ‘so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceived that he might, if then living, almost have served as an INTERPRETER-GENERAL in the confusion of Tongues.’ There was his encyclopedic knowledge of the Greek and Latin classics, of the Fathersboth Eastern and Westernof the Ancient Church, of the Canonists and Schoolmen. There was his detailed historical scholarship....
It is sometimes suggested that Andrewes was an Arminian in his theology. That is true only in so far as he rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.  Lancelot Andrewes 1555-1626; Paul A Welsby; SPCK 1964.
Andrewes was a godly man who, though a High Churchman (not to be confused with the modern High Church of England), was sympathetic to many of the Puritan values.
Where are such men as Andrewes and Bois and their company among today’s translators? Why do the modern critics decry the learning of the XVIth century? Is it because they are evolutionists and think that their intellect has somehow grown superior to that of four hundred years ago? They have learned nothing in relation to the Scriptures that our AV translators did not know. They are certainly not godlier. We do not know of any modern textual critic having the linguistic ability that the AV men had. Yet “scholarship” is the object of adoration on the modern altar.
Modern scholarship has proved itself so often to be apostate. It does not approach the Scriptures in faith, but declares that the Bible can be handled in the same way as any other book. It declares that inspiration applies only to the “original” manuscripts and that only the textual scholars can restore the Bible to anything near the original. It tells us that this work of restoration has no hope of completion. It tells us that God cannot keep His promises.
Thank God the “babe” in Christ knows better.

AV BIBLE NOT MERELY A REVISIONModern Versionists often allege that the AV is merely a revision of the 15th C. versions, namely the Bishop’s Bible, Geneva Bible etc. The allegation is made on the basis of a statement made by the Translators and found in their Translators to the Reader. They wrote,

We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

This statement, wrenched out of context, has been taken to mean that the AV Bible is no more than a revision of earlier English versions. This is not a new view. Sir James Burges in 1818 quoted the above statement and proclaimed that
The authors….fulfilled [King James I’s] intentions, not by making a new Translation, the remotest design of doing which they disclaimed, but by collating and revising the former Translations. A Vindication of our Authorized Translation; 1819; J H Todd; p.13.

Todd laid to rest this misinformation in his book published in 1819. Any today may see Burges’s error simply by reading Translators to the Reader for themselves. In it we find described the manner in which the AV Translators set about their work. I give a brief account below.
The translators worked in groups of six. Each group had a particular section of the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures to translate. They started therefore, with either the Masoretic or the Greek Received Text in front of them. A passage would be read audibly and if all were in agreement the reading continued. Any member might challenge at any point and then all would consider the precise translation required. They used all the helps available and were free to approach other scholars not involved in the translation. They looked at the Vulgate of Jerome, and at the Septuagint but they were not bound by them. In fact they confessed to their gross imperfections.
When all the group were agreed they would move on. Each group would then check the work of the other groups. So they arrived at a translation in which all were agreed. Difficult words or phrases were to be noted in the margin.
Having established a sound translation they resolved not to change the English of Tyndale and Coverdale where they adequately expressed the true meaning of their translation.
They were not interested a new Translation as such, but that one good Bible might be produced to replace the numerous other English versions.
Todd tells us that Selden, a contemporary of the Translators, wrote in his Works,iii. 2009, The English Translation of the Bible [AV] is the best Translation in the world, and renders the sense of the Original best, taking in for the English Translation the Bishops’ Bible, as well as King James’s. This verdict was based on a scholarly examination of the Translation.
Todd also writes of the comments of Dr Geddes, that “The highest eulogiums have been made on the Translation of James the First both by our own writers, and by foreigners. And indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent Version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.”
Again, “Their reverence for the Sacred Scriptures induced them to be as literal as they could, to avoid obscurity; and it must be acknowledged, that they were extremely happy in the simplicity and dignity of their expressions. Their adherence to the Hebrew idiom is supposed at once to have enriched and adorned our language.”

COMMENTS ON DARBY’S TRANSLATIONThere is very little written about Darby’s translation. One reason I think is because it and he were held in low regard by all outside (Brethren) assembly fellowship.
I have before me a leaflet stating “What J.N. Darby thought of the Revisers, their R.V. (1881) and the manuscripts they used”, being quotes taken from the Letters of J.N.D. Vol.3. The first reads; “I believe the old manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) have been quite as much wilfully tampered with, if not more than others”. P.129, Jan. 1881.
Another reads; “As to the Revised Version I think of it very badly indeed” p.188, Oct. 1881 The Alexandrinus ms. And a few other mss of the same family were seized upon by GREISBACH (1774-1805) to build a new Greek Text, to the rejection of all other mss. This was followed by LACHMANN (1842-1850) who continued in the same vein, rejecting entirely the Received Text which represents the majority of mss. Their works were used by TREGELLES and then by TISCHENDORF to produce their Gk. Texts, the latter having found the Sinaiticus ms. In a monastery waste bin which caused him to adapt his text accordingly. All this was the basis of the WESTCOTT& HORT text underlying the R.V. Apparently Darby chose to rely on the same few mss. To the exclusion of the Received Text in producing his New Translation, for he wrote:- “In translating the Greek Testament..... I had Greisbach, Scholz, Lachmann open before me, and Matthiae and others at my side, that when all agreed I might, if no particular reason, translate from the common text of best editions.” LETTERS. DUBLIN 1854.
Darby invented a hybrid text of his own that never had been Holy Scripture. If there was disagreement, he did what all the critics do, choosing whatever he thought best.
I have searched for some time for an account of Darby’s conversion but no biographer gives one. His doctrine of salvation was very ambiguous.
As to James 5:17 Darby reads “he prayed with prayer” Which makes gobbledegook of the English language. That might be the literal translation but our translators were intelligent men and recognized that not all Greek idioms could be translated literally.
In this case they could not use formal equivalence (which marks the AV out from the dynamic equivalence of modern translations) so they gave the equivalent meaning which is, “he prayed earnestly”. The word earnestly is not in italics in our Bible showing it to be the true translation. Note the AV marginal ref.


COMMENTS ON THE R.V. by Sir Robert Anderson, K.C.B.
"In the Revised Version of the New Testament textual criticism has done its worst. It is inconceivable that it will ever again be allowed to run riot as in the work of the Revisers of 1881. When that version appeared, Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln raised the question "whether the Church of England, - which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version under the express condition, which he most wisely imposed, that no changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary, - could consistently accept a version in which 36,000 changes have been made; not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable.

But what concerns us here is not the changes in the translation, but the far more serious matter of the changes in the text. The question at issue between the majority of the Revisers, who followed Doctors Hort and Westcott, and the very able and weighty minority led by Dr. Scrivener, the most capable and eminent "textual critic" of the whole company, was one with which every lawyer is familiar, but of which the Revisers may have had no experience and with which they were not competent to deal."

THE BIBLE and MODERN CRITICISM. P.104
Anderson was referring to the law of indirect evidence, in this context supplied by the early Fathers, ancient translations, the majority of later mss, etc. jurymen Hort and Westcott seized upon the direct evidence of but two or three ancient mss, as witnesses in order to "convict" the Received Text. These two or three witnesses proving themselves to be perjured whilst the indirect evidence would be acceptable in any just court of law. His point is that the principles on which the revision of the text was conducted are found to be unsound when judged by the science of evidence.." p.107

The R.V. was never accepted. What is it that compels some of our brethren to quote from it? Dean Burgon wrote more than 100 years ago, "In the end, when partisanship has cooled down, and passion has evaporated, and prejudice has ceased to find an auditory, the revision of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as what it most certainly is, the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age."

In 1905, twenty-five years after the Revised Version was published, a declaration was made and signed by 1,725 Anglican clergymen. The declaration was to this effect:-

1. That the clergy may now receive authoritative encouragement to face the critical problems of the NT with entire candour.

2. That those who apply historical methods to the gospel records should not be lost to the high office of the Ministry.

3. That it would be perilous to build the faith of souls primarily upon details of the NT narrative, the historical validity of which must ultimately be determined in the court of trained research.

4. That the faith of the Church [of England] will stand, whatever the historical revisions, upon the spiritual foundations to which Christian experience and the Creed of the Church alike bear testimony.
A letter was published on 30th May 1905 in all leading newspapers in the Empire referring to the Declaration. Below is an excerpt as it appeared in The Times on that day.
"It calls attention to a momentous intellectual movement of our times, named Biblical Criticism. In relation thereto it takes up two positions. (1) It asserts that it is both unwise and dangerous to shrink from applying to the New Testament, as the historical basis of Christianity, the processes of critical enquiry that have already, with advantage to faith and with general assent, been applied to the Old Testament; and that there is within the Church a legitimate and even necessary place for reverent, frank, and dispassionate discussion of the problems to which the criticism of the New Testament gives rise. (2) The declaration maintains that, whatever be the issue of criticism, the Faith of the Church will stand unmoved. Though no man, looking a generation or two ahead, can foresee the results of criticism, or can say to the critical movement, 'thus far shalt thou go, and no farther,' still the Declaration holds that the Faith of the Church will remain, strengthened and secure.

These men feared the opposition of godly and well-taught Bible believers in their midst. Dean Burgon had been one of them. They wanted men who would ravage the word of God and bring it to no effect. They wanted a system built on "experience" and man made rules rather than the Scriptures.
A century later we see the devastating results of this critical philosophy throughout Christendom- an Anglican Church in full apostasy. The essential doctrines of faiththe Full Deity, the Virgin Birth, the Sacrificial Death, the Real Resurrection, of Christdenied. And evil practices found instead not only among Anglican clergy but also throughout professing Christendom.

Biblical Criticism has led to a denial of the Word of God which has spread like a cancer. Biblical Criticism destroys faith and cannot build faith. Biblical Criticism has not been ignored by competent believing scholars. It has been closely examined by men such as Burgon, Hills, Otis Fuller, Nolan, etc. and has been found wanting.

Believers do accept the historical narratives as being verbally inspired and given through the Holy Spirit of God. The narratives are Scripture and are therefore accurate in detail and without any error. They are the only record for the child of God concerning the life of Christ. Faith can be built on nothing else.

The Scofield Study BibleThe issue of the TBS Quarterly Record (No. 566 -January to March) has a useful article regarding the ScofieJd Study Bible, written by the Editorial Editor, Mr G W Anderson.. We read, . /:
In the margin of the SRB [Scofield Reference Bible], Scofield wrote a series of notes about translation and textual changes to the text. Since most people who are familiar with the AV are accustomed to this kind of notes, many people do not realize that the marginal notes in the SRB are not the same as those in the A V. In fact, many of the marginal notations call into question the traditional readings of the AV and suggest substitution of readings from the critical Greek text of the New Testament.
The article goes on to show the extent of the changes which Scofield suggested. The first dealt with is John 6: 69 (see Integrity of the AV Bible above). Among the others listed we find, the following (which I quote as they appear in the TBS article).
• Page 1049, Mark 3.29, reference 'g' is bound by eternal sin [AV 'in danger of eternal damnation'] - :
• Page 1069, Mark 16.9-20, [owing perhaps, to the importance of this passage, the SRB departs from its customary marginal notation for a textual omission and inserts a footnote (footnote 1)].
The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolyyus in the second or third century.
• Page 1173, Acts 16.26, reference 'y' "blood" is not in the best manuscripts. R.V. omits
• Page 1271, 2 Thessalonians, 'Introduction' 'The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the A.V. of 2.2, where "day of Christ is at hand" (1 Cor. 1.8 note ) should be, "day of the LORD is now present" (Isa.2. 12, refs.) [The note at I Corinthians 1.8 says, in part, 'A.V. has "day of Christ" relates wholly to the reward and blessing of saints at His coming, as "day of the Lord" is connected with judgment"]
• Page 1325, I John 5'7, reference 'o' It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.
The article, in the Conclusion, says “Many fundamentalist Baptist preachers and 'Brethren' leaders in the UK, Australia and USA use and recommend the Scofield Study Bible 1917 edition. 1 have seen it advertised on KJV Only Internet web sites as well as bookshops. Some acknowledge that there are flaws in the theological footnotes as well as in the margin textual notes. Many, however, may not be aware of just how many problematic textual notes there are and how damaging they can be. Many believers who are not taught about such things lack discernment and follow the Scofield marginal renderings without question.”
Some of our brethren think that it is only the 1967 edition New Scofield Study Bible that has been tampered with. The IBS article is about the 1917 'Old Scofield'. We understand that on the second page of the introduction to the first edition published in 1909, Scofield acknowledged that he had been influenced by two Oxford Bible scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.
Scofield's attitude to Scripture is revealed in his note on 2 Thes. 2: 2. 'The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the AV.' He thought, as do our current 'Brethren' leaders, that if the Bible does not conform to established theology that the Bible is wrong and not their theology. The word to describe this attitude is "Apostasy". I firmly believe in the teaching relating to the Rapture and 1 believe what the Bible says about the Day of the Lord, but 1 don't need to mutilate Scripture to make it fit.
We are reminded again that 'Brethren' leaders are largely responsible for making the critical text, and thereby modern versions, acceptable within conservative fundamental and evangelical circles. This by promoting Scofield. And there are others beside Scofield...


THE NEWBERRY STUDY BIBLEA sales leaflet promoting the Newberry Bible says, 'Try to imagine having a Greek and Hebrew scholar sitting next to you as you read your Bible, ready with easy-to-understand answers to all your questions. That's what it's like to be the owner of the very special deluxe leather Newberry Study Bible.'
I try to imagine no such thing, not even in my most fevered moments. I would not like to be in the same building with a Greek and Hebrew scholar. The majority of scholars follow the apostate line in textual criticism and Newberry was no exception.

We don't need any 'scholar' sitting next to us to answer ALL our questions. He would be in conflict with the Holy Spirit dwelling within Who teaches us ALL things.
Readers must distinguish between a Spirit appointed teacher and a scholar. Teachers are a gift from God to the church (1 Cor.12:28) who are able to give to us the sense or meaning of a passage. The indwelling Holy Spirit confirms to the soul the truth of what is taught. That scholar who is not God-appointed tells us what he considers should be included or excluded on the page of Scripture. This is what Newberry did. He took the AV Bible and in the margin added all his corrections to the text. He then covered the page with dots and squiggles, being symbols allegedly showing what the true tense might be.

The sales promotion of this Newberry Study bible is careful not to mention that it is the AV Bible with Newberry adaptations that is being sold. Not even on the full colour brochure is it mentioned that this is an AV Bible. This fact is finally discovered at the end of four sides of sales splurge when one comes to the detachable order form.
We read the headline of this promotion, 'At last, enjoyable and rewarding Bible study made easy', and wonder how believers ever coped in their study before this American-style publishing 'house' arrived. I suppose it is made easy because one no longer has to spend long hours in meditation on the Scriptures, in dependency on the Holy Spirit.

We are also informed that, 'Like all great scholars he [Newberry] knew that there are precisions, perfections and beauties in the original languages that cannot be reproduced in any translation. So His[sic] passion in life was to provide you with the all-in- one bible that would open up these treasures before your very eyes (without you having to be a genius). He assumed that the English language was not a capable medium for the transmission of the word of God to English speaking believers. The present publishers endorse this. In fact they tell us that no languages apart from Hebrew and Greek can sufficiently contain the word of God. The conclusion we are forced to is that the AV Bibleand every other Bible in any modern languageis defective, and needs the likes of Newberry to bring it up to what God wanted it to be.

The first error is found in Newberry's introduction where we read, 'The plenary inspiration of the original Scriptures is taken for granted. (my italics). This is one of the foundation stones of apostate scholarship, swallowed by most of our ministering brethren today, that inspiration does not apply to any bible today. This is why these men feel free to meddle with God's word as they will. But my Bible reads, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God… not ‘was given’! If my Bible is not the inspired word of God, then it is not Scripture, it is not the word of God at all. Newberry's statement charges God with incompetence at the very least. He could not preserve that which He originally gave by inspiration. Why, out of all the human race, would just one generation of men be blessed with the 'plenary inspired Scriptures? Note too that the canon of Scripture was not complete until the 2nd century AD. All the documents used to produce the first Bible were copies and probably not of the 'original' either. This means that there has never existed on this earth at any time an inspired Bible according to our scholar. The scholar's God lies inside his own head.

The next error in the Newberry Bible is found in Genesis Ch.1 where Newberry left a gap on the page between verses one and two. Did Moses leave a gap when he first set down Genesis? There is no manuscript evidence pointing to that. Did Newberry think himself wiser than Moses? Newberry was a 'gappist', pandering to the evolutionists of his day.
We are informed that 'the Newberry Study Bible is not full of notes telling you what the Bible means'. Yet when we look down the right hand margins on every page that is precisely what Newberry did. The meanings he supplies are frequently in accord with the readings found in JND's translation.

AV JND NEWBERRY Marg.

Matthew 4:23
The gospel glad tidings glad tidings

2 Tim.1:2
my dearly beloved son. my beloved child child

Romans 1:17
The just shall live by faith But the just shall live by faith. But
This is a textual change showing that neither JND nor TN held to the Received Text.

Hebrews 11:1
The evidence The conviction the conviction

Hebrews 12.2
Looking unto Jesus the looking steadfastly on Jesus captain or leader.
author and finisher of the leader and completer of 'our' is bracketed
our faith faith. as well as italicized.

1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation …for the whole world for[ the sins of] the whole
For the sins of the whole world
world Brackets indicate that TN thought these words should be omitted

The omission of 'the sins of' panders to the false doctrine of a limited atonement . Check the formatting of these verses
These are but a few of the hundreds of changes made.
Besides marginal notes, every page has its footnotes. These contain the Critical Various Readings of the Greek Text, where the MSS for and against are indicated.

No doubt Newberry and other Bible critics thought these would be helpful to the student in making up his own mind as to what is the word of God and what is not. This 'help' has served to undermine faith in God. The student no longer trusts his Bible.

Some examples are given below.

Mark 1:2
As it is written in the prophets.
‘In the prophets’, found in mss AEFHKMPSUVGP. – ‘In Esaias the prophet’, found in ÀBDLD.
All the critics accept the Esaias reading, denying Mark's authorship or making him to be ignorant, attributing Malachi's words to Isaiah.

Luke 2:22
The days of her purification
‘Her purification’.-‘His purification’, found in D. – ‘Their purification, alephABEGHKLMRSUVXGDLXP

The inference here is that only one solitary ms,(D), refers to Mary's purification while the majority speak of their purification (including father and child). The charge is false, first because there are other mss extant supporting the RT reading. Second the thought that the Holy child required purification is blasphemous and Joseph was not His father. The purification was in accordance with Lev. 12. JND reads 'when the days were fulfilled for their purifying…' his determination to follow a depraved text in his translation was more important to him than the acknowledgment of the deity of Christ.

Romans 1:16
The gospel of Christ.
‘Of Christ’, in D3KLP.- Omitted in AlephABCD1EG.
JND reads ‘I am not ashamed of the glad tidings’, which may mean anything. Errorists will leave Christ out of the gospel. There are many verses where Christ is omitted.

1 Timothy 3:16
God was manifest in the flesh.
‘God’, in Aleph5C3D3KLP.- Who, in Aleph1AC1F(Gr)G(Gr).
Aleph is our old 'friend' Codex Siniaticus. But even this is divided in its loyalty being a most depraved MS. The superscript 5 indicates that this is the fourth correction, the superscript 1 indicating the 'original' reading. We point out that the RT reading is very well attested, as it is below.

Revelation 22:16
Blessed are they that do his commandments
‘Do His commandments’, in B.-‘Wash their robes’, in alephA
One might think that there is only one ms supporting the TR. That is false.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible.
Why is there a need for yet another English translation of the Bible? The answer from Holman is that “each new generation must be introduced to God’s word in its own language” p.x. Holman apparently hasn’t noticed that this generation is being flooded with versions of the bible. Believers cannot help but notice that the language of this generation is the language of the gutter. Believers
speak an altogether different kind of language. They speak with a pure tongue.

Holman tells us that rapid changes in our language demand a fresh translation. In fact a fresh translation will be required every few weeks.
“Rapid advances in biblical research provide new data for bible translators.” If you didn’t know that modern bible translators are evolutionists, you know it now. They do not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. They do not believe that God had much to do with producing the Bible anyway.
“Advances in computer technology have opened a new door for Bible translation”. The old computing adage was “rubbish in –
rubbish out”. Feed in rubbish; heaps of depraved manuscripts, click the mouse, and hey presto, out trots the golden Holman calf.
This perversion follows the old order, relying on the NA 27th ed. Greek, and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5th ed. for the Old Testament.
Very cleverly they avoid the problem of whether to follow Formal Equivalence or Dynamic Equivalence by inventing a third option which they call Optimal Equivalence. This, they claim, conveys the sense of the original with as much clarity as the original text and the translation language permit. It is of course the sense according to Holman that is transmitted. Holman does not believe in Verbal Inspiration, the very words of Scripture are inspired of God.
VINE ON TRANSLATIONS
"If we regard translations as of equal value with the original text, then we make room for almost every possible form of error." W E Vine;Vol.1 Collected Writings; p.27.

And what has happened? Multitudes of versions have been produced, many denying Christ in many places. And not only that, but they have been produced by those very people who do not regard "the original text" as verbally inspired or inerrant. But there has been ONE translation made by those who did hold to the inerrancy of the originally given Scriptures, which is itself inerrant and without fault. A translation which is devoid of error, including doctrinal error. It is the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures.

Mr Vine declared that there is no perfect Word of God in existence. That was his belief. He believed it was up to men such as himself to let the world know what is true "Bible" and what is not. He did not believe that God could or would preserve His word complete and intact from the beginning. It would have to be rummaged for in Sinaitic dustbins, and then Mr Murdoch would have to be relied upon to issue contemporary PERversions.

This is what Vine wrote:-
"We are told that the belief in the inerrancy of the autograph originals is only of practical value if we can decide as to which of the variations accord with the originals, and that where a difference of judgment still remains such belief is impossible. But there is no doubt at all as regards the great bulk of Scripture."

It has long since been shown that the variations from the Received Text come from polluted sources. The Received Text has a proven pedigree.

Mr Vine regarded parts of the Bible as "doubtful" as to their faithfulness to what God originally supplied. He believed that ANY translation would, by dint of translation, be to some extent inferior. That is, today we have an inferior Bible and God can't do any better for us. The cold shroud of unbelieving scholarship has worked its deadly influence. We include the works of Darby, Kelly, Tregelles in this. These men also believed the word of God to be unsettled, and would only become settled through the continued efforts of the textual critics.


SCRIVENER ON THE MANUSCRIPTSDr F H A Scrivener served on the committee which produced the Revised Version. He was concerned that the Received Text was not given proper consideration but was repeatedly out-voted by the rest of the committee, led by Westcott and Hort, who were following their own agenda.
After the Revised Version was published, Scrivener wrote A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. This was published in 1883 by George Bell & Sons, and I quote below from the fourth edition, published in 1894 and edited by Edward Miller.
Scrivener made these comments on the Greek manuscripts used by the Revisers:

a (Aleph). CODEX SINAITICUS.
From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. ...The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections.....It lends its grave authority, now to one and now to another, as to convince us more than ever of the futility of seeking to derive the genuine text of the New Testament from any one copy.

A. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS.
The Codex Alexandrinus has been judged to be carelessly written. This manuscript is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as it exhibits (especially in the gospels) a text more nearly approaching that found in later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity, although some of its errors are portentous enough.

B. CODEX VATICANUS.
Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history might be written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a very unprofitable history it would be. ....Those who agree the most unreservedly respecting the age of the Codex Vaticanus, vary widely in their estimate of its critical value. By some it has been held in such undue esteem that its readings, if probable in themselves, and supported (or even thought not supported) by two or three other copies and versions, have been accepted in preference to the united testimony of all authorities besides: while others, admitting the interest due to age, have spoken of its text as one of the most vicious extant.
One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of omissions, which has induced Dr Dobbin to speak of it as presenting ‘an abbreviated text of the New Testament.

C. CODEX EPHRAEMI.
The ancient writing is barely legible, having been almost removed about the twelfth century to receive some Greek words of St Ephraem, the great Syrian Father [299-378].
None but those who have seen Cod. C can appreciate the difficulty of deciphering some parts of it.
Two correctors have been very busily at work on it, greatly to the perplexity of the critical collator....the earliest....are for some cause regarded by Dr hort as almost equally valuable for critical purposes with the manuscript itself.

D. OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS. CODEX BEZAE.
There are not a few hiatus both in the Greek and Latin texts.[This is a parallel Greek/Latin ms. Whole passages are missing throughout]
The internal character of the Cod. Bezae is a most difficult and indeed an almost inexhaustible theme. No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), countenanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and the Curetonian Version: its own parallel Latin translation is to servilely accommodated to the Greek text to be regarded as an independent authority, save where the corresponding Greek is lost.
Mr Rendel Harris infers that the Greek has been made up from the Latin.

These four manuscripts, aABCD, were given undue weight in the production of the Revised Version, as they still are in the modern versions. The great majority of manuscripts, which happen to agree with the Received, or Byzantine, Text have been ignored. But these four, as Scrivener demonstrated so long ago, are very unreliable and frequently they do not agree among themselves. The evidence against them was known for the whole of the last century but it makes no difference to those who are determined even yet to follow their own agenda.

Seeing that the Bible is a divinely given Book, we should not be surprised to find it the target of Satanic attack. We have to ask ourselves what form of attack is most likely, and the answer will be, the form that induces the believer to think that the Bible he has is imperfect. Satan will tell us there are errors and alterations and we can never be absolutely certain that the Bible we have is identical to the word of God as it was first delivered.
Our God is faithful and He is able to perform that which He has spoken.

MANUSCRIPT DIFFERENCES
This question is asked in Truth and Tidings; July 99. "Do differences in the manuscripts mean that our Bible is not totally reliable?"

Before the question can be answered, we have to ask, "what do you mean by our Bible?" Your bible is probably some modern version. My Bible is the Authorized Version. To suggest that our Bible is one and the same merely promotes confusion. The use of different manuscripts has resulted in two very different bibles. They are (in the English tongue) The AV and the rest. There are basically two ms families behind these two bibles. The received text for the AV NT, and the Westcott and Hort text for the rest.

My Bible is translated from the mss which formed the RT. It has a pedigree that can be traced back to the 2nd century. It is the one that God has preserved for us from the beginning. It is 100% reliable.
The question is answered in the magazine from the usual unbelieving point of view. I quote: "The Lord in His wisdom did not preserve to us the original autographs of the Scriptures...Our Lord asserts the exact inspiration of the original words (Matthew 22:29-32)."

The implication in these statements is that the exact words of God as first given are now lost and that the inspiration of Scripture did not go beyond those first, and now lost, manuscripts. That is a pernicious lie.
Mt.22:29-32 makes no reference to inspiration or to original words. In that passage the Lord did not even quote Scripture, but said Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. The magazine writer therefore is equating the word "Scriptures" with "original words". He does not believe that the Scriptures exist today. Those Pharisees never had the original words in their possession either.
The writer goes on; " Their precise truth has been preserved (Psalm 119:89)". We are informed that not the words but the truth has been preserved.

How more blatant can these people get in their lying? For we turn to the verse and read For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. The lie being propagated today is that it is the message that is preserved so the form of the words is of little consequence. A few changes here, a little alteration there, do not have any real impact on the doctrines, the truths presented.

What authority do we have for this modern view? Mr Vine of course. "Mr Vine concludes, as do others, 'there is no doctrine in Scripture which would be affected if all the words, or those about which there is any doubt, were omitted'. Oh well, it doesn't matter then does it? The 36,000 changes to the AV found in modern versions are too trivial to worry about. In which case why not stick with the AV anyway? But they do matter, and doctrine is seriously affected. What a pity that Vine and so many other scholars lacked discernment in this. The article below shows a few examples, out of many, where doctrine has been seriously affected.
The writer concludes his answer by saying "We build safely on the reliability of God's immutable Word (Matthew 7:24-25)." Immutable! There's a word to beguile the unwary and the ignorant. We are assured that God's word, though it has been changed in 36,000 places since 1881 is unchangeable, constant, because that is what immutable means.

THE OLD THEORY OF INSPIRATION
In the year 1910 Dr F C Coneybeare M A; a Doctor of Theology no less, wrote of the "old theory of inspiration" (History of New Testament Criticism, p. 129) There was a theory, he thought, that held to the verbal inspiration of Scripture to the extent that the actual words written down were the very words spoken by God. Coneybeare, an apostate cleric, wrote
Burgon's one aim was to canonise the misprints of a sixteenth-century printer. He was, in fact, upholding a paradox; he would not—perhaps could not, so dense was the veil of prejudice with which the old theory of inspiration covered his eyes—see that prior to the collection of the gospels in a canon, about the year 180, and while they were still circulation singly in isolated churches, their text was less fixed, and more liable to changes, doctrinal and transcriptional, than they ever were afterwards; and that the ultimate text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable.
Coneybeare accused Burgon of prejudice. Coneybeare in his book and in the statement above revealed his own bigotry. Anyone who has read Burgon or knows anything of his life will know that he spent years researching his subject and certainly had no preconceived ideas in forming his conviction that the Scriptures are (not were) verbally inspired— apart from this, that the subject should be approached from the ground of faith. Such a view has to be the basis of the Christian faith.
Coneybeare thought that one Book containing the whole word of God never existed and never could exist. He would not allow that believers in the first century AD were well aware what constituted Scripture and Paul in his own writing told the believers that mischievous men were already adulterating the word of God ( 2 Cor.2:17, 2 Thes. 2:2)
.Burgon was one of those true scholars who helped us to see that what we have in our English Authorized Bible is what the believers first received in their language in the first century.
Coneybeare believed in an incompetent god. Coneybeare's offspring don't even believe that God gave the Scriptures in the first place. Being evolutionists (and therefore hell-bound) they think the Bible evolved and is still evolving. To facilitate this wicked belief they change the terms. The "old theory" has to go. Of course, the rationalist Greisbach was a leader in this field. He produced his Greek New Testament on the basis that there was no , verbal inspiration involved. Therefore any man can alter it according to his own whim as per so many who followed on; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott, Hort, Darby and Co.
Benjamin Warfield also didn't like the old definition of inspiration. He thought that only the autographs could be considered inspired so that inerrancy applied only to these. This idea caught on so that many claiming to be fundamentalists are teaching that the inspiration of Scripture is limited to the original manuscripts and is not preserved in any copies no matter how faithful the copyist or translator has been.
Warfield's rationalistic influence has produced a play on the words infallible/inerranl We need only say here that D Cloud has pointed out that the words are synonymous. He wrote
We have seen that Letis frequently quotes men in a positive light who deny the infallibility of the Bible. In fact, Dr. Letis quotes men who claim there might have been errors even in the inspired original writings of Scripture (The Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 23,24,49), and he does not denounce such a view. Does Letis himself believe there were errors in the inspired Scripture? He says he does not like the use of the term "inerrancy" concerning the Bible. He says this is because inerrancy is "always and only" associated with the B.B. Warfield view that the Bible was inerrant only "in the original autographs" (The Ecclesiastical Text, p. 80). Jt is very suspicious, though, to protest against the use of the term inerrancy for any reason. Even if Dr. Letis is correct in claiming that the term originated with B.B. Warfield's view that the Bible is inerrant only in the "originals," it is still a good and accurate term. In means "freedom from error or untruths; incapable of error" (American Heritage Dictionary). Infallible and inerrant are almost perfect synonyms, in fact. If the Bible is infallible, it is inerrant; and if it is inerrant, it is infallible. Both mean freedom from and incapable of error. That is exactly what we believe about the Bible. Though we don't limit inerrancy or infallibility to "the original autographs," we certainly do believe the original autographs were inerrantly inspired and we believe it is important to say so.
The historic belief in the verbal inspiration of Scripture in its inerrancy and its infallibilityholds good today.