Article: Textual Studies in Philippians by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search


Philippians - a study in Textual Trickery


Most modern bible versions, like the NIV, NASB, ESV, are based on the Westcott-Hort text, which is derived primarily from two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which differ from the Traditional Text of the King James Bible in over 3000 places.


Yet these two false witnesses, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, continually disagree with each other. The Critical Text found in Nestles - Aland, or the UBS - United Bible Society- continues to change more and more as new editions come out every few years.


As a result, the modern versions continue to change the underlying texts and meanings from one revision to the next. There is no settled text and no sure words of God found in the everchanging versions based on "the latest in scholarship findings".


I recently had one modern version proponent who recommends we use 4 or 5 different bible versions, all of which disagree with each other in hundreds of places, tell me: "As Dr. Pierpoint says, the text of the New Testament is virtually 85-90% settled."


My what a bold stand to take! The authoritative "Thus saith the LORD" has now been replaced by "What does this version say?". Most graduating seminarians today no longer believe the Bible is the inspired words of God, and this same sickness of unbelief has infected the minds of many modern day Christians. In fact, if another Christian like myself and thousands of others, actually believes God has preserved His infallible words in the Holy Bible, also known as the King James Version, they call us ignorant wackos and heretics.


In the epistle to the Philippians we will see just a few examples of how Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, how the Critical text continues to change, and how the meaning of the traditional readings have been altered.


Philippians 1:1


"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of JESUS CHRIST"


The reading of JESUS CHRIST is that of the Majority of all Greek texts, A and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus differs in that it reverses the order and says CHRIST JESUS, and so do the NASB, NIV. This in itself is not a serious change, but it should be noted that again Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus in this way not only here but also in verse six.


In verse six we read: "he that hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of JESUS CHRIST. Again Jesus Christ is the reading of the Majority, Sinaiticus and A, and is followed by the earlier revisions of the Revised Version and the American Standard Version. However Vaticanus reverses the name and says CHRIST JESUS, and now the NASB, NIV decided to follow Vaticanus this time and so say Christ Jesus.


This discrepancy between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus will become more important as we continue. In verses 14 through 17 we see the total lack of consistency and ever changing nature of the so called "science of textual criticism".


Philippians 1:14


"And many of the BRETHREN in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak THE WORD without fear."


"to speak the word" ( ton logon legein) is the reading of the Majority and P46 which is the oldest remaining Greek manuscript we have. It is about 150 years older than Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.


However Westcott and Hort adopted the reading of Sinaiticus-Vaticanus which says "to speak the word OF GOD". "The word OF GOD" is found in the NASB, RSV, and NIV, but the latest UBS, Nestles editions have removed the words OF GOD, because not found in P46 nor the majority. It seems the deciding factor to now omit these extra words is P46, in spite of what Sinaiticus/Vaticanus read. Manuscript D says: "to speak of God" , adding "God" but omitting "the word".


So the brand new ESV (English Standard Version) and the NRSV have followed suit and gone back to the KJB reading, and now say: "are much more bold to speak the word without fear.


But wait, now the editors of the TNIV, Today's New International Version, have adopted a different textual reading than the old NIV, but they too have changed a few things. The TNIV now says: "And because of my chains, most of the brothers AND SISTERS, have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim THE GOSPEL without fear."


Did you notice that the TNIV has dropped the extra words OF GOD, but they have added AND SISTERS, which is not found in any text, and they changed THE WORD (ton logon) to THE GOSPEL?


If you have little reverence for the words of God and do not tremble at His word, then these changes will seem of no importance to you. If the Holy Bible is no more than a collection of religious writings, whose content is sometimes inspiring (though not inspired), and is by no means a perfect revelation of the mind of God, then there is little reason for you not to accept the conflicting Bible of the Month Club perversions.


A very interesting thing has occured in verses 16 and 17 in the NASB, NIV and ESV. They have reversed these two verses on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


The Majority of all Greek texts read as do the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, and Italian Diodati versions.


verses 15-17 "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife: and some of good will: THE ONE PREACH CHRIST OF CONTENTION, NOT SINCERELY, SUPPOSING TO ADD AFFLICTION TO MY BONDS; BUT THE OTHER OF LOVE, KNOWING THAT I AM SET FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE GOSPEL."


Not only is this the Majority reading, but it is also the reading of the oldest remaining Greek manuscript we have - P46. Remember it was because of the P46 reading that the latest UBS text, and the NRSV, ESV changed back to the KJB reading in verse fourteen.


But now, the very same manuscripts that were rejected in verse 14 are now followed by the same UBS text and the NIV, NASB, ESV versions. They reverse verses 16 and 17 and read: "Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will: THE LATTER DO IT OUT OF LOVE, KNOWING THAT I AM APPOINTED FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE GOSPEL; THE FORMER PROCLAIM CHRIST OUT OF SELFISH AMBITION RATHER THAN FROM PURE MOTIVES, THINKING TO CAUSE ME DISTRESS IN MY IMPRISONMENT."


The textual trickery is also seen in the footnotes found in the NASB 1972, 1977 editions. In both these editions there is a footnote that says: "SOME later manuscripts reverse the order of verses 16 and 17." SOME?!? A more truthful statement would be: "MOST manuscripts, as well as the oldest extant Greek text read verse 17 before verse 16."


The UBS text has no notes at all telling us that the majority of all Greek texts read the opposite of the NASB, NIV, ESV. So, if all you had were the Westcott-Hort text to go by, you would think the KJB is really mixed up and totally wrong, when actually the KJB is the most accurate reading.


Philippians 1:26


"That your REJOICING may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again."


All texts are the same here, and "your rejoicing" is the reading of the KJB, Tyndale, Geneva, and the NKJV. The NIV is fine here with "your joy". However the NASB says: "so that YOUR PROUD CONFIDENCE in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again."


Rejoice or Be Proud?


In the true Holy Bible boasting in oneself is never commended as a good thing. Pride is always condemned in the King James Bible as being a sin. The new versions however have completely turned this around.


"Pride and arrogancy...do I hate" Proverbs 8:13


"When pride cometh, then cometh shame; but with the lowly is wisdom. Proverbs 11:2


"Pride goeth before destruction" Proverbs 16:18


"This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be...boasters, proud...heady, highminded" II Tim. 3:1-4. "not of works; lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:9


Compare the KJB with the NASB, NIV in these. Gal. 6:4 KJB "then shall he have REJOICING in himself"; NASB "he will have REASON FOR BOASTING in regard TO himself"; NIV "he can TAKE PRIDE IN HIMSELF"


James 1:9 KJB "Let the brother of low degree REJOICE in that he is exalted."


NASB "the brother of humble circumstances IS TO GLORY in his high position";


NIV "the brother in humble circumstances OUGHT TO TAKE PRIDE IN his high position."


2 Cor. 1:12, 14 KJB "For our REJOICING is this...by the grace of God we have had our conversation in the world...we are your REJOICING, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus."


NASB "For our PROUD CONFIDENCE is this...we are YOUR REASON TO BE PROUD, as you also are ours..."


NIV "Now this is our BOAST...YOU CAN BOAST OF US just as we will BOAST OF YOU in the day of the Lord Jesus."


Phil. 1:26 KJB "That your REJOICING may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again."


NASB "so that YOUR PROUD CONFIDENCE in me may abound"


The NIV has JOY here which is OK. Rejoicing is not the same as proud confidence.


Phil. 2:16 KJB "that I may REJOICE in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain."


NASB: "in the day of Christ I may have REASON TO GLORY because I did not run in vain"


NIV: "in order that I MAY BOAST in the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."


Nobody will be boasting in the day of the Lord Jesus, we will all be flat on our faces!


The Similarity of Modern Versions with the Jehovah Witness Version


Philippians 2:5-7 "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"


"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form (morphe) of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD: BUT MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION, and took upon him the form (morphe) of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."


The phrase "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", as found in the King James Bible, clearly teaches that Jesus Christ was in fact God.


Notice the comments of a couple of orthodox commentators.


John Gill


"thought it not robbery to be equal with God" the Father; for if he was in the same form, nature, and essence, he must be equal to him, as he is; for he has the same perfections, as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, and self-existence: hence he has the same glorious names, as God, the mighty God, the true God, the living God, God over all, Jehovah, the Lord of glory… the same works of creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with God", signify the same thing, the one is explanative of the other: and this divine form and equality, or true and proper deity, he did not obtain by force and rapine, by robbery and usurpation, as Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected;


Matthew Henry


" He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; did not think himself guilty of any invasion of what did not belong to him, or assuming another’s right. He said, I and my Father are one, Jn. 10:30. It is the highest degree of robbery for any mere man or mere creature to pretend to be equal with God, or profess himself one with the Father. This is for a man to rob God, not in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead."


"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is not only the reading of the King James Bible but also of Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Wycliffe, and the NKJV 1982 edition.


By being equal to God, Jesus Christ was not stealing or taking something that did not belong to Him. He was and is equal to God the Father.


However many modern versions give us a rendering that means the exact opposite. I am presently in a discussion with a Jehovah Witness who, of course, denies that Jesus Christ is God. He says: "As for Philippians 2:6, the ambiguity is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes. The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpeters" and are "problematic."


The New World Translation, which the JWs use, says: "although he was existing in the form of God, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."


Then he proceeds to show the readings found in many modern versions.


NASB " did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"


Revised Standard Version "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"


New Jerusalem Bible "did not count equality with God something to be grasped"


Emphatic Diaglott "yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God"


21st Century Free " he never even considered the chance to be equal with God."


Revised Version "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God."


Goodspeed "he did not grasp at equality with God."


NKJV 1979 edition "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."


NIV "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped".


To get a clearer idea of just how different in meaning the phrase is, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" from "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" compare the following statements.


"The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man." In other words, he was not stealing something that did not belong to him; he is equal to the white man.


"The black man did not regard equality with the white man a thing to be grasped." He didn't even try and thought it way beyond him.


The meaning found in the NASB, NIV, NKJV 1979 edition, ESV, RSV is totally different from the one found in the King James Bible and others which reveal the full deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Another change in meaning is found in verse 7 where we are told that Christ "MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION". This is one of those "ambiguous, problematic" passages that the JW guy says has puzzled interpreters. The verb used here has variously been translated as "to be made void", "to be made of none effect", "to be in vain" and "made of no reputation". The King James translators got it right and many other versions give us a nonsensical reading.


Other Bibles that exhort us to follow the example of Christ, who made himself of no reputation, are Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, NKJV 1982 edition, Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible. Wycliffe says: "He lowered Himself".


However instead of "made himself of no reputation", the NIV, NASB, RSV, and NKJV 1979 edition again match the NWT of the JWs. They say Christ "emptied himself" (NASB, NKJV 79, RSV, NWT) or "made himself nothing" (NIV). Now if Christ made himself nothing or emptied himself, there was NOTHING THERE. If I empty a box, what remains? Nothing.


The Lord Jesus Christ was not empty or nothing when He came to earth. He was full of grace and truth. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. But He did make Himself of no reputation. He was born in a stable, from a common and poor family; He came not to seek His own glory but that of His Father, and He often told others He had healed to tell no one. When the multitudes wanted to make Him king, He departed into a mountain alone. How different from our sinful tendency to want to be recognized, make a name for ourselves, and have others look up to us as some great one.


Not all bibles teach the same thing. Many modern versions continually downgrade the glory and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The King James Bible exalts the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as "God manifest in the flesh" 1 Timothy 3:16. Compare the NASB, NIV and NWT here for such an example. See also Romans 14:10, 1 John 5:7, 1 Cor. 15:47 and Luke 23:42.


"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


Philippians 2:12


In the remainder of this chapter we will see more examples of how Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus. These are the two "oldest and best" we always hear about, and are responsible for the thousands of changes made in most modern versions.


"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not AS (´ws) in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."


This little word "as" (´ws) is found in the Majority of all texts, P46, Sinaiticus and A, and is included in the NASB, RSV, and ESV. However this word is omitted in Vaticanus, and also omitted in the NIV, and NRSV. Notice how the RSV includes it, then the NRSV omits it, then again the next revision of the ESV includes it once more. No new manuscripts were discovered during this time; they just willy-nilly go back and forth between their "oldest and best", which are neither the oldest nor the best.


Philippians 2:15 "among whom ye shine as LIGHTS IN THE WORLD".


This phrase is "phosteres en kosmo" and is correctly translated as "lights in the world" by the KJB, NKJV, NASB, RSV and ESV. But the NIV gives us the fanciful rendering of "as STARS IN THE UNIVERSE."


Philippians 2:26


"For he longed after you all, ** and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick."


This is the reading of the Majority, TR and Vaticanus. It is followed by most versions, including the NASB, ESV and NIV. However, Sinaiticus, A and C (the rest of the Alexandrian group of texts) add "he longed after you all TO SEE YOU ALL". The NASB footnotes "some ancient manuscripts read: 'to see you all'."


Philippians 2:30


"Because for the work of CHRIST he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, TO SUPPLY your lack of service toward me."

"the work of CHRIST" is the reading of the Majority, TR, P46, and Vaticanus. It is followed by the NKJV, NASB, ESV and NIV. But again, Sinaiticus and A read "the work of THE LORD", while C omits both Christ and the Lord, and says "because for the work, he was nigh unto death."

Not only do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ between Christ and the Lord in this verse, but the verb TO SUPPLY is totally different in both. The UBS text does not contain any notes telling us what these two actually read. Most manuscripts correctly read "supply" as anapleroose, but Vaticanus has pleroosee (to complete - which is what the NASB says, in spite of the fact the RV, ASV, NKJV all read "to supply") and Sinaiticus has anaplesoosei(shall supply). The NIV paraphrases the whole verse as usual.

Philippians 3:3

"For we are the circumcision, WHICH WORSHIP GOD in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."


We who, even though Gentiles, have savingly believed in the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, are called the true circumcision. We worship God in the spirit, that is, in our inner being. Compare Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."


The reading of "which worship God in the spirit" is found in many Greek manuscripts, ancient versions and church fathers. It is found in Sinaiticus correction, C, D original, P, Psi, many Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic versions.


That we WORSHIP GOD is the reading of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's, Great bibles, the NKJV, Young's, Spanish Reina Valera, even the Douay, the Hebrew Names Version and also the Amplified version.


However, the NASB, NIV, ESV have a different reading based on different texts. They read: "we are the circumcision, we who worship BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, and glory in Christ Jesus." There is a difference between "worshiping God in the spirit", and "worshiping by the Spirit of God".


The reading of the NASB, NIV, ESV comes from Sinaiticus original, before it was corrected, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. P46 omits the word "God" altogether. Again, we see the Alexandrian texts in total disagreement among themselves, yet these are the ones responsible for most of the changes and omissions from the Traditional Texts.


Philippians 3:12


"I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ JESUS." Here Vaticanus omits the word JESUS, but it is found in Sinaiticus and in the majority, and this time the NASB, NIV include it.


Philippians 3:13


"Brethren, I count NOT myself to have apprehended...


NOT (ou) is the reading of the Majority and Vaticanus, and is also followed by the RSV, NRSV, ESV, as well as the KJB and NKJV.


However again Sinaiticus differs not only from the majority but also from Vaticanus. It says: "I do NOT YET count myself to have apprehended..." and both the NASB, NIV follow Sinaiticus this time saying "not YET". It is of interest that the latest UBS text has gone back to the KJB reading, so the NASB, NIV are again "out of date" with the "latest in scholarship".


Philippians 3:16


"Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same RULE, LET US MIND THE SAME THING."


This whole last part has been omitted from the NASB, NIV, ESV, because not found in the usual suspects. However all these words are in the Majority of Greek texts, and in the Sinaiticus correction, as well as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, NKJV, Douay and the Hebrew Names Version.


Philippians 4


4:13 "I can do all things through CHRIST which strengtheneth me."


The name of CHRIST is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, and in Sinaiticus correction, several Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Ethiopic ancient versions, the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Tyndale, Geneva, Lamsa's, Luther's German, the NKJV and the Hebrews Name Version.


However primarily because of Vaticanus and A, the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV omit the word Christ, and make it a generic: "I can do all things through HIM who strengthens me."


Philippians 4:23


"The grace of OUR Lord Jesus Christ be with YOU ALL. AMEN."


In this short verse alone, there are several variants. God did not inspire them all. The word OUR (hemoon) is found in the majority of all texts, including P46 which is the oldest, and even in the Douay version and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac. But the Alexandrian texts omit "our" and so the NASB, NIV read: "The grace of THE Lord Jesus Christ."


YOU ALL is found again in the majority, Sinaiticus correction and Lamsa's, but the texts followed by Westcott-Hort read "YOUR SPIRIT" and so the NASB, NIV reading.


Finally the last word in this book AMEN. Amen is found in the majority of texts as well as Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits the final word Amen. The NASB, RSV, ESV omit AMEN, but the NIV keeps it, but with a footnote "some manuscripts do not have Amen."


In the small epistle of Philippians, we have seen that the so called oldest and best manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other in the following verses. Philippians 1:1; 1:6; 1:23; 2:12; 2:26; 2:30; 3:3; 3:12; 3:13: 3:16; 4:13 and 4:23. Yet this small book is one in which Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree more often than in many other of the New Testament books. In many others they disagree with each other far more often and more radically, yet these are the two main manuscripts that are responsible for the omission of some 3,000 words from the New Testament of the King James Bible.


Will Kinney


External Link

Other Artilces by Will Kinney in the Textus Receptus database ~

Old Testament

Genesis Genesis 1:28 Replenish or Fill? - Genesis 6:6 Can God repent? - Genesis 22:1 Did God "Tempt" Abraham? Exodus Exodus 20:13 Thou Shalt Not KILL - Exodus - the Israelites "borrowed" of the Egyptians Numbers Numbers 22 Why was God Angry with Balaam? Job Bible Babel in Job - a comparative study 1 Samuel 1 Samuel 13:21 "a file" a "pim" or "two-thirds of a shekel"? 2 Samuel 2 Samuel 21:8 Michal or Merab? - 2 Samuel 21:19 Who Killed Goliath? 1 Kings 1 Kings 20:38 ashes upon his face - 1 Kings 22:38 "washed his armour" or "while the harlots bathed" NKJV Nonsense Psalms Psalm 8:5 Lower than the Angels, or a little lower than God? - Answering Doug Kutilek's anti-Preservation in Psalm 12 - Psalm 74:8 the synagogues of God; Psalm 77:2 my sore ran in the night - Psalms 1 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 2 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 3 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 4 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 5 How Different the Versions! Proverbs NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs - Bible Babel in Proverbs Isaiah Isaiah - a Comparative Study - Does God Create Evil? Isaiah 45:7 Jeremiah Jeremiah 8:8 the pen of the scribes is in vain - Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? - Ezekiel Ezekiel 29:7 Hebrew, Greek or Syriac? Hosea Hosea - a Comparative Study

New Testament

Did Jesus Tell Them to Take a Staff or Not? Matthew Is Matthew 23:14 Scripture or not? - Matthew 27:44 cast in teeth Mark Gospel of Mark - a Modern Version Mix-up Luke Is "cousin" wrong in Luke 1:36 - Luke 17:36 Is it inspired Scripture or not? John John 1:18 the only begotten Son Acts Act 3:19 times of refreshing; 7:20 Moses was exceeding fair - Acts 9:5-7 hear the voice; 7:20 exceeding fair - Acts 5:30 slew and hanged; 19:20 word of GOD - Acts 13:33 this day have I begotten thee - Acts 19:9 DIVERS were hardened, and believed not - Acts 19:35 Diana or Artemis? Jupiter, Zeus or Heaven? - The So-called "Science" of Textual Criticism. Science or Hocus-Pocus? Gospels through Acts Romans James White discussing Romans 6:17 Philippians Textual Studies in Philippians 2 Timothy 2 Timothy 3:16 Inspiration of God or God Breathed? Hebrews The Book of Hebrews - a Comparative Study 1 Peter 1 Peter - Shifting Sands of Scholarship 1 John And These Three Are One Article defending the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. - 1 John 5:7 These three are one Jude The Book of Jude - James White's "inferior" texts Revelations Revelation 13 Confusion - Vials or Bowls in the book of Revelation - Rev.16:5 and SHALT BE; 5:8-10 redeemed US - Revelation 17:8 "the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS" - Acts 28:13 We Fetched a Compass; 1 Tim5:4 Nephews - Matthew 24:3; Hebrews 9:26 End of World or Age?

Modern Versions

Bible Babel 1 - Bible Babel 2 - Bible Babel 3 - Bible Babel 4 - The Oldest and Best Manuscripts? - Every Man for Himself Bible Versions - the HCSB, NET, ESV, TNIV, NKJV - The Inerrancy of Scripture - are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic? - True Bible? - Modern Versions Teach Racism - Modern Versions Teach Pride as a Virtue - Do Ghosts Exist? Modern Versions say Yes ESV The English Standard Version 2001 NASB The Ever Changing NASB's NKJV NKJV Word Changes - When the NKJV departs from the TR - The New KJV is a Hack Job Translation - NKJV vs KJB Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah - Is the NKJV the same as the KJB? - Don't go on Safari with a New KJV Translator - The NKJV is a Poor Substitute for the True Bible - NKJV vs KJB Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah - NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs

King James Word Definitions

Lucifer - Jehovah - Unicorns - Is the word "Easter" an error in the King James Bible? - Are the words "CHURCH" and 'BISHOP' wrong? - Hell and Damnation in the King James Bible - "By and by" versus "the-by-and-by" - Servants or Slaves? - Is "charity" an error in the KJB? - The Grace of God Destroyed - "Would to God" - Another alleged 'error' bites the dustIs "bottles" an inaccurate word in the King James Bible?

King James Bible

Is King James onlyism Scriptural? - Does the KJB only position "blow up"? - What About Those Printing Errors in 1611? - Does the King James Bible depart from the Hebrew Texts? - Why do you King James Bible onlyies Attack the word of God? - The Historic Confessions support the KJB position - Can a Translation be Inspired? - The Old Latin versions and the KJB

Septuagint

NO LXX Part 1 - NO LXX - the Fictitious Use of Septuagint

Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco

Hebrew Text

The NIV, NASB reject the Hebrew Texts - NIV, NASB reject Hebrew texts Part 2 - How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies

Greek Text

"The Greek" and Hebrew Games

Gender Inclusive Versions

Gender Inclusive Versions Dealing with the TNIV

Answering Critics

E mail exchange with Bible Agnostic Doug Kutilek - John MacArthur - Pastor with NO Infallible Bible - A Bible Believer's Response to James Price's book King James Onlyism - a New Sect - A King James Bible Believer's Response to Rick Norris' book 'The Unbound Scriptures' - 17 Parts

Part 1 - The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris

Part 2 - Those Dreadful Archaic Words

Part 3 - Imperfect men, Perfect Bible

Part 4 - Revision

Part 5 - Printing Errors and Spelling

Part 6 - Inspiration and Inerrancy

Part 7 - Alleged Errors in the King James Bible

Part 8 - Let Me Count The Ways

Part 9 - Beasts or Living Creatures?

Part 10 - Mules or Hot Springs?

Part 11 - "Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?

Part 12 - Steel, brass, copper, bronze - Paper or Plastic?

Part 13 - The Usual Suspects

Part 14 - The Preservation of the words of God

Part 15 - KJB Only versus Latin Vulgate Only Argument

Part 16 - Where Was the Word of God Before 1611?

Part 17 - Final Thoughts


Personal tools