In God's wisdom miraculous gifts were necessary to establish and protect the church during its infancy in a very broken world. Some of the gifts were for evangelism, preaching, teaching, development and growth of Christ's church. God used miracles for the purpose of establishing the early church. God gave power to the twelve apostles and to others to use miracles to validate the message of salvation from God and the teaching of the purpose and operation of the New Testament church. This may be described as the:
foundation (Luke 9:26; John 14:26; Acts 4:2; 5:21; 10:34-43; 11:26; 20:19-21; 1Cor 3:11; Gal 1:12; 1Thes 1:9; 1Jn 3:23; etc.),
function (Acts 5:42; 16:10; Rom 10:15; 12:1-2; 1Cor 16:15, 19; Eph 1:3-14; Col 2:7; Heb 6:1-2; 10:25; etc.),
practice (Eph 4:28; Col 2:11; 1Thes 4:11; 1Tim 3:1-16; 5:1-25; 2Tim 3:9-10; Phil 1:2; Heb 12:11-13; James 4:8; 1Pet 1:14-16; 4:1-19; 1Jn 3:11; 4:7, etc.),
and direction of the church (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15).
God used miracles to confirm the message taught to the early diciples (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 1John 3:11) until that whole message was fully written.1 Now we have the whole counsel of God, the Holy Scriptures, with the complete written New Testament joined to the Old Testament.
These places in the New Testament refer to usage of the Old Testament scriptures: Acts 13:29; 24:14; Rom 1:17; 3:10; 10:15; 14:11; 15:4; 1Cor 10:11; Gal 3:10, 13; et cetera.
While these texts refer to the writings that will form the New Testament scriptures: Acts 15:23; 21:25; Rom 15:15; 16:22; 1Cor 4:6; 5:9, 11; 2Cor 2:3-4; 3:3, 6; 7:8, 12; 10:10; Gal 6:11; Eph 3:3; 2Thes 2:2; Phil 1:21; Heb 13:22; 1Pet 5:12; 2Pet 3:15; 1Jn 2:14, 21; 2:26; 5:13; 2John 1:5; 3John 1:9.
"It is written" (found 80 times in the Holy Bible) is the highest form of retention of valuable and historical information. Adam and his offspring wrote of events and their lineage, Noah and his offspring wrote of events and their lineage, Abraham and his offspring wrote and recorded for us their history. Moses took these former writings and collated, organized, and codified them in the book of Genesis and then he added the historical account of Israel in Egypt and their wilderness experience up to his death in the books of Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Joshua, in his book, recorded Moses death and the early years of Israel in the promised land of Canaan, Samuel recorded the books of Judges and 1 Samuel, and likewise the prophets through Malachi.
Then the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was recorded by the very people who directly heard and observed Jesus (Luke 1:1-4), including by Mark (Barnabas nephew, Acts 12:25; Colossians 4:10; Acts 12:12), or gathered the information from observers and carefully recorded it as done by Luke. These four pieces formed the Gospels. In the same manner the Holy Spirit directed the record of the initiation, infancy, direction and early journey of Christ's church. The early churches eagerly desired to hold unto and pass to each other the letters and epistles from the Apostles and Elders (Acts 15:23; 18:27; 1 Cor 7:1; 16:3; 2 Cor 3:1; 7:8; 10:9; 10:10-11; Gal 6:11; Eph 3:3; Col 4:16; 1 Thes 5:27; 2 Thes 2:2; Heb 13:22, 3 John 1:9; etc.), based upon Psalms 119:137-142; Proverbs 22:28 KJV.
This compilation of Gospels, letters, and epistles that we call the New Testament was written (from about 45 to 96 A.D.) before the last Apostle, John, died about 100 A.D. The codification of the details and teaching was started by about 45 A.D. (Acts 15:23) and completed, before 70 years had passed after Jesus died, and was within the lifetime of the earliest believers or their direct disciples (1st person and 2nd person witnesses). Therefore, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the introductory verbal proclamation of the gospel message, i.e. the expanded gospel (Mark 1:1, 15; Matt 4:23; Acts 8:25; 16:10; Rom 1:1, 16; 2:16; 16:25; 1 Cor 14:37; 1 Tim 1:11; 2 Tim 2:8; 1 Pet 4:6; etc.), comes to an end and it is codified* for us to examine to give us an assurance of salvation through Jesus Christ (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21). [*codified: list of tests ]
"But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is not important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired, why is it important to insist that Gospel is completely true? And if this is not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God? In short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible and its text."
Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 225.2
"For example, how do we know that the Textus Receptus is the true New Testament text? We know this through the logic of faith. Because the Gospel is true, the Bible which contains this Gospel was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit. And because the Bible was infallibly inspired, it has been preserved by God's special providence. Moreover, this providential preservation was not done privately in secret holes and caves but publicly in the usage of God's Church. Hence the true New Testament text is found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts. And this providential preservation did not cease with the invention of printing. Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided.
"And how do we know that the King James Version is a faithful translation of the true New Testament text? We know this also through the logic of faith. Since the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, the translation of it was God-guided also. For as the Textus Receptus was being formed, it was also being translated. The two processes were simultaneous. Hence the early Protestant versions, such as Luther's, Tyndale's, the Geneva, and the King James, were actually varieties of the Textus Receptus. And this was necessarily so according to the principles of God's preserving providence. For the Textus Receptus had to be translated in order that the universal priesthood of believers, the rank and file, might give it their God-guided approval."
Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 113-114.2
"This faith, however, has from time to time been distorted by the intrusion of unbiblical ideas. For example, many Jews and early Christians believed that the inspiration of the Old Testament had been repeated three times. According to them, not only had the original Old Testament writers been inspired but also Ezra, who (supposedly) rewrote the whole Old testament after it had been lost. And the Septuagint likewise, they maintained, had been infallibly inspired. Also the Roman Catholics have distorted the common faith by their false doctrine that the authority of the Scriptures rests on the authority of the Church. It was this erroneous view that led the Roman Church to adopt the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as its authoritative Bible. And finally, many conservative Christians today distort the common faith by their adherence to the theories of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism. They smile at the legends concerning Ezra and the Septuagint, but they themselves have concocted a myth even more absurd, namely, that the true New Testament text was lost for more 1,500 years and then restored by Westcott and Hort."
Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 194.2
"Yet despite the efforts on behalf of the Church by Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, and – in the twentieth century – Hills, recently we have been placed in the bizarre situation of noting that whereas our opponents blasphemously assert that the TR/KJB New Testament is wrong in at least 5,300 instances –many of our Christian friends now say, "No, it errs only about 1,500 times." Thus many good brothers in Christ Jesus have been seduced into siding with the liberals and/or apostates as both positions embrace "restoration" rather than "preservation". Truly, such is a deplorable state! Worthy of the most deliberate consideration is the proposition that anytime the entire world system agrees with the Christian about any matter which is spiritual or has spiritual overtones –not only are we wrong – the error is nearly always 180 degrees out of phase with God's truth.
"Moreover, the single greatest move of the hand of God since the time of the Lord Jesus and the Apostles as recorded in the Book of Acts was that of the Reformation. This great move must be recognized as the direct result of the historical restoration by Erasmus of the true text that the Apostles lived and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The reader must then confront himself with the question: "If the Reformation were the fruit of restoring to the people the text known today as the Textus Receptus, where is the great revival that should have accompanied the labor of the past 100 years of text-critically editing and correcting that document?" The "Great Awakening" of the 1700's as well as the revivals of the late 1800's and early part of the 1900's under men such as Wesley, Whitefield, Finney, Spurgeon, Moody, R.A. Torrey, and Billy Sunday were all preached from the King James text.
"To the contrary, we know of no revival that resulted from using the critical text. Thus we see that the fruit of the TR/KJB has been the harvest of millions of souls. In stark contrast, the fruit of the critical text and its offspring has been doubt, division, endless debate, wasted time and energy that could have been spent in worship or evangelical effort, and the destruction of the faith at most seminaries and many pastors along with the sheep who feed at their feet. If the critical text is the better text, where are the great revivals that should have followed this enterprise? Does not this hard historical truth bear irrefutable testimony as to which text the Spirit of God has endorsed and stamped genuine – to that which He breathed man-ward?"
Jones, Which Version Is The Bible?, pp. 213-214.3
"It cannot be over stressed that just as the LORD used the Hebrew community to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures as He had originally given to them in that selfsame language (i.e., the Hebrew Masoretic text), even so the instrument by which GOD has preserved the New Testament text has been that community through which the Greek tongue has been continued. The Textus Receptus is the official text of the Greek Orthodox Church to this very day.
"We purport that the various editions of the Textus Receptus are the overall framework within which providential preservation has operated. We affirm that all the words of the inspired New Testament Scriptures are to be found within this framework. We proclaim that the work of the various editors – Erasmus, Stephens, Beza and the Elizevirs – was the result of God's providence in stabilizing the TR as a settled entity. Hence, no further revision of the Greek wording is needed as God, through His providence, has settled the text. Further, we have seen that the dark ages truly began with the Greek text of Westcott and Hort (Origen-Eusebius) which was published by Jerome in 405 A.D., and ended with the 1516 publication of the Greek text of Erasmus.
"Any small variations among the editions of the Textus Receptus, other than typographical errors, should be indicated in the center column of future editions. The critic's allegation that God has not preserved every word of the inspired N.T. text solely in the TR is an un-provable and untruthful assertion. The Christian needs a firmer foundation than the ever shifting consensus of scholarly opinion upon which to anchor his faith. Only the existence of a continuously preserved, providentially determined text provides such a basis. The Textus Receptus alone affords such a cornerstone."
Jones, Which Version Is The Bible?, p.214-215.
"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages."
Fuller (ed.), Which Bible?, p. 147.4
God used a chain of churches in a powerful manner to preserve the original text of the New Testament. This was reinforced by the presence of able scholars. This spectrum of churches reached from Palestine to Scotland.
"The Textus Receptus or Greek Vulgate (i.e., commonly used or current) had been the Bible of the Greek Empire, the countries of Syrian Christianity, northern Italy, Southern France and the British Isles in the second century. This was more than a full century before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came to see the light of day under the direction of Eusebius and Pamphilus. When the Roman Church began to send out missionaries in later centuries, they found these people already using the Textus Receptus. Moreover, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity, subsequently being adopted as the official text of the Greek Orthodox Church. Hort himself conceded this (Westcott, B. F. and F. J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper and Bros. 1882., p. 143). We also have the witness of the great Syrian Church, the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, the Gallic Church in France, and the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland as to the authenticity and apostolicity of the Received Text.
"The ancient records of the first believers in Christ Jesus in these lands unmistakably reveal that they were first penetrated by missionaries from Palestine and Asia Minor, not Rome. Further, the Greek New Testament (or its translation) which they brought with them was of the text type from which the Protestant Bibles such as the King James and the Lutheran (in German) were translated.
"The first converts in ancient Britain held their ground when the pagan Anglo-Saxons descended over the land like locusts. In A.D. 596, when the Pope sent Augustine (not the Bishop of Hippo, see page 167) to convert England, he treated these early Christian Britons with contempt and even connived with the Anglo-Saxons in their extermination of those devout folk. Indeed, British Christianity did not come from Rome.
"At the forefront of early evangelism was the little island of Iona, located off the northwest coast of Scotland. Its most historic citizen was Columba, an Irish churchman of royal lineage. Columba (521-597) founded a theological school upon that island rock, utilizing manuscriptsfrom Asia Minor. From Iona, the Gospel was carried to the Picts on the mainland, to the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany, and even Italy. When Rome began to send out missionaries to extend her power, she found Great Britain and northern Europe already professing a Christianity which could trace its origin back through Iona to Asia Minor. About 600 A.D., Rome sent missionaries to England and Germany to bring these simple Bible believing Christians under her dominion as much as to subdue the pagans.
"When the Gallic Christians of southern France were massacred by the heathen (177 A.D.) a record of their agony was prepared by the survivors and sent to their true brothers in Asia Minor – not to the Pope of Rome. Christianity came to France from Asia Minor, not Rome, and the same may be said for England, albeit possibly not directly but through France and then on to Briton. As Italy, France and Great Britain were provinces of the old Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible in those areas were into Latin."
Jones, Which Version Is The Bible?, p. 171-172.3
Here is a remarkable admission from a New Testament revisionist.
"It is often assumed by the ignorant and uninformed – even on a university campus – that textual criticism of the New Testament is supported by a superstitious faith in the Bible as a book dictated in miraculous fashion by God. That is not true. Textual criticism has never existed for those whose New Testament is one of miracle, mystery, and authority. A New Testament created under those auspices would have been handed down under them and would have no need of textual criticism."
Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?, p. 8.5
Therefor, we reject the dynamic and continuously manipulated Greek text of Westcott and Hort and deprecate all modern translations, English and otherwise, which are derived from it. They are based on the corrupt Alexandrian (Hesychian) scholarship, the private work of Origen (a gnostic Alexandrian Greek scholar and philosopher, 185-254 A.D.) from his Hexapla (a privately "edited" gnostic N.T. obtained from the library at Caesarea), and its promotion by Constantine's commission to Eusebius in 331 A.D. who was assisted by Pamphilus. This corrupt secular Greek text was the source of Jerome's translation (Latin Vulgate) in 405 A.D. for the interests of the Roman Catholic Church.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Gal 4:16)
"For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth." (Eph 5:9)
"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." (Luke 9:26); "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38); "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); "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14)
Updating the 1611 King James Version (KJV) to current English was the very reason that the revision was commissioned in 1870 by the Anglican church of England. But this commissioned work was hijacked and supplanted by a Hebrew and Greek text source replacement.2,3,6 I do not think it wrong to update the English words, just do not use an ever changing Westcott-Hort text, now into 28 editions (NA28) of (never ending) changes. That text source has been proven corrupt by many authors through careful research already. But it remains financially useful: for Copyrights for profit by book sales, AND the established "higher textual critics" never-ending research (think self-perpetuating wages at universities) to "find" God's word. Since the Textus Receptus is public domain and it specifically contradicts their rebellious theology the supporters of the critical text do not want it! Note too, the Westcott-Hort text (based upon Origen's personal text variations in his Hexapla and Jerome's Latin Vulgate derived from the same source) was endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church since they were actively involved in helping to supplant the Textus Receptus with the Revised Version of 1881.
It is interesting to note that in the century prior to the 1611 work that both the Hebrew and Greek text verification and correction were simultaneous with its translation by Tyndale (1526, by one man), Matthew (1537, by one man), Coverdale (1535, by one man [The Great Bible (1539, larger print and size of Coverdale Bible]), the Geneva Bible (1560, Puritan group), and the Bishop's Bible (1568, 1572, 1602, Anglican group). This return to the historic text continually used and recopied from generation to generation by Christ's faithful believers provided for the basis of the claim about preserving "the word of God" as promised in Psalm 12:6-7. The small amount of variations in the text, commonly called the Textus Receptus or the Received Text (TR), was mainly settled with the printing of the Elzevir Text (1624, 1633, 1641; the 1633 edition became known as the "Textus Receptus").
The 1611 translation work was accomplished by an impressive body of forty-seven gifted, but unpaid, men selected from clergy and laymen from both the Anglicans and Puritans. While they were working they re-verified the text of the TR from four Hebrew Bibles and the prior work of Erasmus, Stephens (Stephanus), and Theodore Beza on the Greek text. At the same time these men translated both the Hebrew and Greek into English with a process that examined each Scripture at least fourteen times through separate individuals and review committees. This two-pronged and concurrent activity provided the appropriate basis for the claim of this English translation as "the word of God." The 1611 team of translators were careful to give the word to word meaning and where needed to show where supplemental words were necessary to provide the intended meaning by emplacing those words in italic font. No subsequent English translation had this feature of clarity and honesty.
The 1611 translation revision was not a private endeavor because the twelfth rule was to circulate amongst the diocese translated portions for public comment by other qualified individuals. "Hundreds of laymen, priests, and preachers who knew Greek and/or Hebrew offered suggestions."3 Neither was this work an enterprise of King James VI.
"It was the deliberate work of a large body of trained scholars and divines of all classes and opinions, who had before them, for their guidance, the labours of nearly a century of revision. The translation of the Bible had passed out of the sphere of controversy. It was a national undertaking in which no one had any interest at heart save that of producing the best possible version of the Scriptures."7
This information showed that God has used three languages to preserve His word, i.e. Hebrew, Greek and English. For generations English is the only "worldwide" language learned and used in every educated country, it is no longer Greek or Latin. God has been, is now, and will continue to use the KJV English translation to spread the Gospel of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by missionaries.
Remember Israel misused for false worship (2Kgs 18:1-4) the serpent Moses had made and put on a wood pole based upon God's direction for Israel to look to it for healing from the plague of serpents (Num 21:9, previewing Christ upon a wooden cross). Then you will understand that God did not intend to keep the original autographs, Hebrew or Greek, for men to falsely worship and adore either. Fallen men have the strong propensity to follow the created "thing" more than the Creator himself as Apostle Paul said. "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:25)
God had his faithful people, fellow Christians emanating from Antioch (where Paul and Barnabas were commissioned and sent out), copy for their own use and send more copies to other churches for their use, with ongoing recopying for subsequent generations of believers continued by individual churches. This manual recopying process continued until the work of Erasmus was translated into English and German and printed by the earliest presses. Thus the carefully restored Hebrew and Greek words in the Textus Receptus of 1611, accomplished from the careful work by genuine believers from many different churches, became the preserved words of God. They are the original words restored as used continuously by various diverse church areas: Grecian, Syrian, Baltic, (Northern) Italic, Gaulic, Celtic, etc. We do not need "original autographs," just God's preserved words: carefully kept, copied, obeyed and defended by faithful believers, often with their lives through many persecutions.
The idea that the KJV is a poor translation in its carefully framed words is based upon the unwillingness to consider and embrace the difficulty to move concepts from one language to another. Any honestly done work produces awkward phrases since the words and expressions in the original or source language do not directly match words and expressions in the receiving language. Another translation into current English will still have many of these awkward phrases, and to remove all simply means it was not done well—it did not report the original idea properly.
That is why (to my understanding) so many adhere to the KJV and do not want a watered down translation into modern English. They would much rather learn and understand some lesser used words and expressions than to lose the quality of meaning conveyed. And they certainly do not want to repeat another fiasco of pretending to find God's words, according to man's current ideas, which are ever changing, "never able to come to the truth" (2Tim 3:7). Man, when left to his devices, rejects God, His word, and His people. Nor do many who adhere to the KJV believe that such a capable body of men gifted in Hebrew and Greek can be be found and assembled, without pay, who truly believe in Christ as savior and Lord to accomplish such an honest translation like the 1611 was.
God can and does work through men from the earliest to latest disciples. Christians are the priesthood of believers commanded to present God's words to mankind. The Holy Spirit was purposefully given to guide them. It was the same "inspiration" that made disciples fear to disobey, renounce, mistreat, deface, or mis-copy God's Word.
Real, seasoned, believers have the gift of God's spirit, the guidance it brought, the enhanced gifts and skills, the indwelling spirit filled life of honesty and integrity, and the clarity to discern error. That meets the basic qualification for "inspired" or "inspiration" which refutes this assertion, "one must claim that the KJV translation committee was inspired. But there is no Biblical basis for such a claim." By these Scripture texts, and others, this quoted statement is made false.
This concept still stands: "Thus, there must exist somewhere on the earth today a complete and inerrant Bible. The question every Christian must answer is this, “Where is the Final Authority of God’s Word, uncorrupted, complete, and accessible?”8 No other book but the King James Version fits all the requirements." Or else, God DID NOT preserve His completed and finished word, it is NOT available to use, and fallen carnal man can just make it up!
This is not a matter of preference. Either God preserved His word or He did not. If God's word is preserved as promised in Psalm 12:6-7, where is it? Is it only in Masoretic Hebrew (just the Old Testament), only in Textus Receptus Greek (just the New Testament), or combined in 1611 into one English Bible by spirit filled men? Remember, only English spans the literate world—by God's design and providence.
In 2010 the Reina-Valera-Gomez Spanish Bible was completed. It was translated using the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus faithfully following the template of the KJV for clarification of difficult passages. Even these faithful Christian men who worked for 20 years on this project recognized and personally affirmed the truth of God was in the 1611 KJV.
"The first two alleged "major revisions" of the King James Bible took place within 27 years of its first edition. The 1629 edition was but a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Only nine years later, a second so-called major revision was distributed. Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois*, two of the original translators, participated in both of these undertakings. However, F.H.A. Scrivener (see footnote below) describes this as merely being a reinstatement of words, phrases and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers – thereby amending these errors. Thus, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJB were completed by 1638." [*. F.H.A. Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible 1611), 1884] Quote from: WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?, Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., pg. 70
"[T]he main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. The main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling." Quote from: WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?, Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., pg. 74
"To summarize, the character of the textual changes is that of obvious printing errors, not changes made to alter the reading. The frequency of the textual changes is meager, averaging only one every three chapters. The time frame of the textual changes is early, about three-fourths occurring within twenty seven years of the first printing. These particulars establish that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors." Quote from: WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?, Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., pg. 75
After the original 1611 King James Bible was completed and printed, two typographical and two spelling revisions were made.
- 1629 – First Bible printed by Cambridge University Press
- 1638 – Printed by Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel
- 1762 – Printed by Dr. Thomas Paris, Trinity College, Cambridge University
- 1769 – Printed by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, Oxford University
The first two in 1629 and 1638 were to primarily correct printer's errors and change typeface for readability.
1. "It does not say when “HE WHO” is perfect is come, then the supernatural gifts would pass away but it says when “THAT WHICH” is perfect is come. You can't correctly speak of Jesus as a “that which.” What perfect thing has come? The New Testament, which James calls “the Perfect Law of Liberty” (James 1:25). The New Testament, at the time Paul wrote Corinthians was only “in part” and Paul said in this 13th chapter that they knew “in part,” and prophesied in part, but when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away." Dr. Ben M. Bogard, The McPherson-Bogard Debate On Miraculous Divine Healing, May 22, 1934
2. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed., 1984
3. Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., "WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?," Seventeenth Edition Revised and Enlarged (First Edition 1989), KingsWord Press. pdf at: http://standardbearers.net/
4. D.O. Fuller (ed.), Which Bible?, 3rd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: International Pub., 1972)
5. Ernest Cadman Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?, Chicago: Chicago UP., 1952
6. Dr. William P. Grady, Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible, Grady Publications, Swartz Creek, MI., 1993
7. Sir Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 5th ed. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958), p. 306.
8. Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., bigdealkjv.com/
Our Babel of Bibles, David Lyle Jeffrey at: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-02-029-f
For King James Version (KJV):
Statement of Ambassador College Concerning the KJV Issue at: http://bible-truth.org/kjvstatement.html
BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS at: http://wayoflife.org/database/textsversionsheader.html
Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages? Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge! at: http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html & http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker2.html
MY POSITION ON THE KING JAMES BIBLE, David Cloud at: http://wayoflife.org/database/mypositiononkjv.html
The King James Bible Defended, Dr. Edward F. Hills, Ph.D. at: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm
"WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?," Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., Seventeenth Edition Revised and Enlarged (First Edition 1989), KingsWord Press. pdf at: http://standardbearers.net/
"But I Trust the Scholars", David Daniels, Chick Publications, CA. [Excerpt at: http://www.chick.com/: Chapter 5, Early Church Fathers] Book at: "But I Trust The Scholars, David Daniels, Chick Publications, CA.
"Isn't “Easter” in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation? By Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.
The New Testament: Which Text? by Pr. William P. Terjesen at: http://www.kj21.com/, click on Related Matter.
- The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills
- The Ecclesiastical Text, Theodore Letis
- The Traditional Text, John William Burgon
- The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, John William Burgon, (Oxford and London: James Parker & Co., 1871)
- The Revision Revised, John William Burgon
- Translators Revived: Biographical Notes of the King James Translators, Alexander McClure, excerpts available at: A. Who Were The King James Version Translators?, and B. Who Were The King James Version Translators?
Full ebook at: THE TRANSLATORS REVIVED: A BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIR OF THE AUTHORS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE HOLY BIBLE (CLASSIC REPRINT) Reprint book at: Bible Baptist Bookstore
- An Understandable History of the Bible, Samuel C. Gipp
- Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible, Dr. William P. Grady
- Article by International Society of Bible Collectors, The King James Translators by Dr. Laurence M. Vance
The following Bible versions are based upon the Ecclesiastical Text:
- The Authorized (or King James) Version, The Authorised Version of the English Bible 1611 (Cambridge University Press, etc.)
- The New King James Version (Thomas Nelson Publishers) [FAQ [with about 60,000 changes to the KJV]
- The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21®), (Deuel Enterprises, Inc.)
- The Third Millennium Bible, (Deuel Enterprises, Inc.)
- The Modern King James Version (Sovereign Grace Publishers)
- King James 1611 Text (divided by books of the Bible)
- King James Bible 2016 New Testament at Textus Receptus Bibles KJV2016©
For conservative revision of the KJV see:
A Review of "TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING" by David Sorenson by Jonathan A. Whitmer