“The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV” by Doug Kutilek

The following article is reprinted with permission from “As I See It”, Volume 14, Number 6, June 2011, a free monthly newsletter published by Doug Kutilek. Subscription information is available here at the author’s website: KJVOnly.Org. Note: our posting of this article does not imply our complete endorsement of all particulars contained therein.


 

The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV

It has been widely publicized that the year 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the original publication of the so-called “Authorized” or “King James Version” of the Bible in English. This translation has historically been the most widely used, at least since it overtook the previous champion, the Geneva Bible of 1560 (chiefly, at least initially, as a result of the legal suppression of the printing of the Geneva Bible by the British monarchy, in favor of the KJV). It should be noted, however, that the great majority of the editions and copies of the KJV printed and read in the past 400 years have been revisions rather than reprints of the original form of the KJV, with literally tens of thousands of revisions in spelling, punctuation and the use of italics, plus many hundreds in the precise wording of the text, to say nothing of the switch from “black letter” (“Gothic”) type to Roman, the widespread omission of the Apocrypha in the 18th and later centuries, along with the omission of an extended calendar and charts of Biblical genealogies, and most unfortunately, the omission of the extremely important and informative introductory essay, “The Translators to the Readers,” which was in the original edition. In short, most KJV users, particularly those who claim to be “King James Version 1611 Only” in their beliefs, have never actually seen or used a real 1611 King James Version in the original form in which it was issued from the press in 1611.

In the past, there have been from time to time facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV. In 1833, “The Holy Bible, an exact reprint page for page of the Authorized Version published in the year 1611” was printed at the University Press, Oxford; it was in Roman type (see A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525-1961. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1968; p. 377). In 1911, the University Press at Oxford issued two 1611 reprints–the first a facsimile (in black letter) in reduced size of the original 1611 KJV, the other an exact reprint page-for-page but in Roman type, of the 1611 edition, both with introductory essays by A. W. Pollard (see Herbert, p. 458). I have owned a copy of the 1911 Roman type reprint for almost 35 years.

This 1911 Roman type reprint was reissued in the 1970s (or early 1980s) by Thomas Nelson of Nashville, about the time they issued their New King James Version (and for a time Nelson sold the two volumes together in a slipcase). This reprint omitted the Pollard essay (and perhaps other features–I gave my copy to one of my sons a few years ago and cannot check it directly). Later–probably in the 1990s–, Hendrickson Publishing (the publishing arm of Christian Book Distributors) also reprinted the1911 Roman type edition (in precisely the form Nelson had). These two recent reprints are easy to find via the internet.

Besides these, there have been over the years several full-sized facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV by various publishers; my brother has a copy of one made in the 1950s, for which he paid $350, used, a decade ago. Such full-sized facsimiles are rarely met with and are generally rather pricey (in the hundreds or even many hundreds of dollars)

Now, another edition, widely available and quite inexpensive, has appeared, this made by Zondervan and sold at Wal-Mart (and perhaps other retail outlets). The ISBN is: 978-0-310-44029-1. It is a facsimile–an exact reproduction in the original black letter script–of the 1611 edition, but in a reduced size, and with one feature of the original omitted–the thirteen books of the Apocrypha (as noted on p. viii of the Introduction to this new edition). That the 1611 KJV originally did have the Apocrypha can be visually confirmed in this edition on the page containing Malachi 4, where the “catch-word” at the bottom of the page is “APO-“ which points to “APOCRYPHA” which is at the top of the page in the original (and in my 1911 reprint), after which originally followed the complete text of those non-canonical books).

The printed retail price of this Zondervan 2011 facsimile reprint is $7.99, though I have bought several copies at Wal-Mart in Kansas for $4.97 and I have heard it priced about a dollar higher elsewhere (and I suspect they hope to make a profit on the publication of the KJV at that price). I would strongly urge EVERY PREACHER, EVERY CHRISTIAN READER and EVERY CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN COLLEGE LIBRARY to get a copy AT ONCE. If you have any KJVO friends, buy and give them a copy. There is no quicker cure for KJVOism that the direct and extended study of the 1611 edition, introductory material and all.

One finds in the actual, original, genuine 1611 KJV (no doubt “preserved in the form God wants us to have”) an introductory essay that states the translators’ perspective on their own and other translations (they, at least, were decidedly NOT “KJVOnly”). If I could do just ONE thing, I would make every KJVO partisan read carefully those 11 highly informative pages. The original translator’s English Bible text has literally thousands of variant marginal renderings (showing that they did not believe their translation as found in the text was infallibly correct), plus variant manuscript readings, showing that they did not believe that the manuscript reading given in their text was necessarily always right. One will also find numerous places where words are “omitted,” “added” or altered as compared with all modern editions of the KJV, to say nothing of a considerable number of printer’s errors (are these also part of the “perfect preservation” we hear so much about?). And one can discover on the title page of the NT those revealing words: “cum privilegio” (Latin: “with privilege”) which demonstrate the undeniable fact that this translation was COPYRIGHTED FROM THE DAY IT WAS FIRST PUBLISHED (contrary to the gross misrepresentation on this point that is part of the accepted KJVO “wisdom”).

I am quite sure that the quickest “cure” for the absurdity of KJVOism is the close and careful study of the actual original KJV itself. I would challenge–even dare–every KJVO partisan to get this facsimile of the original KJV and study it “cover to cover” and margin to margin, spending a year and more in the process, and try to prove me wrong.

—Doug Kutilek

© Copyrighted by the author. Reprinted by permission. Posted in full, with no alterations (other than adding the picture of the KJV 1611 reprint).


Note: You can purchase a copy of the Zondervan fascimile at the following online retailers: Amazon.com, Christianbook.com, or direct from Zondervan.

Advertisements

44 thoughts on ““The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV” by Doug Kutilek

  1. Bob Hayton June 6, 2011 / 12:55 pm

    I agree that a real 1611 KJV is a good counter to much of KJV Only rhetoric. Seeing what the KJV translators actually bequeathed to us helps one realize that marginal notes and discussions about varying manuscripts have been with us all of the past 400 years (and more).

  2. Nazaroo June 6, 2011 / 7:23 pm

    The original Gothic type is very attractive.
    I’m not sure what the fuss is.

    The anti-Romanist notes are extremely good and appropriate.
    I only wish they would print the “Pope = Antichrist” stuff in the margins today. It would help a lot of people out of Romanism and back into a healthy Protestantism.

  3. redgreen5 June 7, 2011 / 1:27 am

    Nazaroo

    The original Gothic type is very attractive.
    I’m not sure what the fuss is.

    Probably that it is quite nearly unreadable? And that using an outdated and intricate font style does nothing to improve readability or comprehensibility?

    To wit, that putting obstacles in the path of reading and understanding the gospel – obstacles merely to satisfy the intellectual egotism of a few – is hurting the cause of evangelization, of personal Christian growth, and of carrying out the Great Commission?

    The anti-Romanist notes are extremely good and appropriate.
    I only wish they would print the “Pope = Antichrist” stuff in the margins today. It would help a lot of people out of Romanism and back into a healthy Protestantism.

    Fortunately more sober-minded people are in charge of publication.

    • Nazaroo June 7, 2011 / 10:19 am

      Redgreen: “Fortunately more sober-minded people are in charge of publication.”

      Yes, apparently the Jesuits have dictated that all will now use the UBS2/4 text for all future modern translations!

  4. Walter June 7, 2011 / 2:44 am

    Hello,

    I’ve just recently gotten back into studying textual criticism. Back in my fundamentalist days (about 24 years ago as a young man of 20) I was drawn into KJV Onlyism. The textual criticism part made sense in terms of the KJV being based on more reliable manuscripts than modern translations. As I got away from fundamentalism though I broke with the KJV only position and felt that as long as I knew where the variants were it was no big deal to read something I found more readable like the NIV.
    What got me back into this subject was that I started putting together some introductory teaching on basic theology, that I would term an Intro to Theology. On a college level something that would be comparable to Theology 100. My first subject was the Inspiration, Authority, Sufficiency, and Preservation of God’s Word. I told myself there was no need to venture into the weeds of textual criticism. After all I could accurately state that all manuscripts and thus all translations agreed roughly 95% of the time, and there was no major doctrines at risk within that 5%. But as I studied the formation of the Canon and delved more into early Church history I realized that I needed to look at textual criticism even if I didn’t touch on it within the actually lessons.

    And down the rabbit hole I went… LOL 🙂

    Because of my initial study roughly 24 years ago I was familiar with KJV Onlyism, but I had forgotten some of the specifics. Over the last several years my favorite version for study has been the Amplified Bible. Unlike some of the other versions I was impressed with its emphasis on the Deity of Christ. So I re-entered this debate already knowing that I didn’t have a problem with other versions. However as I began to re-enter this subject what I came to a very quick conclusion on was that for myself there was no doubt in my mind that the first part of John 8, and the ending of Mark 16:9-20; belonged in the Bible. I know there is a place for scholarship, but I also believe the Holy Spirit within us will witness to what is God’s Word. I don’t see how you read John toward the end of chapter 7 and through the beginning of Chapter 8 and leave out all those verses without it looking like Jesus just pops up out of nowhere and starts “again” saying something to a crowd that is gathered. And Mark 16 doesn’t make sense to be cut off at verse 8. So I know already I lean away from the Alexandrian Manuscripts for omitting large chunks of Scripture.

    As I was researching variants among the manuscripts I stumbled upon the Majority Text Position. I’m sure this position was around 24 years ago, but I wasn’t aware of it. As a Computer Programmer, and as someone who likes to think of himself as intellectual I tried to come at this from both a spiritual perspective and logical perspective. When I looked at the argument for the Alexandrian Texts based on them being older while being fewer in number (much fewer) versus the argument for the Majority Text being far greater in number but newer, my logical side immediately identified with the Majority Text position. It just makes more sense. As I looked at the variant wordings along with the chunks of missing Scripture, my spiritual perspective also sided with the Majority text position.

    I’d really like to find a place to discuss all of this, but I’ve found it difficult to find the right place. I’m not a Textual Critic Scholar so I don’t think I’d fit in well with some of the newsgroups, and many of the forums seem to be greatly slanted toward either supporting the Modern Textual position or KJV Onlyism. There isn’t much out there just discussing the Majority Text position. I will say though that my formulation of my exact beliefs is still somewhat in flux. At this moment I support the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in its entirety, and I support Acts 8:37. On the other hand I would lean toward not including the last part of Acts 9:5. There are some other nuances to my position, but that’s just a sample.

    When looking at the textual variants between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian Text there is no doubt in my mind that the Alexandrian manuscripts water down the Deity of Christ. I’ve heard those from the Alexandrian position point out that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are stronger in support of the Deity of Christ than the KJV, and while that is true; to be fair that isn’t a result of a better manuscript but just better translation. The Majority Text as evidenced by a rendering such as the EMTV renders those verses in strong support of the Deity of Christ as well. I would also say this same argument could be applied to Romans 9:5.

    Anyway I’ll cut the essay here and just say I wanted to introduce myself and my thoughts and hope to learn and contribute (mostly learn). If there is a forum that would be better suited for me to engage in the type of discussion I’d like to have then by all means point me to it.

    Thanks,
    In Christ,
    Walter

    • Greg Demme September 6, 2011 / 8:47 am

      Walter,

      The best thing you could do for yourself is to read a copy of James White’s, The King James Only Controversy, 2nd ed.

      I think you will find all of your positions and concerns addressed carefully and fully.

      Greg

    • Ahmed January 14, 2012 / 12:31 am

      I have no reply except to say your story was inspiring. To just hear how you are searching for the pearl of the gospel essentially (not searching like a Buddhist, but searching within the safe walls of the Scriptures). You want to know the truth, and the Christ that is in them! That’s great to read. I too am working through the textual issues but believe that whatever “side” we land on in terms of the MSS, the Christ of Scripture must always be foremost. God bless.

  5. Paul Anderson June 7, 2011 / 6:39 am

    We would like to remind any new bloggers to this site that the Center for Study and Preservation of the Majority Text or (CSPMT) is offering an an all encompassing website where one can study and research further the Majority Text position. CSPMT has most of the leading scholars in the world favoring this position on our board of directors.

    CSPMT will continue to update periodically our news updates on our homepage and encourage all readers from the KJV Only Debate site to watch events unfold as we prepare for our future BGNT edition. The Majority Text position is gaining momentum and will continue to increase in popularity into the future. Blessings.

    In Christ,

    Paul Anderson
    President-CSPMT
    http://www.cspmt.org

  6. Nazaroo June 7, 2011 / 9:12 am

    Hi Walter:

    If you want some really in-depth examinations of the Text-crit issues, don’t forget to visit the complimentary site here:

    http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/

    We’ve just added an ongoing series on the Majority text Probability Model.

    Walter: “I don’t see how you read John toward the end of chapter 7 and through the beginning of Chapter 8 and leave out all those verses without it looking like Jesus just pops up out of nowhere and starts “again” saying something to a crowd that is gathered. “

    This is quite correct. The text without the passage is as disconnected without the passage as it appears interrupted by some with the passage.
    The problem is so glaring that Bultmann felt obligated to delete even more from chapter 8 and radically rearrange the text. Yet he still couldn’t find an acceptable solution which would connect the narrative flow:

    http://pericopedeadultera.com/INT-EV/bultmann1.html

    You may be surprised to discover the wealth of internal evidence for the PA, usually overlooked by those who excise the verses:

    http://pericopedeadultera.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-internal-evidence-for-pa-part-ii.html

    peace
    Nazaroo

  7. Nazaroo June 7, 2011 / 9:23 am

    Hi Walter: “and the ending of Mark 16:9-20; belonged in the Bible.”

    You may be interested to know that the only two early Uncials that omit the ending were made in the same scriptorium. But what is worse, one of them, Codex Sinaiticus is a fake, being at least 50 years newer than its usual estimated date. It was made to look older in imitation of more ancient MSS.
    Even more disturbing is the fact that the two pages which omit Mark are actually “replacement sheets”, in which the overseeing scribe has pulled the original and apparently rewritten the quire extensively. The tell-tale letter-counts and other signs reveal some drastic changes to the text.
    See our series of articles on Codex Sinaiticus and Mark’s Ending here:

    http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/p/test-page.html

    Sinaiticus, stolen by Tischendorf from Mount Sinai, is essentially a forgery.

    peace
    Nazaroo

  8. Walter June 8, 2011 / 3:58 am

    Paul,

    Thanks for the link. I have visited your site, and I’ll definitely keep it bookmarked.

    Nazaroo,

    I’ll have to check out your link on the Sinaiticus. Thanks for the other info as well.

    My main study up this point has been in comparing the differences in verses between the Majority Manuscripts and the Alexandrian Manuscripts. That has spoken volumes to me. You either have to believe there was a deliberate effort to water down the Deity of Christ or you have to believe there was a deliberate effort to amplify it (at least that is my opinion). To accept the Alexandrian position it would seem to me you have to believe in a conspiracy that resulted in faulty manuscripts becoming dominant without having evidence of a conspiracy. Logic tells me if there was a conspiracy to change the manuscripts then it would have a far greater chance of success of it was based on a smaller number and from relatively similar geographical regions. Without knowing anything else I can look at that alone and form some conclusions on what is the more probable possibility.

    What I don’t understand is how the Alexandrian position has become some dominant in Christian Academic circles. I could understand if it was relegated to Liberal circles of Academia, but you find the vast majority of Bible Colleges and Seminaries as well as renown Christian Ministers who all appear to embrace the Wescott/Hort position. The only thing I can come up with is that it appears to be one massive example of Group Think, and a desire to be accepted among Academics.

    I’ve participated in a lot of debate contests, and I’ve been involved in politics with analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of debating points and positions, and I believe I have a decent grasp on what constitutes a well reasoned and well formed argument. Even though I’m just ankle deep into this subject I’ve concluded rather quickly that the logic and reason is on the side of the Majority Text argument.

  9. Paul Anderson June 8, 2011 / 6:56 am

    Walter,

    Good and well thought out points you raised here. What is also generally not known at least in the West is that within Orthodox circles and those in the East they see the neo-Hortian (reasoned eclectic) position held by most in Western academia as rather a heretical turn down the wrong road and a non-authentic one at that.

    As some members on our own board can relate, there is a certain degree of pressure and academic bias which turns most in the West towards the new versions and the neo-Hortian position within most seminaries. This situation can be rectified through greater awareness of the correct transmissional textual position as held by those within the Majority text arena starting with Burgon and beyond. CSPMT is here to carry on that torch. Blessings.

    In Christ,

    Paul Anderson
    President-CSPMT
    http://www.cspmt.org

    • Walter June 9, 2011 / 3:26 am

      Paul,

      For what it’s worth please from this one lay person, please let your board know that there are a lot of us out here who appreciate their stedfast dedication to their task. I believe once the Majority Text position is given a fair and equal hearing next to the Critical Text position that more and more will adopt the Majority position.

      My re-introduction into this subject actually began a few months before I started putting together some things on the Inspiration of Scripture. I was listening to a sermon on the Internet from someone I greatly admire, and he preached on John 8 while telling his congregation that he didn’t believe it belonged in the Bible. I listened to his arguments, but what I heard beneath the words was a bow to academic group think. I had not even thought of the concept of textual criticism prior to this for around 24 years. And even at that time my exposure was limited to KJV Onlyism with no study at all of the Majority Text position or how any of it was received or not received within the academic world.

      If there was a healthy debate among academics with a somewhat close to equal distribution of views and preferences then I would surmise that reasonable people are seeing the issues differently and coming to different conclusions. But when I see one view completely dominating and that view not even being the view with the most basic logic (imho) then a red flag goes up for me.

      I think the fair minded person of the Critical view would at least have to admit the Majority View has some very good scholarship behind it and some well reasoned arguments. So then the question that has to again be asked is why the overwhelming rejection of that view among current Academics? I think you have to seriously ponder the strong possibility of pressure among these academics in preference to one view and the exclusion of the other.

      Walter

  10. Bob Hayton June 8, 2011 / 7:04 am

    Walter,

    Thanks for stopping by our site. We exist, really, to help people like you. The contributors are listed under our contributors tab, but we let people like Paul, Nazaroo, Matthew Verschuur (goes by “Bible Protector” and even anonymous people like redgreen5 comment. We do our best to keep the comments clean and charitable.

    Among the commenters and contributors even, you’ll find a variety of positions. I encourage you to browse our archives, look at the categories and read through previous discussions.

    Speaking more directly to your points, I would encourage you to pick up a copy of Philip Comfort’s New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, reviewed here. It will at least lay out the textual evidence for the critical text position and often the argument for a variety of different readings. It allows layman who are more at home with English than Greek, to at least see the argument and understand it better. It covers most disputed passages in the New Testament, all the major variants. It does leave out some of the Majority text differences or TR differences, but it has most of the major variants, something like 3,000 passages discussed.

    You’ll learn that there are five different endings for the book of Mark among a variety of manuscripts, for instance. Or you’ll see that 1 John 5:7 only has four Greek manuscripts which support it, with four additional ones having it in the margin. All the other Greek mss don’t have it, and the Latin witness is mixed.

    I appreciate your spirit, and the Majority Text position has much to commend it. I’m still studying out that myself (as I have time). I think the whole issue is more complicated than many give out, however. The problem I see with the Majority Text is that it is largely represented by the Greek copies in one region of the world — the only area that spoke Greek (hence the high number of surviving Greek copies from that locale). Places that didn’t speak Greek used other language copies which don’t follow the Majority Text, usually. And those copies hail from all over the known world. Alexandrian type witnesses and readings, in my understanding, come from a wider geographic locale than just Egypt.

    As for Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7, the actual evidence is quite large against their authenticity. We have to be careful that we don’t just accept readings based on our theological preferences for them. If 1 John 5:7 was original, how can we explain the lack of virtually any reference to this text in the Greek and Latin Fathers from the time of the 200 year controversy over the nature of the Trinity? Every text that could be referenced, and even ones that were used allegorically to fit a preconceived idea, all of them were marshaled out into the debate, but 1 John 5:7 isn’t even discussed. For me the simplest explanation for that is that it was a comment on Scripture in the margins that later got inadvertently included in a copy, which is why it is almost exclusively only found in Latin versions. Syriac doesn’t have it, and the Greek texts don’t either.

    The variant in John 7:53-8:11 does actually allow for a smooth reading of John without it. I think you may have forgot that 7:53 also is part of the excluded section. The problem with this is that sometimes it shows up as we see it in a few different places in Luke, as well as in different areas in John. That is quite uncommon, pointing to the unsettled nature of that text. Just like modern versions use asterisks today or textual notes, there were markers like asterisks used in old texts too, and we find them marking off this section too. It was a question mark for many of the copyists coping out the book of John in their time too.

    Glad you found us, Walter. I hope you stick around. Good questions, and I trust you’ll use the links around here to read both sides of the debate too. May God bless you in your search for truth.

    Bob Hayton
    Site owner and moderator

    • Michael June 8, 2011 / 9:33 pm

      “The” text is not unsettled, unless one follows the corrupt Alexandrian ones and the preposterous theories to justify their use. Actually, removing the passage makes a liar out of Christ. Perhaps someone paying attention to DETAILS can see that the removal of the passage is just that–a removal of what was clearly there. The only reason there was a problem with the passage was the legalistic mindset of the anteNicene leaders who felt Christ was too merciful there and that the passage gave comfort to the sexually immoral. Their response was stupid, just like their idea that there are no grounds for divorce and remarriage was another legalistic doctrine they taught with vigor BECAUSE they thought they were smarter than GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH who allowed for exceptions in Matthew and 1Cor.7. The “orthodox” were not above removing a text or two that they felt were not worth the trouble.

      As for Kutilek’s article…frankly I find it rather stupid. Those of us who have troubled ourselves to acquire a reproduced copy of the 1611 and to have examined it at length can only laugh at Kutilek. The absurdity level of new versions peddlers and enemies of God’s Book is astounding as it is comical.

    • Walter June 9, 2011 / 3:40 am

      Bob,

      Thanks for the welcome and the recommendation on the resource. I’m still trying to decide how much time I want to spend on this subject since my main priority is to put together some basic Theological teachings and not get too mired down in Textual Criticism. I feel I have to start any teaching in Theology with the inspiration and authority of Scripture because everything that you teach takes the Bible as its source and takes for granted that the Bible is the absolute final authoritative statement on any matter. What I want to do is learn enough about the subject so I could do maybe a 10 or 15 minute treatment of why there are various differences in modern versions, and what is behind the margin notes so often seen in modern versions such as “the latest MSS read …” or “the latest MSS don’t contain this verse(s).”

      At this point I would want to spend a few minutes on the basic arguments for each position and then present some variations letting each individual weigh the arguments and readings and come to their own conclusions. If they wanted more then they could do further research. At the same time though I would call attention to the fact that ALL manuscripts agree on around 95% of the contents of the Bible and of that 5% no major doctrines are (or even middle or small ones) are at risk.

      The goal would be to present this information within the framework of an overall treating of the subject of Inspiration in a way that addresses the realities of the variations while still assuring people that we can have confidence that we have all of God’s Word perfectly preserved, and they can have confidence when they are reading their Bibles that it is God speaking to them. Obviously I’ll be a little biased and possibly throw in that if they’re reading something based on the Majority Text then that would allow God to speak to them just a little bit more 🙂

      Walter

  11. Bob Hayton June 8, 2011 / 12:52 pm

    I would also say that the conspiracy theory about B being a forgery isn’t accepted by most scholars.

    • Nazaroo June 8, 2011 / 3:50 pm

      Its Sinaiticus thats the forgery, not B.

    • Michael June 8, 2011 / 9:35 pm

      Burgon said both were corrupt forgeries. B is a corrupt text passed off as a real NT manuscript. It is no such thing.

    • Nazaroo June 11, 2011 / 11:53 am

      Dear Michael:
      I think Burgon meant something different when he referred to Aleph and B as ‘forgeries’ (if in fact he did…I’d like a reference).

      What I mean by ‘forgery’ is a document that has been consciously and deliberately made to look like something else, i.e., something it is not. In the case of Sinaiticus, it is a document made sometime between about 380 – 420 A.D., which has been made to look like a document of a previous generation (i.e., 320-350 A.D.), by a deliberate mimicking of the style and script, and other palaeographical and manufacturing features.
      Even though it may be true that the manufacturer(s) of Sinaiticus did not intend to deceive anyone, they clearly made this extreme and dedicated effort in order to secure some kind of authority and/or respect for their work.
      Sinaiticus may have simply been made for a rich patron, like an arch-bishop, pope, king or emperor, and so was never meant to deceive either the patron/buyer, or those he intended to entertain by displaying the manuscript.
      Or it may have been made for the purpose of enhancing its authority in a less than honest way, such as to impress the common laypersons or church folk who would view the Great Bible in some suitable location such as a cathedral pulpit, although they would not likely even be able to read it.
      In either case, this would not be a modern forgery in the sense that someone was attempting to entirely fake an ancient document.
      On the other hand, it may very well be an example of the monk-craft being produced by the scribes at Mount Sinai Monastery (St Catherines, Sinai), i.e, it could be an early attempt at a ‘forgery’ of some kind, for the purpose of acquiring wealth or patronage by its sale. The incredibly suspicious “discovery” of Sinaiticus, in which Tischendorf ‘borrowed’ it, then absconded to Russia, while the Czar then made some kind of “payment” to the monks to buy them off or shut them up is a very interesting episode.
      The history of the modern ‘dating’ of the manuscript has its own peculiar aspects, with the British getting conned into handing off a half-million dollars to the government of Russia for this suspicious document, in order to have “the oldest complete bible”…
      All parties directly involved in dating the object have large vested interests in authenticating it, and their claims and motives must remain suspect.
      Tischendorf would never admit to stealing it, or admit its relative lack of importance for textual criticism. The Russians would never admit they got taken by some monks in the middle of a grand theft.
      The British would never admit they bought a lemon with tax-money.

      But Burgon I think had a special meaning, in that he was suggesting the text contained in Aleph and B was the ‘forgery’, i.e, someone deliberately altered the text in order to promote a heretical or unorthodox set of doctrines, or else they were non-Christian tamperers, who simply altered the text randomly but vindictively.
      Burgon’s idea may be valid to account for the origin of some readings, however the readings actually do not originate in Aleph and B! They seem in the most part to belong to an older line of copying, which accumulated the errors in stages.

      peace
      Nazaroo

  12. bibleprotector June 9, 2011 / 12:13 am

    The 1611 Edition does nothing to stop the proper claims of sound KJBOism, in that KJBOs know that the 1611 Edition contains printer’s mistakes and flexible spelling, which means that the process of correcting this has led to the edition being upheld today.

    The existence of the Apocrypha in KJBs, including the 1769 Edition, is no issue, since the Apocrypha is not Scripture.

    The existence of marginal or centre column notes even today is no issue, since those notes are designed as helps, and are not Scripture.

    As for the translators’ address to the readers, that is still published today, and there is nothing in there which counteracts a proper and sound KJBO view.

    Mr Kutilek imagines that somehow the 1611 Edition counters believing that the King James Bible is perfect.

    • Carl June 9, 2011 / 10:07 am

      There’s no such thing as “proper claims of sound KJBOism”

    • Carl June 9, 2011 / 10:08 am

      bp, you’ve not proven with sound, documented evidence that the King James Bible is perfect. And incidentally you’ve never specified which KJV revision is the perfect one AND backed the specification up with sound, documented evidence.

    • Erik DiVietro June 9, 2011 / 2:06 pm

      Carl, BP believes that the 1901 Cambridge Edition is the perfect KJV. His entire site is devoted to that position.

    • Carl June 9, 2011 / 5:10 pm

      Erik, I’ve been reading bp’s website and also challenging him on CARM. I’m finding a lot of disturbing information and claims on bp’s site including some which I contend cross the line into cultism.

    • redgreen5 June 10, 2011 / 6:04 pm

      BP

      Mr Kutilek imagines that somehow the 1611 Edition counters believing that the King James Bible is perfect.

      In point of fact, Kutilek’s position *does* refute KJVO-ism. By comparing a 1611 version to the commonly found version today (1769) a reader cannot help but see all the changes that have occurred. This is more than just spelling mistakes, as you erroneously try to claim; words have been switched around, exchanged, and even added/left out.

      All you’ve done is create a roll-your-own version of KJVO-ism that avoids these flaws; i.e., “Pure Cambridge-ism”.

      The fact that many of the flaws with the KJVO-ism that Kutilek identified *still* apply to the PCE is a fact that you have chosen to deliberately ignore.

  13. Walter June 9, 2011 / 4:01 am

    Addressing a few miscellaneous topics:

    Regarding John 8, my opinion is that to cut it off starting at verse 53 and then pick up at verse 12 is disjointed and abrupt. For it to be a smooth flow it would be my opinion that you’d have to cut it off after John 7:44 and then pick up with verse 12.

    As I’ve said I come to the subject with no particular bias as I’ve used the NIV and Amplified 95% of the time over the last 20 years or so. I will say however that it wasn’t until recently that I began to examine the textual variants, and I did not realize how significant they were. The Amplified is better in that it seems almost 2/3 of the time you get the Majority reading along with the Critical reading, but then the other 1/3 it seems to stick with the Critical reading only. Of course with the NIV or other modern version it always seem to go with the Critical reading over the Majority reading where there is a disagreement.

    My thoughts at this point on a purely personal level is that I expect to use the NKJV more where I was using the NIV, and I’m going to be making notes on my Kindle (which is where I read the Amplified more often than not) where the variants are. I am also using the EMTV in parallel with the NKJV and Amplified through E-Sword on my computers.

    As I’ve said what has been very compelling to me is actually reading the variations themselves. I believe that main case for the Authority of Scripture is that Scripture is self-attesting. I believe the witness of the Holy Spirit within Christians witnesses to the Authority of God’s Word as we read it. I’m not dogmatic on 1 John 5:7 or Acts 8:37, but on the vast majority of the variants between the Majority Text and Critical text with regards to verses relating to Jesus I do feel strongly that there is a strong witness to the Majority renderings.

    I know it would be easy for the proponent of the Critical Text position to chalk that up to a simple Christian just wanting to have their theology verified and substantiated, but I think I could serve as a very good example of why that doesn’t apply. As I’ve said the vast majority of my readings over the last 20 years has been from non-Majority translations so if anything my own sense of familiarity would lead to to heavily lean toward the Critical Text rendering. And I’ve studied the doctrine of the Deity of Christ enough to know that I can make an overwhelming case using the NIV alone so there’s no need for me to supplement my theology.

    As I’ve said, for me it is really a matter of how much time I want (and need) to spend on the subject and how conversant I need to be.

    Thanks for tolerating my long essays 🙂 I’m a single dad with little adult interaction, and I feel like I’ve had a lot of this stuff rolling around in my head with no place to go.

    Walter

  14. Carl June 9, 2011 / 10:09 am

    Well, fwiw, after reading this article I’m stopping by WalMart to get a couple of copies. Definitely will donate one to my church’s library.

    • Carl June 20, 2011 / 2:14 pm

      UPDATE: Over the weekend, I purchased two copies — one for me and one for my church’s library.

  15. redgreen5 June 10, 2011 / 6:15 pm

    The above sentence:
    All you’ve done is create a roll-your-own version of KJVO-ism that avoids these flaws; i.e., “Pure Cambridge-ism”.

    Should instead read:
    All you’ve done is create a roll-your-own version of KJVO-ism that you think avoids these flaws; i.e., “Pure Cambridge-ism”.

  16. James Snapp, Jr. June 12, 2011 / 12:21 am

    Bob,

    When I see you recommend resources such as P. W. Comfort’s Text & Translation commentary, it makes me wonder. Comfort is frequently one-sided and often misleading, and provides just enough information to make his readers dangerous. Case in point:

    BH: “You’ll learn that there are five different endings for the book of Mark among a variety of manuscripts, for instance.”

    The impression you give when you say that is that there were five endings that arose independent of one another. Which we both know (or should know) is nonsensical. There are two endings of Mark (besides the abrupt ending at 16:8): the Shorter Ending, and 16:9-20. There is also 16:9-20 with the Freer Logion, in Codex W. And there are six Greek manuscripts that include both endings (or did, when the MSS were produced). Calling all this “five endings” is like looking at two empty picture frames, 1,500 pictures of Dr. Smith, a picture of Dr. Smith and his dog, and six pictures of Dr. Smith and Dr. Miller, and concluding that there are five doctors in those pictures.

    On certain variant-units, Comfort does not write to teach or inform. He writes to persuade. Which is fine — just don’t imagine that you’re reading an even-handed treatment of the evidence.

    BH: . . . “Alexandrian type witnesses and readings, in my understanding, come from a wider geographic locale than just Egypt.”

    Then frankly your understanding needs some work. There are *some* Alexandrian readings with a wider geographic range, but for the most part, the Alexandrian Text = a local Egyptian text.

    BH: “If 1 John 5:7 was original, how can we explain the lack of virtually any reference to this text in the Greek and Latin Fathers from the time of the 200 year controversy over the nature of the Trinity?”

    I don’t mean to argue for the CJ, but, one could just as easily ask, if the “primitive corruptions” proposed by Hort, and the numerous conjectural emendations proposed by modern scholars (such as at Acts 16:12 and I Pet. 3:10) are original, then how can we explain the lack of any hard evidence whatsoever for those readings???

    BH: (on the PA) “The problem with this is that sometimes it shows up as we see it in a few different places in Luke, as well as in different areas in John. That is quite uncommon, pointing to the unsettled nature of that text.”

    Granting that it is uncommon, the presence of the PA in Luke should impress one with the strange willingness of the copyist of the ancestor-MS of f-13 to conform his continuous-text copy to the lectionary; it says something about a medieval copyist’s quirkiness as much as it says anything about the passage itself.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  17. James Snapp, Jr. June 12, 2011 / 12:24 am

    Bob,

    Also, the statement that Aleph is a “forgery” at the end of Mark is not exactly correct, but as I’ve explained before, there is a significant quirk at this specific point in this specific manuscript: the four pages that contain Mk. 15:54-Luke 1:56 were not written by the same copyist who made the surrounding pages; these four pages are replacement-pages produced by a different copyist – who is probably one of the same copyists who helped produce Codex B.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  18. Walter June 13, 2011 / 2:53 am

    I’ve been studying some of the variants, and I came across Romans 14:10. The Majority Text and the TR read “Judgment Seat of Christ” and the Critical Text rendering is “Judgment seat of God.” II Corinthians 5:10 renders it “Judgment Seat of Christ” in all texts (at least that is what I believe I found).

    Here’s what is interesting about the verses in Romans, and it is just another in the long line of things that I’m sure convinces Majority Text supporters (and TR supporters as well) that many of the variants pertaining to Christ are deliberate alterations in the Critical Text.

    The verse after this reads in the NKJV

    Rom 14:11
    For it is written: “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD.”

    This references back to Isaiah.

    Isaiah 45:22-23 NKJV
    22 “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
    23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath.

    The implication is clear. The Judgment seat of Christ is occupied by God thereby affirming the Deity of Christ.

    Yes I know there are other Scriptures that made it through the Critical Text which clearly show the Deity of Christ, but that isn’t the point. Here’s just another reference where it was watered down.

    While doing some research I found a reference to these verses from Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians.

    Polycarp Letter to the Philippians (Approximately AD 100-125)

    Chapter 6
    … If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive; for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and “we must all appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, and must every one give an account of himself”

    One other thing I discovered while reading Polycarp’s letter is that his reference to 1 Timothy 6:10 affirms the TR rendering of that verse against the Majority Text.

    Polycarp Letter to the Philippians
    Chapter IV
    “But the love of money is the root of all evils”

    Early on I’ve staked out my ground as being somewhere in-between the TR Only position and the Majority Text position. I don’t believe the TR is perfect, but I do believe there was some divine providence at work in pulling together the Scriptures that it did. It will not surprise me at all if Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are in the MASTER COPY of Scripture when we get to heaven.

    Still Studying….
    Walter

  19. CD-Host June 22, 2011 / 11:00 am

    Walter —

    As for John if I may make a suggestion that may help… Try reading John in the following order: 8:12-20, 10:19-29, 10:1-18, 10:30-42, 11, 12:1-19, 7:53, 8:1-11, 2:13b-25.

    To accept the Alexandrian position it would seem to me you have to believe in a conspiracy that resulted in faulty manuscripts becoming dominant without having evidence of a conspiracy.

    I’m going to try and be respectful of Bob who doesn’t want to get into this…
    If you take a look at most modern translations, you can see this same kind of orthodox corruption. Its not seen by the people doing it as a conspiracy rather its seen as responsible translation. For example:

    a) In choosing between textual variants those that support orthodox theology are generally chosen over variants that oppose it.
    b) Translations are made in ways that support orthodox theology over accuracy.

    Let me give you a simple, clear cut very mild example ESV 8:11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.

    The Greek has “trying him” not “to test him”. Why the change? Well the ESV wants to harmonize the gospels and John 8:6 has the very often quoted, “This they said to test him”. And your reaction to that is probably, “well that’s no so bad, there are just harmonizing. Harmonization is a good thing there is no important theological implications of ‘try’ vs. ‘test’.” Who can object to those innocuous changes?

    In other places like Isaiah 7:14, mistranslation is occurring and being supported to support a theology. Fundamentally that the Old Testaments is a Christian book that points towards the Jesus of the New Testament. People who attempted to understand the Old Testament apart from the interpretations of it given in the New Testament, were the groups that rejected it as a Christian book like Jews or Marcionites.

    And that is precisely what you see when you roll the clock the backwards. Its not a conspiracy, people are making these redactions quite openly. We have dozens if not hundreds of still existant contemporaneous books by the people on both sides of this struggle. And I just can’t get into more details here because a discussion of those texts ends up being the story of Catholics vs. Gnostics and their respective predecessors.

  20. redgreen5 June 23, 2011 / 10:00 pm

    CD-Host

    Let me give you a simple, clear cut very mild example ESV 8:11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.

    The Greek has “trying him” not “to test him”. Why the change? Well the ESV wants to harmonize the gospels and John 8:6 has the very often quoted, “This they said to test him”. And your reaction to that is probably, “well that’s no so bad, there are just harmonizing. Harmonization is a good thing there is no important theological implications of ‘try’ vs. ‘test’.” Who can object to those innocuous changes?

    This does not seem to be correct.

    Comparing the Scrivener 1894 Greek of Mark 8:11 to John 8:6 we see:

    Mark 8:11
    And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.

    The Greek in the bolded section above is peirazontes auton

    John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.

    Again, the Greek in the bolded section is the same peirazontes auton

    So the NT Greek is the same in both verses, contrary to your claim that John 8:6 is the “oft quoted “this they said to test him.”

    Also please note that the Stephens 1550 TR, Scrivener 1894, Byz MT, Alexandrian, and H/W texts all use these same two Greek words, so differing mss. is not a consideration here.

    As for whether the Greek says “trying him” or “testing him”, Strong’s says this of the verb:

    1) to try whether a thing can be done
    a) to attempt, endeavour

    2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself

    So I guess I don’t see what the issue is here, with using “test” instead of “try”, since they mean the same thing and both are obviously inside the semantic range of the Greek word. It looks more like the translators of the ESV decided that “tempt” didn’t give the correct connotation in these two verses. The two verses are already harmonized in Greek; and in the ESV, NASB, and NKJV the two verses use “test” instead of “tempt”.

  21. redgreen5 June 23, 2011 / 10:01 pm

    I’m really hating this commenting model. The second paragraph above should be in italics, since it’s also part of CD-Hosts’ original post.

    Likewise, this sentence “2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself ” should be italicized, as it is a continuation of the definition given in Strongs.

  22. CD-Host June 24, 2011 / 3:41 am

    redgreen5 —

    Brother thank you for the correction. That’s a perfect example of why I should have checked facts. This was an example of the opposite with regard to the NASB and I had

    a) Managed to reverse it
    b) Applied it to the ESV

    Wow couldn’t have screwed that up more. Walter I owe you a much better example.
    So here is the full retraction:

    Mark 8:11 πειραζοντες αυτον
    John 8:6 πειραζοντες αυτον

    KJV Mark 8:11 And the Pharisees came forth , and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.
    ESV Mark 8:11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.
    NASB Mark 8:11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven,
    to test Him.

    KJV John 8:6 This they said , tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].
    ESV John 8:6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
    NASB John 8:6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground

    • CD-Host June 24, 2011 / 3:50 am

      Wish I could edit That’s a perfect example of why I should have checked facts. should be That’s a perfect example of why I should have checked facts before going from memory.

  23. Jim June 26, 2011 / 9:48 am

    Good Friends:

    My response to the posted article was one of disappointment. I’m not a KJV-only person; I use many translations in my Bible study and contemplations, but I tend to rely primarily on the AV. So my response isn’t because the article attacks my position.

    It has more to do with the over-generalizing, the tendency to lump together minor changes, such as spelling, with more significant alterations. The AV has evolved; everything in this world changes, including Bible versions. But if one is going to make a critique of the KJV-only position I think it is useful to have a hierarchy of types of changes, rather than just listing all of, implying that they are all of equal significance.

    Personally, I have long been puzzled at the removal of the apocrypha from most versions published today and would consider that change to be significant. It reflects, I think, a theological gap between the translators and the KJB-only position that is held today. I tend to think that a complete AV should include the apocrypha. I would even go so far as to think of a KJB that integrated the apocrypha into the Old Testament, along the lines of Orthodox and Catholic Bibles, to be a legitimate undertaking; well, at least as legitimate as removing them altogether.

    On the other hand, change of type face is trivial, as are changes in spelling. I would place these on the order of typos and hardly worth spending time over.

    Best wishes,

    Jim

  24. Donex7 January 8, 2012 / 10:50 pm

    Hello everyone.

    I have a few questions to those who do not believe (like Doug Kutilek) that we have the preserved Word of God today contained in the KJV. Doug Kutilek (and co.)obviously does not believe that the KJV is reliable..and so are the rest of the modern versions that’s why he (they) used other modern versions which he think is more “accurate” but not reliable nonetheless. I think modern versionist position is that they believe that no single Bible translation is perfectly preserved up to today. So here’s my few questions:

    1. If the KJV (and also your preferred version) is unreliable based on your facts and judgment then how can you say for certainty that you are saved? don’t give me John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:8-9, or Acts 16:31, etc. they are all unreliable anyway, is it?

    2. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 “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.” Do you really think the Lord Jesus Christ did not mean what He said? For you have been busy promoting and teaching others that the Bible(whatever version)has errors on it and therefore is not an exact representation of the very Word of God. Tell me, which of those “jot or title” needs man’s correction to arrive at near accuracy but still unreliable version of the Bible? And if still you insist that those “jot or title” needs correction then tell me, did the Lord Jesus Christ lied? if not, then who?

    3. So you want me to believe that you are saved, good. Can you tell me please how were you saved? But…please don’t use that verse in that “unreliable” KJV Bible. So which Bible version will you use then? They’re all unreliable according to your judgment and intellect, remember? So how can you say you are saved if the only thing that can testify for your faith is…according to you is corrupted and unreliable?

    4. It must be a mistake on your part, Mr. Kutilek, to believe in God. You see, the very thing (God’s Word)that gave you knowledge about God and the Lord Jesus Christ is nothing but erroneous copies of the original. Then tell me, if we don’t have the preserved Word of God today, to which did you anchor your faith?

    • Former KJVO November 1, 2012 / 9:18 am

      DOnex7 asks:
      “1. If the KJV (and also your preferred version) is unreliable based on your facts and judgment then how can you say for certainty that you are saved? don’t give me John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:8-9, or Acts 16:31, etc. they are all unreliable anyway, is it?”

      Could you show me where any of the men whom you take issue with here (Kutilek et.al.)proclaim the KJV or their version of choice is “unreliable” in any matter of the fundamentals of THE FAITH?

      You ask:
      “2. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 “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.” Do you really think the Lord Jesus Christ did not mean what He said? For you have been busy promoting and teaching others that the Bible(whatever version)has errors on it and therefore is not an exact representation of the very Word of God. Tell me, which of those “jot or title” needs man’s correction to arrive at near accuracy but still unreliable version of the Bible? And if still you insist that those “jot or title” needs correction then tell me, did the Lord Jesus Christ lied? if not, then who?”

      Could you show any Jot’s or Tittles in any new testament text extant? Also please remember our Lord was referring to all OT laws, which He fulfilled in life , death and resurrection. Also, there were no NT texts even in existence when He spoke these words, so, to which “Law” was He referring?

      You ask:
      “3. So you want me to believe that you are saved, good. Can you tell me please how were you saved? But…please don’t use that verse in that “unreliable” KJV Bible. So which Bible version will you use then? They’re all unreliable according to your judgment and intellect, remember? So how can you say you are saved if the only thing that can testify for your faith is…according to you is corrupted and unreliable?”

      So if one can only be saved from using a KJV then what do you do for the millions throughout early church history that may have never even seen a MT/TR reading (which didn’t become the majority until at least the 4th or 5th century)? were they really saved if they read from a Alexandreian MS? What about the fact that many 1st century churches didn’t have any MSS in their possession? And again they never said that any of the versions mentioned are unreliable including the KJV, one of their ( as my) issues, amongst many, is with the KJVO position that any MSS or Christian that doesn’t hold to their view is slamming the KJV itself.

      you say:
      4. It must be a mistake on your part, Mr. Kutilek, to believe in God. You see, the very thing (God’s Word)that gave you knowledge about God and the Lord Jesus Christ is nothing but erroneous copies of the original. Then tell me, if we don’t have the preserved Word of God today, to which did you anchor your faith?

      You must prove where MR Kutilek or anyone else ever states That we don’t have God’s Word, could you please tell me where the “preserved Word of God” was before the 1611? and please don’t say the MT because they in no way agree 100 percent with each other, not even one!
      You see, the arguments you use and hold to are the same as the ones I used for years nothing more than circular reasoning and personnel attacks. You are actually disobeying the very words of our God you claim to hold by bearing false witness towards and putting words into the mouths of men that do love God and His Word, and have made it their goal to combat false teachings that do damage to the Christian faith and hurt the cause of Christ, i.e. KJV-onlyism.

  25. Ahmed January 14, 2012 / 12:53 am

    May I ask, if your presumption is that God preserved his Word in a specific set of MSS, why did he allow other MSS to survive and to be referred to by church fathers? If God intended to just rely on the TR or the MajT, why preserve Alex-types? I’m all in favor of having an opinion and you’re free to prefer the TR or MajT, but why not allow the Alex-types to weigh in on some verses? I have found that doing so often enhances one’s view of Christ’s deity, not diminishes it. Peace.

Comments are closed.