Rev. David Holwick
First Baptist Church (Bible study)
Ledgewood, New Jersey
February 4, 1990
Evening Service
Revelation 22:19
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIBLES
I. The excellence of the King James bible (KJV).
A. It has been the premiere English bible for over 350 years.
B. It has had a greater influence on the language and literature
than any other book.
C. It has rarely been surpassed in its poetic beauty.
D. It is the second greatest translation of all time.
(The Latin Vulgate is #1.)
E. If you like it, keep reading it!
II. The historical setting of the King James bible.
A. It did not fall out of heaven, nor did the Apostle Paul quote it
word for word. The KJV stands in a long tradition of English
translations and depended heavily on them. In turn, every
modern translation acknowledges its debt to the KJV.
B. The King James was considered radical when it came out in 1611.
The Pilgrims refused to use it and brought the Geneva Bible to
Plymouth instead.
C. The KJV has been extensively revised since 1611. Every copy
included the books of the Apocrypha (found in Catholic bibles)
up until 1870. The spelling was updated the 1700's and some
words were changed.
III. Why some people are turning to newer versions.
A. The English language has changed a great deal in 350 years, with
some words now actually having the opposite meaning. Young
people especially have a tough time understanding it.
B. The KJV is based on late texts of the Greek and Hebrew. Better
manuscripts are available now. (More on this below.)
C. No translation is perfect - not the KJV, nor any newer ones.
Every knowledgeable scholar says only the original Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts are inspired and inerrant. Translations
are not inerrant.
IV. Why new versions like the NIV leave out some verses.
A. It is a sin to add to, or take from, the Holy Scriptures.
(Revelation 22:19)
1) Some argue the new translations take away from the Scriptures.
2) Other argue that the KJV represents manuscripts which added
to it.
3) The issue has to do with the difference in the handwritten
Greek manuscripts.
B. A short history of the transmission of the Greek New Testament.
1) Early copies were done by hand.
a) Few entire Bibles were made - only about 5 out of 5,000.
b) While care was taken, errors crept in.
2) No two hand-written Greek manuscripts are exactly alike.
a) Christians did not count consonants and verses like the
Jews did.
b) Even the Jews began this process rather late. The Dead
Sea Scrolls show that some books have been carefully
copied down the centuries (Isaiah) while others have
had some corruption (1 Samuel).
c) One early manuscript is better than 10,000 bad manuscripts
that were copied from one bad, late text.
d) There was a tendency for copiers to add text rather than
take away. Later manuscripts are longer than early ones.
3) A scholar named Erasmus published a standard text of the Greek
Bible in the 1500's. It came to be called the Received Text.
The King James is based largely on the Received Text.
a) Erasmus used only 3 late Greek texts.
b) He did not have the ending of the book of Revelation in
any of them, so he took a Latin bible and translated
the ending into Greek. He made up some words that do
not appear anywhere else in the Greek language.
c) The end of 1 John 2:23 was also not in his manuscripts,
which is why the KJV puts these words in italics.
d) One verse is found in only 4 Greek manuscripts!
(1 John 5:7) Erasmus' first edition did not include
it, but he said he would change his mind if a manu-
script was given to him which included the verse.
One was manufactured on the spot! Two of the other
copies are of the same late date, and the fourth has
the verse written in the margin. This verse would
seem to be the most clear-cut reference to the
Trinity in the whole Bible, yet it was not used by
any of the ancient Christians in their (literal)
wars over this doctrine.
e) Thousands of Greek manuscripts (and all of the earliest
ones written on papyrus) and been discovered since
Erasmus' day.
C. Most of the differences in new translations are due to these
textual problems, not "liberal theology."
1) New translations leave "through his blood" out of Colossians
1:14. Are they denying the sacrifice of Jesus? No. The
phrase was probably added by later copiers to make it agree
with Ephesians 1:7, where even new translations include it.
2) Another factor is the philosophy of translation. Some trans-
lations are "thought for thought", others are more literal
and "word for word." Both have there place. The NASB is
the most literal, KJV and NIV tend to be literal, and the
Good News Bible and Living Bible are "thought for thought."
