Category: Archeology

NKJV /MEV Marijauna Bible

NKJV /MEV Marijauna Bible

The NKJV/MEV too be sure the New King James Version and /or the Modern English Version (‘updated’ NKJV) is not a King James. They marketed it like that in order to SELL more bibles.

Here are my problems with this version…First, as is the photo I posted from the back of my KJB /NKJV Parallel Bible it says that the NKJV is the perfect transition bible to the modern bibles. I call it the “Marijuana bible” LOL…although, I think we know more today and Marijuana is not necessarily a transition drug to all. It is true that like the KJB the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus (5309 manuscripts from Antioch)…however, it also uses the Critical Text (44 corrupt texts out of Alexandria). The KJ translators had the CT available to them but they discarded them.

Now here are some real PROBLEMS I have with the NKJV.

The NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

 

 

 

 

The NKJV

22 omissions of “hell”,
23 omissions of “blood”,

44 omissions of “repent”,
50 omissions of “heaven”,
51 omissions of “God”,
66 omissions of “Lord”.

NKJV omits the word “new testament” entirely
NKJV omits the word “damnation” entirely
NKJV omits the word “devils” entirely

NKJV omits the word “JEHOVAH” 100% of the time!

The NKJV makes a very serious doctrinal error when dealing with the word “JEHOVAH” in Exodus 6:3. They change the word “JEHOVAH” to “LORD” thus making the Bible contradict itself. Even the corrupt “New World Translation” (Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible) has a better rendering of this passage.  LOL and they use the same manuscripts.

So what does Exodus 6:3 say? Please read carefully – “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” (KJV)

Now please note what the NKJV says – “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I was not known to them.” (NKJV)

If you will take a concordance and go back to Genesis 1 and go through to Exodus 6:3 you will notice that the word “LORD” is mentioned 242 times.

Did anyone before Exodus know God by the name of “LORD” before Exodus 6:3. The answer is a resounding, YES! Don’t just sit there, look it up for yourself.

So to eliminate the word “JEHOVAH” is not only poor scholarship but also perverts and damages the text making it contradictory. It is a key passage that shows God as He reveals Himself BY ANOTHER NAME to mankind. Someone on the translation committee evidently does not like the name, “JEHOVAH.”

DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS

DEALING WITH SALVATION

The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces “are sanctified” with “ARE BEING SANCTIFIED“, and it replaces “are saved” with “ARE BEING SAVED.

In I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words “may believe” have been replaced with “MAY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE” in I John 5:13.

The old straight and “narrow” way of Matthew 7:14 has become the “DIFFICULT” way in the NKJV.

In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads “casting down imaginations”, but the NKJV reads “CASTING DOWN ARGUMENTS“. The word “thought”, which occurs later in the verse, matches “imaginations”, not “arguments”. This change weakens the verse.

The KJV tells us to reject a “heretick” after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a “ DIVISIVE MAN“. How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as “divisive men”.

According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to “corrupt” God’s word. No, they just “PEDDLE” it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

The KJV correctly says, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God …. “But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change “corrupt” to “peddling.” Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it?

The NKJV gives us no command to “study” God’s word in II Timothy 2:15.

2 TIMOTHY 2:15

KJV reads, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God.” NKJV and NASV change “study” to “be diligent.” NIV and RSV change “study” to “DO YOUR BEST.”

 

MATTHEW 7:14

KJV – “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life…”

NKJV – “Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life,”

Is the way unto eternal life difficult? No, that is false teaching. The way unto eternal life is “strait,” as the KJV says, meaning “constricted, restricted, distressed, narrow, restrained.”

 

MATTHEW 20:20

KJV – “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him…”

NKJV – “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, KNEELING DOWN…”

This is a wicked change. To kneel is obviously not the same as worship. “Worship” was in Tyndale’s translation of 1526. It was in the Matthew’s Bible of 1537. It was the Geneva of 1537. It was in the Authorized Version of 1611. Even the English Revised version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 retained the word “worship.” It was the modernistic Revised Standard Version of 1952 which changed to “kneeling.” Now the NKJV editors follow this same wicked error.

 

HEBREWS 3:16

KJV – “For some, when they had heard did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.”

NKJV – “For who having heard rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt led by Moses?”

Was it ALL or not all of them?  The NKJV make this verse to say something directly contrary to the KJV and to the Old Testament. The Bible plainly says that not all of the Israelites rebelled against God, but the NKJV creates a contradiction.

The NKJV also lines up with the (NWT) Jehovah’s Witness Perversion in dealing with the above.

DANIEL 3:25 The fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as “the Son of God.” The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads “or, a son of the gods,” and both NIV and NASV actually have the latter reading in their texts.  I hate footnotes…it leaves DOUBT as to what God really said!

The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.  The New King James Version / Modern English Version is a counterfeit my friend.

EASIER?  HARDER!

And by changing thee’s and thou’s they actually change the meaning of the text.  Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). He also said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be concerned about every word!

Let me help…and you will never be confused by thee and thou again.  😊  If it starts with T it is singular.  If it starts with Y it is plural…see EASY!

Archaic words?  Yes!  But the NKJV has them too as does every bible.   Many of the words are EASIER in the KJB than the NKJV.

Please decide what God is saying to Moses:

“And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exodus 16:28, NKJV)

It looks like God is saying, “Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws.” But look carefully at the accurate King James:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”

Now we understand! It was the people, not Moses, that God was upset with. “Ye” and “you” mean more than one person. “Thee,” “thou,” “thy,” “thine,” “doeth,” “hast,” etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The “y” is plural. The “t” is singular. Isn’t that easy? Now you know what Jesus meant when He said to Nicodemus, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:7).

What Jesus said was, “Nicodemus, marvel not that I said unto thee, all of you need to be born again.” This is very important. Not only Nicodemus needed to be saved. But everybody, including him, needed to be born again. That’s why Jesus used the plural.

 

NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV KJV
Luke 13:8 Sir Lord
Matthew 18:26 before him saying, Master and worshipped him saying, Lord
Matthew 20:20 kneeling down worshipping him
Matthew 26:64 right hand of the Power right hand of power
Genesis 22:8 God will provide for himself the lamb God will provide himself a lamb
John 8:35 a son the Son
Colossians 2:2 the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity)
Matthew 8:19 et al. Teacher Master
Matthew 19:16 Good Teacher Good Master
Matthew 22:16 Teacher Master
Matthew 23:8 One is your Teacher, the Christ one is your Master, even Christ
Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ

 

NKJV Copies Jehovah Witness Version
NKJV KJV
Demotes Jesus Christ
Acts 3:13 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus
Acts 3:26 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus
Acts 4:27 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus
Acts 4:30 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus
Colossians 1:15 the firstborn over all creation the firstborn of every creature
Mark 2:15 OMITTED Jesus
Hebrews 4:8 Joshua Jesus
Acts 7:45 Joshua Jesus
2 Thessalonians 3:5 patience of Christ patient waiting for Christ
Demotes Trinity
Acts 17:29 Divine Nature Godhead
Philippians 4:20 our God and Father God and our Father
Revelation 1:6 his God and Father God and his Father
Colossians 3:17 God the Father through Him God and the Father by him
John 14:16 Helper Comforter
John 14:26 Helper Comforter
John 15:26 Helper Comforter
John 16:7 Helper Comforter
Works/Progressive Salvation
1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate Christ followers…of Christ
Romans 3:3 faithfulness faith
Romans 11:30 disobedient not believed
Romans 11:32 disobedient unbelief
1 Corinthians 1:18 are being saved are saved
2 Corinthians 2:15 are being saved are saved
Ephesians 2:8 have been saved are…saved

 

NKJV Supports New Age Ideas
NKJV KJV
Works Salvation
Matthew 7:14 difficult is the way narrow is the way
Galatians 5:22 faithfulness faith
1 John 5:13 may continue to believe may believe
Ecclesiastes 5:20 God keeps him busy God answereth him
Progressive Ages
Matthew 12:32 age to come world to come
Matthew 13:39 et al. end of the age end of the world
Acts 15:18 from eternity from the beginning of the world
1 Corinthians 15:45 Adam became a living being Adam was made a living soul
Pantheism, Androgyny, Gender Equity
Luke 7:19, 20 the Coming One he that should come
Matthew 11:3 the Coming One he that should come
John 7:18 et al. the One he, his
John 4:24 God is spirit God is a spirit
2 Corinthians 2:10 presence person
Genesis 2:18 helper comparable to him help meet for him
Self-Esteem (“The devil made me do it.”)
Philippians 3:21 lowly bodies vile bodies
1 John 5:19 whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one whole world lieth in wickedness
Luke 11:4 deliver us from the evil one deliver us from evil
Matthew 5:37 the evil one of evil
2 Corinthians 1:12 boast rejoicing
Religious Tolerance – One World Religion
Acts 24:14 sect heresy
Acts 17:22 very religious too superstitious
Psalms 19:1 nations heathen
Acts 8:9 astonished bewitched
Acts 25:19 religion superstition
2 Corinthians 10:5 casting down arguments casting down imaginations
Titus 3:10 Reject a divisive man an heretic…reject
Relative/Subjective Standards
Matthew 5:32 et al. sexual immorality fornication
1 Corinthians 6:9 homosexual (catamites only) effeminate
omit all perverted persons sodomite
2 Timothy 3:17 complete perfect
New Age Name Game/Jargon
Matthew 23:10 et al. the Christ Christ
Psalms 109:6 omit Satan
Romans 6:24 et al. slave servant
omit 22x hades hell
omit 81x demon(s) devil(s)
Mark of the Beast
Revelation 13:16 et al. a mark on their hand a mark in their hand
1 Samuel 13:21 the charge…was a pim (positive identification microchip) they had a file…for the coulters

 

NKJV Uses Harder Words than KJV
NKJV Hard Word KJV Easy Word
2 Corinthians 3:12 we use great boldness of speech we use great plainness of speech
Amos 5:21 savor smell
2 Corinthians 5:2 habitation house
Ecclesiastes 2:3 gratify give
Isaiah 28:1, 4 verdant fat
Isaiah 34:6 overflowing fat
Isaiah 13:12 mortal man
Deuteronomy 28:50 elderly old
Judges 19:29 limb bones
Job 2:10 adversity evil
1 Samuel 16:14 distressing evil
Jeremiah 19:3 catastrophe evil
2 Kings 22:16 calamity evil
Ecclesiastes 12:1 difficult evil
Ecclesiastes 8:5 harmful evil
Ezekiel 5:16 terrible evil

HARD WORDS FOUND IN THE NKJV

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths [not to get clean,] bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty, borne, breach, brandished, bray, bristling, buffet, buckler, bulrush, burnished, butress, calamus, caldron, capital, carcasses, carnally, carrion, cassia, caulkers, centurion, chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste, chasten, chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern, citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven, commission, commonwealth [not shared money,] compound, concede, compulsory, conciliation, concubine, congealed, contemptuously, confederacy, contingents, corban, coriander, countenance, couriers  covert, crags, crescents, crest, cropped, cubit, custodian [not the one who cleans the school halls,] curds, dainties, dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed, deride, despoiled, diadem, diffuses, dilapidation, dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner, docile, dragnet,  dregs, drachmas, dropsy, dross, dryshod, eczema, edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails, envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise, expiration, faction, fallow, famish, fare, fatlings, feigned festal, fetched, fidelity, figurehead, filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers, fuller furlongs, gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew, homers, hoopoe, immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy, jubilation, kors, laden, lamentations, laud, lusty, mail [not a letter,] mammon, matrix [other than the movie,] mattock, mercenaries, mina [not a type of bird,] mite [not a bed bug,] moorings, nativity, offal, offscouring, omnipotent, oracle, pangs, papyrus [not a fruit,] paramours, parapet, penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins [not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot,] pinions [not a type of nut,] plaited [not dishes,] platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice, Praetorium, prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators, propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver, rampart  ravenous, ravished, raze [not to lift up,] reconciliation, recount, rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled [does not have to do with guns,] rivulets, rogue, salute [ does not have to do with the army,] satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle [not a type of bus or spaceship,] siegeworks, sistrums [not an affectionate term for your sisters,] skiff, soothsayer, spelt straits, superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng, timbrel, tittle, tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton, warp, wend, wield, winebibber, woof, wrought.

 

None of the translators of the NKJV  believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God.

 

THE NKJV / MEV IS A DANGEROUS, COUNTERFEIT! 

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Haven’t there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

Haven’t there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?


ANSWER:  No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized version 1611 is the “revision hoax. They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historical facts, manuscript evidence and too obvious workings of the Holy Spirit.  Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, “Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps

Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, “Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?”   I have been asked this by MANY Pastors, however, I have done my homework and they don’t get away with this with me.  The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape, but not with me and it shouldn’t be with you either!

Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man named Dr. David F. Reagan.

Dr. Reagan pastors the Antioch Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee.  He has written a devastating expose on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled, “The King James Version of 1611–the Myth of Early Revisions.”

Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics.  I see neither a way nor a reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety:


THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611
THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
Introduction

Men have been “handling the word of God deceitfully” (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man’s corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam’s day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.

One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God’s Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a food according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.

I–THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611
If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that’s one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these “revisions.”

II–THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS OF THE 1611 KJV
Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version. In the section of Scrivener’s book dealing with the KJV “revisions,” one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process–the purification of early printing errors–so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process–the standardization of the spelling. These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are still changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the character of these changes.

III–THE SO-CALLED THOUSANDS OF CHANGES
Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let’s examine the evidence.

Printing Changes

For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominant style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the Bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modern reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic “s” looks like the Roman “s” when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case “s” at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our “f.” Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German “v” and “u.” The Gothic “v” looks like a Roman “u” while the Gothic “u” looks like a Roman “v.” This explains why our “w” is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic “j” looks like our “i.” So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle “s” changed to “f”) and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic “d” had the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the “thousands” of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

Spelling Changes

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600s spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600s a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional “e”‘s were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find mee, bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present- day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.

Textual Changes

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible. The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or vice versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left-hand pages of Scrivener’s book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing–this thing also (1638)

2 shalt have remained–ye shall have remained (1762)

3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik–of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)

4 requite good–requite me good (1629)

5 this book of the Covenant–the book of this covenant (1629)

6 chief rulers–chief ruler (1629)

7 And Parbar–At Parbar (1638)

8 For this cause–And for this cause (1638)

9 For the king had appointed–for so the king had appointed (1629)

10 Seek good–seek God (1617)

11 The cormorant–But the cormorant (1629)

12 returned–turned (1769)

13 a fiery furnace–a burning fiery furnace (1638)

14 The crowned–Thy crowned (1629)

15 thy right doeth–thy right hand doeth (1613)

16 the wayes side–the way side (1743)

17 which was a Jew–which was a Jewess (1629)

18 the city–the city of the Damascenes (1629)

19 now and ever–both now and ever (1638)

20 which was of our father’s–which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener’s entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has “seek good” when the Bible should have read “seek God.” Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words “good” and “God” in spelling shows how easily a weary typesetter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as “chief rulers” to “chief ruler” and “And Parbar” to “At Parbar.” But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener’s appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no “revision” issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!

IV–CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons with recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made:

1 1:5 the place–his place (1638)

2 2:16 shall be–shall all be (1629)

3 8:17 out, yea further–out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)

4 11:17 thing is it–thing it is (?)

Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation (“thing is it” to “thing it is”) is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without even printing errors by the year 1638. That’s more than 350 years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.

V–THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER REVISIONS
Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, “For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English- speaking peoples of the world.” In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.

An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor, etc.) were not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600 alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in the entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change, you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That’s only fair. Still, the number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. According to the fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of revisions. Then pray tell me how four “revisions” and 375 years brought only 400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than the total number of changes in the first four! That’s preposterous!

Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of the alterations is serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas, the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading as found in the New King James Version.

1:13 sore travail; grievous task

1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind

1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood great wisdom

2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with

2:3 acquainting; guiding

2:21 equity; skill

3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task

3:11 the world; eternity

3:18 that might manifest them; God tests them

3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts

3:22 portion; heritage

4:4 right work; skillful work

5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently

5:6 the angel; the messenger of God

5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official

5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy

6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child

7:29 inventions; schemes

8:1 boldness; sternness

8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness

10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment

10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull

10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success

12:9 gave good heed; pondered

12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars

This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 (“he that is higher than the highest”) is successfully removed (“higher official”). But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10:10), this must be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where “the masters of assemblies” become “scholars.” According to the New King James, “the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.” The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the source of the Shepherd’s words. That is what these scholars would like us to think, but it is not true.

In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.

The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.


Individual copies of Dr. Reagan’s excellent pamphlet can be obtained from:

Antioch Baptist Church
5709 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee 37918
(615) 688-0780
From The Answer Book, A Helpbook for Christians by Dr. Samuel Gipp.

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Changes in the King James Version

Changes in the King James Version

In 1769 the Oxford University Press published an edition of the King James Version in which many small changes were made.  These changes were of five kinds:

1. Greater and more regular use of italics;

2. minor changes in the text;

3. the adoption of modern spelling;

4. changes in the marginal notes and references; and,

5. correction of printers’ errors.

This edition soon came to be known as “The Oxford Standard” edition, because it was widely accepted as a standard text by commentators and other publishers.  The editions of the King James version published in our century generally reproduce this Oxford edition of 1769, with or without the marginal notes.  The following information is given so that the reader may gain an accurate impression of how far the modern editions differ from the original King James Version of 1611.

§ 1. ITALICIZED WORDS OR PHRASES

The King James Version was originally printed in the type style known as “black letter,” which has the following appearance:

The booke of the generation of Iesus Christ

Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small “roman” type:

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.

In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics:

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.

This typographical feature was not employed very consistently in the 1611 edition; in many places, the supplied words are not indicated as one might expect. This inconsistency was probably the fault of the printer’s compositors, who very often modified even the spelling of words in order to lengthen or shorten a line of type.

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases, the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases.

Abbreviations:
S – Stephens 1550
B – Beza 1598
E – Elzevir 1624
C – Complutensian Polyglot 1522
Er – Erasmus 1527
Vul – Clementine Vulgate 1592
Tyn – Tyndale 1535
Gen – Genevan Bible 1560
Bish – Bishops Bible 1568
Mark 8:14 Modern editions italicize the disciples, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Mark 9:42 Modern editions italicize these, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C Vul.
John 8:6 Modern editions italicize as though he heard them not at end of verse, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C S1546 S1549 and the Bishops’ Bible.
Acts 1:4 Modern editions italicize them after assembled together with, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:3 Modern editions italicize because I know, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:18 Modern editions italicize and before to turn, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
1 Cor 14:10 Modern editions print the words of them in ordinary type, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 had them in italics, in accordance with Vul.
Heb 12:24 Modern editions italicize that of before Abel, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon Er.
1 John 3:16 Modern editions italicize of God after love, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C B.
Rev 11:14 Modern editions italicize and before behold, in accordance with S. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B Vul.
Rev 19:18 Modern editions italicize both before free, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C.

§ 2. MINOR ALTERATIONS OF THE TEXT

The following list includes all changes to the text of 1611 which do not involve the correction of obvious errors of the press (examples of which are given in § 5 below), or changes of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Most of these changes were made with reference to the text of Estienne 1550, and with a view to greater clarity or accuracy. The changes marked with an asterisk “*” are all those which are considered improper or unnecessary by F.H.A. Scrivener, an eminent authority on the text of the KJV, in his book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. (Cambridge: University Press, 1884).

* Mat 3:12 Add he before will burn up. Rejected by Scrivener.
Mat 6:3 Add hand after right. Approved by Scrivener.
* Mat 9:34 Omit the before devils.
* Mat 12:23 Add not before this the son.
* Mat 13:6 Read had no root instead of had not root.
Mat 16:16 Add the before Christ.
Mat 16:19 Add and before whatsoever thou shalt loose.
Mat 26:75 Read word instead of words.
Mat 27:22 Read Pilate saith instead of Pilate said.
* Mat 27:52 Add the before saints.
Mark 2:4 Add the before press.
Mark 5:6 Read he ran instead of he came.
* Mark 6:7 Read he called instead of he calleth.
* Mark 6:53 Read Gennesaret instead of Genesareth. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
Mark 10:18 Read [there is] none good but one instead of there is no man good, but one.
Mark 11:8 Read branches off the trees instead of branches of the trees.
Luke 1:3 Add all before things.
Luke 1:74 Read hand instead of hands.
Luke 3:21 Omit and before it came to pass.
* Luke 8:8 Add had before said.
* Luke 11:16 Read others instead of other.
Luke 17:34 Add and before the other shall be left.
* Luke 18:9 Read others instead of other.
Luke 19:9 Read a son of Abraham instead of the son of Abraham.
Luke 20:12 Read sent a third instead of sent the third.
Luke 23:19 Read cast into prison instead of cast in prison.
John 5:18 Transpose not only because he to because he not only.
John 7:16 Add and said after Jesus answered them.
John 8:30 Read these words instead of those words.
John 11:3 Read his sisters instead of his sister.
* John 11:34 Read They said unto him instead of They say unto him.
John 12:22 Read tell Jesus instead of told Jesus.
John 15:20 Read than his lord instead of than the Lord.
* John 16:25 Add but before the time. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
John 21:17 Read He saith unto him instead of he said unto him.
Acts 2:22 Add and before wonders.
* Acts 5:34 Add the before law.
Acts 7:35 Read by the hand instead of by the hands.
Acts 8:32 Read his shearer instead of the shearer.
* Acts 10:9 Add top after upon the house.
* Acts 18:5 Add the before spirit.
* Acts 19:19 Transpose also of them to of them also.
* Acts 24:14 Add in before the prophets.
Acts 24:24 Read Jewess instead of Jew.
Acts 27:18 Read And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next [day] instead of And being exceedingly tossed with a tempest the next day.
Rom 3:24 Read Christ Jesus instead of Jesus Christ.
Rom 4:12 Add who before also walk.
Rom 6:12 Transpose reign therefore to therefore reign.
* Rom 7:2 Read law of her husband instead of law of the husband.
Rom 7:13 Transpose Was that then to Was then that.
Rom 11:28 Read for your sakes instead of for your sake.
Rom 12:2 Read and acceptable instead of that acceptable.
Rom 14:6 Read regardeth the day instead of regardeth a day.
Rom 14:10 Add for before we shall all stand.
* 1 Cor 4:9 Read appointed to death instead of approved to death.
1 Cor 7:32 Read things that belong instead of things that belongeth.
1 Cor 10:28 Add for before the earth is.
1 Cor 12:28 Read helps, governments instead of helps in governments.
* 1 Cor 13:2 Read have not charity instead of have no charity.
* 1 Cor 14:15 Add I before will pray.
* 1 Cor 14:18 Read than ye all instead of than you all.
1 Cor 14:23 Read one place instead of some place.
1 Cor 15:6 Read After that instead of And that.
1 Cor 15:41 Read and another glory of the moon instead of another of the moon.
1 Cor 15:48 Add also before that are earthy.
1 Cor 16:22 Read anathema, Maranatha instead of Anathema Maranatha.
* 2 Cor 5:1 Read made with hands instead of made with hand.
2 Cor 5:2 Read groan, earnestly desiring instead of groan earnestly, desiring.
2 Cor 5:20 Omit that before be ye reconciled.
2 Cor 8:21 Add also before in the sight.
2 Cor 9:5 Add and before not.
2 Cor 9:5 Add as before of covetousness.
2 Cor 9:6 Add also after reap twice.
2 Cor 11:26 Read journeyings instead of journeying.
2 Cor 11:32 Add of the Damascenes after the city.
* Gal Title Add the Apostle before to the Galatians. 1611 followed another source. 1769: E. 1611: S.
Gal 3:13 Add a before tree.
* Gal 5:15 Add that after take heed.
* Eph 1:9 Read hath purposed instead of had purposed.
Eph 4:24 Read the new man instead of that new man.
* Eph 6:24 Add Amen at end of verse. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S E. 1611: Vul.
Phil 4:6 Read requests instead of request.
2 Th 2:14 Read our Lord Jesus Christ instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Tim 1:4 Add godly before edifying.
* 1 Tim 2:9 Read shamefacedness instead of shamefastness.
2 Tim 1:7 Add and before of love.
* 2 Tim 1:12 Omit I before am persuaded.
2 Tim 2:19 Read this seal instead of the seal.
2 Tim 4:8 Add all before them also.
2 Tim 4:13 Add and the books after bring [with thee].
Heb 3:10 Read their heart instead of their hearts.
Heb 8:8 Add with before the house of Judah.
Heb 11:23 Add were before not afraid.
Heb 12:1 Omit unto before the race.
James 5:2 Add are before motheaten.
1 Pet 2:1 Add all before evil speakings.
1 Pet 2:5 Read sacrifices instead of sacrifice.
1 Pet 2:6 Add also after Wherefore.
* 1 Pet 5:10 Read called us unto instead of called us into.
1 John 2:16 Add and before the lust of the eyes.
* 1 John 3:17 Read have need instead of hath need.
1 John 5:12 Add of God after hath not the Son.
Jude 1:25 Add both before now and ever.
Rev 1:4 Add which are before in Asia.
Rev 1:11 Add unto before Philadelphia.
Rev 5:13 Add and before honour.
Rev 5:13 Add and before glory.
Rev 12:14 Read fly instead of flee.
Rev 13:6 Read them that dwell instead of them that dwelt.
* Rev 17:4 Read precious stones instead of precious stone.
* Rev 22:2 Read on either side instead of of either side.

§ 3. MODERNIZED SPELLING, CAPITALIZATION, AND PUNCTUATION

The following lists show every instance of altered spelling, capitalization, and punctuation from the first chapter of Matthew.

Spelling

It will be noticed below that fourteen is spelled two different ways in the 1611 edition: This is because early printers employed various spellings according to the requirements of space, i.e., they would lengthen or shorten the words orthographically in order to present the text in neatly justified columns. The ampersand (&) was frequently used instead of the word and for the same reason. Another graphic abbreviation sometimes used is the form ye (properly pronounced, the) instead of a fully written the.

begate/begat     dreame/dream hee/he sleepe/sleep
bin/been feare/fear knewe/knew sonne/son
booke/book foorth/forth publique/publick tooke/took
borne/born foureteene/fourteen shee/she untill/until
childe/child fourteene/fourteen sinnes/sins &/and

Capitalization

The use of capital letters in the 1611 edition was somewhat irregular, but in general, it may be observed that, in addition to proper nouns, common nouns referring to important persons were often capitalized, after the custom of the times. Pronouns referring to persons of the Trinity were not capitalized. Because each verse of the translation was printed as one paragraph, the first word of every verse was also capitalized. Below are listed all changes from the first chapter of Matthew.

1611 1769
Angel of the Lord angel of the Lord
holy Ghost Holy Ghost
his Name Jesus his name JESUS
Behold, a Virgin Behold, a virgin

Punctuation

The 1611 edition was more heavily punctuated than our modern editions, as is generally true for older books; but it appears that sometimes the punctuation was influenced by mere considerations of space, as in the second example below.

1611 So all the generations from Abraham to David, are fourteene …
1769 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen …
1611 Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing …
1769 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing …
1611 That which is conceived in her, is of the holy Ghost
1769 That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost

§ 4. MARGINAL CHANGES IN THE OXFORD EDITION OF 1769

In the first edition of the King James Vversion, marginal notes indicating various renderings or readings appeared in 775 places in the New Testament. Of these notes, 34 evidently referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts. They appear in the following places: Mat 1:11, 7:14, 24:31, 26:26; Mark 7:3, 9:16; Luke 2:38, 10:22, 17:36; John 18:13; Acts 13:18, 25:6; Rom. 5:17, 7:6, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:31; Gal. 4:15, 4:17; Eph. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:5; Heb. 4:2, 9:2; James 2:18; 1 Pet. 1:4, 2:21; 2 Pet. 2:2, 2:11, 2:18; 2 John 1:8; Rev. 3:14, 6:8, 13:1, 13:5, 17:5.

The editors of the 1769 edition left all of the original marginal readings and renderings unchanged but added 87 more notes, of which 17 referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts. The following is a list of all notes added to Matthew.

1:20 Gr. begotten.
1:21 That is, Saviour.
5:22 That is, Vain fellow.
6:1 Or, righteousness.
10:10 Gr. a staff.
10:25 Gr. Beelzebul.
12:24 Gr. Beelzebul.
14:6 Gr. in the midst.
16:22 Gr. Pity thyself.
21:19 Gr. one fig tree.
22:26 Gr. seven.
23:23 Gr. anethon, dill.
24:33 Or, he.
28:19 Or, make disciples, or, Christians of all nations.

Below are listed all of the alternatives added to the margin in 1769 which evidently refer to various readings of the Greek text.

Mat 6:1. Read righteousness instead of alms. 1769 margin: Vul. Text: S B E.
Mat 10:10. Read a staff instead of staves. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: C S1546 S1549.
Luke 22:42. Read willing to remove instead of willing, remove. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: unknown.
John 7:50. Read to him instead of to Jesus. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: Tyndale.
Acts 7:44. Read who spake instead of speaking. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: Vulgate.
Acts 8:13. Transpose miracles and signs to signs and miracles. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: unknown.
Acts 8:13. Add great before miracles. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: unknown.
2 Cor 10:10. Read saith he instead of say they. 1769 margin: S. Text: B Vul.
Heb 10:2. Omit not and render For then they would have ceased to be offered. Because. 1769 margin: B E Vul. Text: S.
Heb 10:17. Add Then he said at beginning of verse. 1769 margin: no editors. The note evidently refers to the reading of the recently discovered Harclean Syriac version. Text: S B E.
James 4:2. Read ye envy instead of ye kill. 1769 margin: Er. Text: S B E.
2 Pet 1:1. Read Simeon Peter instead of Simon Peter. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: C Vul.
2 Pet 1:1. Read righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus instead of righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus. 1769 margin: S. Text: unknown (B E read of our God and our Saviour Jesus).
2 John 1:3. Read shall be with instead of be with. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: Vulgate.
2 John 1:12. Read your joy instead of our joy. 1769 margin: Vul. Text: S E B.
Rev 15:3. Read nations instead of saints. 1769 margin: C. Text: S B E.
Rev. 15:3. Read ages instead of saints. 1769 margin: Vul. Text: S B E.
Rev 21:7. Read these things instead of all things. 1769 margin: C Vul. Text: S B E.
Rev 22:19. Read from the tree of life instead of out of the book of life. 1769 margin: C Vul. Text: S B E.

MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED

The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1:30
Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2:15-16
Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4:7
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7:7

§ 5. ORIGINAL ERRORS OF THE PRESS CORRECTED

The following changes are all from Matthew.

4:25 great great great
5:47 do you do ye
8:25 awoke, saying awoke him, saying
21:20 away? away!
26:34 might night

§ 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

For the student who wishes to learn more concerning the history of the King James version, the following books will be of interest.

Geddes MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible from the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1968. An excellent layman’s history of the English versions up to 1961. The original KJV prefix, The Translators to the Reader, is given in an appendix.

The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833. Reprinted by Thomas Nelson in 1993 as The Holy Bible, 1611 Edition. This is an edition of the King James version which exactly reproduces the spelling, punctuation, marginal notes, and chapter headings of the first edition. An exhaustive collation with the printing of 1613 was prefixed to the Oxford edition, but left out of the Nelson reprint. The following paragraph from Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the Bible, p. 35, describes the interesting circumstances surrounding the publication of this reprint. “For many years which followed the publication of the edition of 1769, even after its glaring imperfections had become in some measure known, the King’s Printer and the two English universities continued to reproduce what was in substance Dr Blayney’s work, when the public attention was claimed in 1831 by Mr Curtis of Islington, who complained that all modern reprints of Holy Scripture departed widely from the original edition of 1611, to the great deterioration of our Vernacular Translation [The Existing Monopoly an inadequate protection of the Authorized Version of the Scripture, &c. By Thomas Curtis, London, 1833, 8vo]. It is needless to revive the controversy that ensued, in which the case of the priveleged presses was successfully maintained by Dr Cardwell in behalf of Oxford, by Dr Turton for Cambridge, in the pamphlets which have been already cited in this section [Oxford Bibles, 1833. By Edward Cardwell; and Text of the English Bible Considered, 2nd edition, 1833. By T. Turton]. The consequent publication of the standard text in the Oxford reprint of 1833, which we have found so useful, virtually settled the whole debate, by shewing to the general reader the obvious impossibility of returning to the Bible of 1611, with all the defects which those who superintended the press had been engaged, for more than two centuries, in reducing to a more consistent and presentable shape.”

F.H.A. Scrivener, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Cambridge: University Press, 1873. This book is a critical edition of the Authorized Version.

F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. Cambridge: University Press, 1884. This is the definitive work on the textual sources and history of the Authorized Version.

Luther Weigle, ed., The New Testament Octapla: Eight English Versions of the New Testament in the Tyndale-King James Tradition. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962. Full parallel texts of Tyndale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Geneva Bible 1562, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Rheims 1582, King James version (represented by Scrivener’s edition of 1873), American Standard Version 1901, Revised Standard Version 1960.

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Creation In The Stars

Creation In The Stars

Rev. Kevin R. Airrington
It amazes me that every single science discipline supports a Creator. What’s more is not only does every science discipline (including math) support creation, they also disprove evolution. And no, evolution is not a science; it’s not even a theory. 🙂 Evolution is a faith based religion, which takes more faith to believe in than the Christian faith I might add. 🙂 I am working on a series of books for kids. One of the books is called “On the 4th day God created the moon.” This is basically an astronomy book for grade school kids from the biblical perspective. Here is a snippet of that book for this discussion. Scientists estimate that there are a lot of stars in the universe.

There are about 70 sextillion stars out there. That’s 10 to the 21st power or 70 with 21 zeros after it.

It looks like this:  70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Now that’s a lot of stars!  And that’s the ones we know about; we don’t know about the ones we don’t know about. 🙂 There are enough stars out there that we know about, that each person on earth could own 11 trillion stars. You can have 11 trillion of your own stars…yeah!  Have fun…go name ’em. 🙂 The evolutionists want us to believe that all 70 sextillion stars formed over 70 billion years.  That’s impossible!  Do the math with me real quick.

That is over 3.5 trillion stars forming in a year or 6.5 million stars forming every minute…EVERY MINUTE!!!  We don’t see that happening today…nor have we ever saw that happening.  In fact, we have never ever seen a star form.  Oh, sometimes they will say we have…and their evidence is a bright spot.  A bright spot!  🙂  They cannot tell if a dust cloud moved out of the way or a supernova took place (stars get brighter just before they explode).  Even if we have seen a star form…this is a long way off to 6.5 million stars forming in a minute.   You might say, “gee professor, maybe the universe just stopped making stars, did you ever think of that dummy?”  Uh, yes, I have.  So, the universe is popping stars out at the rate of 6.5 billion stars a minute and then for some reason it just stops?  Or at least kicks them out 1 every 10 years or something?  Will you look at what they want your kids to believe Martha?

I believe God…He created the moon, the sun and the stars on day four.  It took Him only one day and the stars were created and completely mature with the light reaching earth etc. Praise God! “Stars burnt out billions of years ago.”

“Stars burnt out billions of years ago, but the light is still just reaching us.”  You know, I can believe that they burnt out some time ago…not billions of years ago…but maybe some burnt out 100 years ago or 1000 years ago.  What’s cool is God…THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE, and no, not that wimp Zeus is capable if creating a star and sticking it in the sky and making the light reach the earth instantly.

Can I get a witness?  You sure can.  The Bible tells us that God created the angels, including the god of some of you, Satan (ouch) on day 2 of the creation week, how do you know that Kevin?  Don’t worry about it. Just kidding, read this: http://airrington.com/?p=1384.  It probably needs a rewrite…but you will get the point.  The angels were there to watch God do all of this.  “No, now you see there Kevin, now you are off your rocker, the angels have always lived with God, they are eternal just like Him.” Really?  To be honest I am not even sure if they are everlasting like us.

Why did God create angels?  Hebrews 7:14, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”

He created angels to minister to us!  And, just in case you have never read Genesis, chapter one in the Bible…and I mean the BIBLE, God’s Word, The King James Authorised Version, I will give you a hint, down on day six, God created, man, cows, rabbits, tigers, bears, dinosaurs…you know all your basic land animals.  AND YES, DINOSAURS.  Oh and then He created woman…named her Eve, the mother of all living. 

Until God created man, four days later, there was no need for angels.  And you want to know something else cool?  You and I are assigned our own personal guardian angels.  It’s true.  And about every 6 months God gives me two more and the angels pleas with God, “Have you seen him drive his wheelchair God, we can’t take it no more!”

Psalm 91:11, “ For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

Cool huh?  And look, it’s 911!  I think when we get to Heaven we are going to be amazed at all the things that angels do.  For more about angels, see my book, AN ANGEL IN MY BATHTUB.

Psalm 19:1, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

 

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

YEAH HATH GOD SAID

YEAH HATH GOD SAID

Rev. Kevin R. Airrington
January 30, 2017

This is important…PLEASE hear this.  SATAN KEEPS TRYING HIS HARDEST TO DESTROY OUR FAITH IN HIS WORD.

AFTER THOUSANDS OF YEARS HE FINALLY FOUND A WAY TO DO IT WITH THE HELP OF MEN.

PLEASE HEAR ME.  HOW DOES SATAN DO THIS?  By pushing the lie that. “The Bible has to be fixed!” and whispering”yea, hath God said?” By pretending that there is something wrong with the Bible every time they don’t understand a Bible verse!

He is too proud to say, “I don’t know how this goes. but this is how I think it goes. And if we are still not sure, I will ask Kevin or some other.”

Instead, without one shred of evidence he will lie and say that it is probably corrupted by the translation.”

NEVER FALL FOR IT!  GODS WORD IS TRUE…GOD IS ALL POWEFUL … HE IS OMNIPOTENT…HE IS ABLE TO INSPIRE AND HE IS ABLE TO KEEP EVERY PROMISE…HE DID PRESERVE EVERY WORD.  There cannot be 300 Bibles…there just cannot…if there is, God is a liar…He cannot keep His promises.   I just cannot and I refuse to accept that.

Gods WORD is true…and He did keep His promise.  The KJB is Gods WORD persevered.

I love you Lord…thank you for keeping your Word.

FRIEND, PLEASE REMEMBER THESE WORDS….”YEA HATH GOD SAID.”

Satan will use MAN to corrupt GOD’S Word…for no other purpose but to get you to doubt GOD’S Word.

Don’t ever doubt GOD’S Word…the King James Bible is GOD’S Word preserved in English.

 

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

What is your Verdict?

What is your Verdict?

VALIDITY OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST
Copyright ©2012 Pastor Kevin R Airrington


Juries in the United States are asked every day to determine if there is enough evidence in a criminal trial to convict a person “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In this article I am going to ask you to weigh for yourself the historical and the physical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from about 29 a.d. and then, you judge for yourself if the Bible is a credible document.

About 2,000 years ago an event was supposed to have occurred and the Bible records evidence of that event.  Much of the evidence that is recorded in the Bible is supported by outside documents and first-century historians.  If the man we call Jesus Christ was not raised from the dead then the Christian faith and the New Testament are complete and entire frauds.  In short, prove the Resurrection to be false and the entire Christian religion would fall apart and Jesus would found to be a liar.

But if true, this single event, above any other in the history of mankind, provides something solid to believe in. It provides evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth more powerfully than anything that he ever said or did.  It proves that Jesus is who He claimed to be: the Son of God.

Any event that claims to be historical must satisfy certain tests of authenticity.  For example, we know that people and events were historical by the things that were said and not said about them in their own time and the time immediately following.

Examine within these few pages the arguments that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was truly raised by God from the dead. You will then have a solid basis for faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and with your whole heart, soul, and mind lay hold upon the hope of eternal life.

If true, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the single most important event in the history of mankind, and therefore the one most crucial to establish as an authentic historical event. In fact, the Resurrection is the very linchpin of the Christian faith, holding together every claim and every blessing. If the Resurrection could be proven a fraud, Christianity would disintegrate as a total fabrication with little redeeming merit. Jesus would not even be an example of a “good moral teacher,” as some maintain, for his most important prediction—that he would be raised from the dead—would be found a lie.

As Christians, our very salvation depends in large part upon the reliability of the four historical records of the birthlifedeath, and especially the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.   The most important, most vital element for our salvation is a deeply held historical factual raised Jesus from the dead.   Romans 10:9 asserts: “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”  We are trifling with the bedrock of our salvation when we entertain doubts about the historical accuracy of any part of Scripture.  But most crucial are those parts that make historical claims upon which our salvation depends.

Therefore, those who argue that historically the resurrection is not provable and even unnecessary are contradicting the testimony of the apostolic witnesses.  The Apostle Paul’s entire ministry was built upon the foundation of the Resurrection, and it was his personal encounter with the risen Christ that caused him to develop a firm conviction in the reality of this event. In the following verses, I have highlighted in bold type Paul’s statements of the consequences to the Christian faith if the Resurrection of Christ did not, in fact, happen.

1 Corinthians 15:14-20

(14) And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

(15) Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

(16) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

(17) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

(18) Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

(20) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Later in his life, Paul’s public testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and his proclamation of the Gospel in Ephesus caused such uproar that the Roman authorities took him into protective custody lest he be killed by the Jews.  After several appeals according to Roman law, Paul found himself standing before King Agrippa, his last level of appeal before the Emperor himself.

Given permission to speak freely, Paul launched into a passionate account of his life, concluding with his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.  When Paul then verified the Resurrection from Old Testament prophecy, the governor, Festus, interrupted him and told him he was crazy. The truth of Paul’s brilliant reply remains emblazoned across the pages of human history.

Acts 26:25-26

(25) “But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

(26) For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

Amen! And that is why, taken together, the following historical proofs of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ present evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. The Resurrection narratives have the ring of historical truth

The Resurrection narratives (Gospels) bear unmistakable signs of being historically accurate. The earliness of these accounts, at a time when hostile witnesses were present, would have made a fabrication unlikely and dangerous.  There is agreement on the main facts and great variety in the witnesses given, yet they are not a mere repetition of some standardized story with all the discrepancies worked out.  The accounts of Christ’s resurrection appearances are clearly independent of one another, as their surface dissimilarities suggest.  Deeper scrutiny, however, reveals that these appearances are non‑contradictory.  Henry Morris writes:

It is a well‑known rule of evidence that the testimonies of several different witnesses, each reporting from his own particular vantage point, provide the strongest possible evidence when the testimonies contain superficial contradictions that resolve themselves upon close and careful examination. This is exactly the situation with the various witnesses to the resurrection.1

2. The Apostle Paul’s life and ministry is a strong witness of the Resurrection

At the time Paul met the resurrected Christ, he was an ardent antagonist to the Christian faith.  A highly educated man, he was not easily persuaded of anything that appeared contrary to or inconsistent with the Mosaic traditions.  It could be said that he would have been the last person on earth to accept the idea of a crucified and resurrected Messiah based on the Jewish expectations of the time. The fact that he became so fully persuaded of the resurrection of Christ that he completely dedicated his life to his risen Lord is powerful evidence of the reality of the Resurrection.   Canon Kennett writes:

Within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was in the mind of at least one man of education [the Apostle Paul], absolutely irrefutable.2

3.  The empty tomb is a historical given

No reputable New Testament historian doubts the historical fact that the tomb in which Christ was placed after his crucifixion was empty. Therefore, there are only three explanations for it. His enemies took the body, his friends took the body, or Jesus was raised from the dead. The first possibility is extremely unlikely, because his enemies would have certainly displayed his body if they could have, in order to humiliate his disciples, quell the rumors of his resurrection, as well as to cut short any new religious movement that threatened their Mosaic traditions.

It is equally unlikely that his friends would have taken his body, because after his crucifixion they were profoundly disappointed and discouraged and did not believe that he would be resurrected. It is absurd to think that under these conditions they would invent a scheme in which they would steal away the body to fabricate a story they obviously did not believe.

4. The disciples were devout Jews

The disciples were Jews who took seriously their Jewish privileges and obligations. Therefore, it is unthinkable that they would have been party to making up a new religion for personal gain. To a first‑century Jew, such an act was equivalent to lying against the God of Israel, as Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15:12‑19 (where he called it bearing false witness, contrary to one of the Ten Commandments). For a first‑century Jew, lying against God and perverting His revelation would mean risking one’s salvation and future participation in the Messianic Kingdom. Would such a person risk divine retribution for a few years of prestige as a leader of a new religion? The answer can only be an emphatic “no.”

5. The testimony of women

The presence of women at the tomb is strong evidence that the biblical record is true. Women had virtually no credibility in the firstcentury Jewish culture, and their testimony in a court of law was considered worthless. For example, if a man was accused of a crime that only women witnessed, he could not be convicted on that basis.  If the account of Jesus’ resurrection were a fable added later in an attempt to authenticate Christianity, why would the record have women be the first to see him and testify to the empty tomb, unless it had really happened that way? Women bringing testimony of his resurrection that is then denied by the male disciples makes the latter look bad, and these men were the first leaders of the Christian Church.  A fabricated story added later by the Church would certainly have painted their first leaders in a more favorable light.

6.  Jewish propaganda presupposes the empty tomb and the missing body

The Jewish Temple authorities paid those who had seen the tomb empty to lie and say that the disciples had stolen the body, and they even murdered many of those who preached about his resurrection. With such a powerful incentive to squash the new movement, they would have stopped at nothing to produce Jesus’ dead body if they could have. The fact that they did not means they could not because he was risen.

7. His enemies would have produced his dead body to silence the believers

If he did not rise from the dead, what became of his body?  If his enemies stole it and never showed it openly, that would have encouraged the very rumors of a resurrection that they were very anxious to prevent.  But the decisive proof that His enemies did not take the body is that they surely would have quickly produced it with great fanfare, for they stopped short of nothing to discredit the story.  As William Lane Craig argues:

This is historical evidence of the highest quality, since it comes not from the Christians but from the very enemies of the early Christian faith.3

8. There was no veneration of the tomb

If Jesus was not resurrected, why is there no record of his disciples venerating his tomb as so often happens to religious leaders?  Though God forbade it, the practice continued among the Israelites to the point that God Himself disposed of the bodies of Elijah and Moses lest their followers venerate their gravesites.

9. A non-Christian historian testifies in support of the Resurrection

Josephus, the firstcentury Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus Christ and the growth of Christianity as follows:

And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned Him to the cross, those that loved Him at the first did not forsake him; for He appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him. And the tribes of Christians, so named from Him, are not extinct at this day.4

Though some have tried to dismiss this corroborating secular testimony as fraudulent, this is unlikely because Josephus’ writings were well received at the time of their writing by both Jews and Romans. He was even made an honorary Roman citizen.

There is no record of any objection being raised to this passage by early detractors of Christianity, and had this been a fraudulent and late insertion into the writings of Josephus, this fact would have been openly debated in the literature of the day. Because this did not happen, the silence of the critics is damning to their cause.5

10. No alternative explanations in the early non-scriptural sources

There is no alternative explanation for the rise of the Christian Church given in early historical sources that would even attempt to give the “real” story.  In the event that the story was fabricated, surely some critic would have attempted such an alternative explanation.  But the only adequate explanation for the rise of the Church that has ever been given is that the early Christians believed Jesus had been raised from the dead.

11. The biblical records of the Resurrection appearances give a unified witness

The Four Gospels and the Apostle Paul give a unified witness of eleven resurrection appearances.  Because these records are harmonious and noncontradictory, the burden of proof is upon those who would say that they do not tell the truth.

The eleven resurrection appearances, in their likely order, are as follows:

  1. To Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:11–18)
  2. To the other women (Matt. 28:8–10)
  3. To Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5)
  4. To the two men on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13–35)
  5. To eleven of the disciples (except Thomas-Luke 24:33–49; John 20:19–24)
  6. To the twelve a week later (John 20:24–29; 1 Cor. 15:5)
  7. To seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1–23)
  8. To more than five hundred followers (1 Cor. 15:6)
  9. To James (1 Cor. 15:7)
  10. To all the Apostles [this could be speaking of the Ascension](1 Cor. 15:7)
  11. To the Twelve at the Ascension (Acts 1:3–12)6 

12. The idea of Christ’s new body was a totally foreign concept

The disciples had enough trouble believing that Christ would die and then be raised, and would never have even conceived of the idea of the Messiah having a different body.  It is virtually inconceivable that early Christians fabricated such a story, which even today sounds like science fiction to many doubters.

13.  Modern scholars and historians admit that there is strong evidence of his bodily resurrection

J. P. Moreland confirms this and quotes other scholars:

Almost no New Testament scholar today denies that Jesus appeared to a number of his followers after his death. Some scholars interpret these as subjective hallucinations or objective visions granted by God which were not visions of a physical being.  But no one denies that the believers had some sort of experience. The skeptical New Testament scholar Norman Perrin admitted: “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” Dunn, professor of divinity at the University of Durham, England, agrees: “It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead.”7

Thomas Arnold, former Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, and one of the world’s greatest historians, made the following statement about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead.8

Simon Greenleaf is one of the most highly regarded legal minds ever seen in America. He was an expert on the laws of evidence, and the founder of the Harvard Law School. He analyzed the accounts in the Four Gospels of the resurrection of Christ in terms of their validity as objective testimonial evidence, and concluded:

It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.9

14. The conviction of his followers in the Resurrection

Those who first published the story that Jesus had risen from the dead believed it to be a fact.

They rested their faith not only on the fact of the empty tomb, but on the fact that they themselves had seen Jesus alive after his burialHe was seen not once or twicebut at least ten recorded times; and not just one at a time, but in groups of two, seven, ten, eleven, twelve, and over five hundred.

15. The martyrdom of his followers for their belief in the Resurrection

The firstcentury believers preached and acted with conviction about the truth of his resurrection, many of them even dying because of their belief. If his friends had stolen the body to make it look like he had been resurrected, they would have known that they were believing a lie, and men do not become martyrs for what they know to be false.

16. The unanimous testimony of eye-witnesses, who could not all have been deceived or deluded

Some critics say that the early Christians had a vision or a hallucination of Christ after his death, in the same way people today claim to have “seen” the pop icon Elvis Presley.  Could it not have been an ecstatic visionA dreamA fantasy of an excited imagination?  Perhaps an apparitionNone of these is at all probable, for different groups of people do not keep on seeing the same hallucination. Over five hundred people in a crowd would not all dream the same dream at the same time.

Some modern Christian apologists have argued that it is irrelevant whether or not Christ actually was physically raised, because his “spirit” went to be with God.  God then supposedly gave Christ’s followers a “vision” of Christ continuing to live “spiritually” at God’s side. Such a mystical and spiritualistic concept would not have satisfied the Hebraic mind of the disciples, however, who believed the dead to be dead until raised in a bodily, physical resurrection.  It would also have placed the Christian faith on a subjective, mystical basis without historical claims and would not account for the early disciples’ energetic witness of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

17. The unbelief of the disciples concerning his resurrection

With the exception of Joseph of Arimathea, the followers of Jesus did not believe that he would die and then be resurrected. They were not expecting the event, and when it happened they did not believe it at first. They considered it an “idle tale” (Luke 24:11 ‑ KJV). They did not believe it until they had to, when they were directly confronted by the risen Lord.  Henry Morris writes:

One thing is certain: the disciples could not have fabricated the story of the resurrection from their own imaginations. On the contrary, they somehow failed to anticipate it even after such an abundance of prophetic preparation for it, both from the Scriptures and from Christ. It took the strongest of evidences to convince them it had actually taken place.10

18. The idea of a resurrected Messiah was a hard sell to the Jews and absurd to the Greeks

The picture of Jesus was not in keeping with then current conceptions of what the Messiah would be like (a theocratic ruler who would deliver Israel from Gentile oppression) and it would have been hard to convince others of its truth.  The Greeks, with their doctrine of the immortality of the soul, thought the idea of a bodily resurrection absurd and unnecessary (Acts 17:32).  If the disciples had invented an event or a doctrine around which to build a new religion, it would have been more in line with the standard expectations of the day.

19. He could have gotten out of the tomb only by resurrection

The “swoon” theory has proposed that Jesus was not really dead when they buried him, and that he “came to” again. But in that case, weak and exhausted, encased in heavy grave wrappings; he could scarcely have moved, much less removed the heavy stone door (about 2,000lbs) and gotten out of the tomb.   Furthermore, the Roman authorities had sealed the door, and even if he had been successful in moving the stone, the guards would have rearrested him and further humiliated him. Since there is no record of such an event, it must not have happened, because his enemies would have made much of such a bizarre happening.

20. The very existence and growth of the Christian Church makes no sense if he was not raised

Some critics say that the resurrection was a later addition to the story of Christ, invented years later by the Church to glorify a dead hero.  But it is known, from historical records outside Scripture, that the sect known as Christians came into existence in the reign of Tiberius, and that the thing that brought them into existence was their belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.

The Resurrection was not a later addition to the Christian faith, but the very cause and incentive for itThey rested their faith, not on historical records, but on what they had seen with their own eyes. The records were the result of their faithnot the cause of it. Christianity hinges on the historical fact of Christ’s resurrection, for without it the entire faith is found fraudulent.  Had there been no resurrection, there would have been no New Testament, and no Christian Church.

21. The disciples had nothing to gain by fabricating a story and starting a new religion

His followers faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyrs’ deaths. In light of this, they could never have sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie.  Religion had its rewards for them, but those rewards came from a sincere belief that what they were living for was true.

22. The unanimous testimony of the early Christian leaders

If the empty tomb and resurrection was a fabrication, why did not at least one of the disciples break away from the rest and start his own version of Christianity?   Or why did not at least one of them reveal the claim as a lie?  The Temple authorities were willing to pay good money to anyone who would provide such information.  Or if money was not alluring enough, what about the possibility of proving the Resurrection a lie in order to draw disciples away to follow some enterprising would‑be cult leader?  History has shown that this role is a popular one, and this would have been a golden opportunity.

Without the strong and persuasive evidence of the Resurrection, the continued unity of the early Christian leaders is inexplicable in light of the human tendency to want to promote oneself.  The assumption that they were all committed to the truth of their message is the only adequate explanation of their continued unity and the lack of any revelation of fraud.  Those who lie for personal gain do not stick together very long, especially when hardship decreases the benefits.

23. All of the alternate explanations proposed for the Resurrection lack credibility

In light of the evidence of the empty tomb, the Resurrection appearances and the rise of the Christian Church, a reasonable person should conclude that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a wellestablished historical fact.   In a court of law, such evidence would compel conviction unless contradictory evidence could be brought forward to introduce “a reasonable doubt.”   But all alternate explanations and theories are extremely doubtful and counter‑intuitive.

Therefore, Christians are being rational, sensible, and fully consistent with common sense when they rest their faith on this wellestablished historical event.  Not only is there compelling historical evidence to back the beliefbut extravagant benefits in the future are promised to those who believe it.  According to the Bible, the only sure promise of everlasting life for mankind, both individually and collectively, depends upon belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  As Halley writes:

What a Halo of Glory this simple belief sheds on human life. Our hope of resurrection and life everlasting is based, not on a philosophic guess about immortality, but an historic fact.11

What is your Verdict?

From my research I have found 23 pieces of evidence proving the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We have more evidence of proof of the Resurrection than we do evidence that Abraham Lincoln ever lived.  Yet, you believe Abe lived, don’t you?

Maybe this article has helped you come to your own verdict and you are ready to offer the same kind of prayer that changed my life over 23 years ago.  Perhaps you are still skeptical; let me encourage you to continue in your research, but act quickly as the Bible says we are not guaranteed our next breath here on earth.  Hear me for just a moment, there is a lot riding on your verdict!  If Jesus really is the Son of God, then your eternal future depends on how you respond to Him.  John 8:24 says, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”  Those are strong words; I get it!  But please understand my friend, they are meant with the most concerning love for you.  Jesus paid it all for you.  He is opening the door to Heaven for all who will put their trust in Him.  The choice is yours.  The evidence is in; it is not disputable — what is your verdict?

1.  Henry Morris, The Defender’s Bible (World Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1995), p. 1576.

2. New Bible Dictionary (Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1975), p. 1087.

3. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics   (Crossway Books, Wheaton IL, 1994), p. 277.

4. Translated by William Whiston (originally published in 1737), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus (The Winston Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1957), p. 535.

5. For more on the authenticity of Josephus’ reference to Jesus, see Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1999), pp. 55–57.

6. Traditionally, Judas Iscariot is excluded from the number witnessing his ascension because of the record in Matthew 27:5 that seem to indicate that Judas went and “hanged himself” shortly after the crucifixion. It seems more likely, however, that Judas was received back into the company of the disciples in the period between his repentance and the Ascension, which he witnessed. After he saw Jesus ascend, and all hope of the restoration of a Davidic kingdom lost, Judas went and killed himself. His absence then precipitated the need to replace him, which became the first order of business after the Resurrection (see Acts 1:16–26). If Judas had killed himself before the Resurrection, it is logical to assume that Jesus himself would have been involved in choosing his replacement, since he chose the original 12. The fact that Judas was received back into the company of the disciples after his betrayal of Jesus speaks volumes about the forgiveness of the Lord Jesus, as well as the committed brotherhood of the disciples.

7. J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987), pp. 171 and 172.

8. Thomas Arnold, Sermons on Christian Life (London, 1854), p. 324.

9. Simon Greenleaf, the Testimony of the Evangelists (New York: 1874), p. 28.

10. Morris, op. cit., The Defender’s Bible, p. 1574.

11. Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook, 1955 edition, p. 497. 

 

Other Information, Books, Booklets, and Articles available from:

Airrington Ministries: www.airrington.com

Save a VillageTM: www.saveavillage.org

For Further Evidence

Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith, Westchester, Ill Crossway, 1994

Geivett, R. Douglas, & Gary R. Habermas. Eds. In Defense of Miracles. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press 1997

Habermas, Gary, & Antony Flew. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987

Hanegraaff, Hank.  The Third Day. Nashville: W Group, 2003.

Morrison, Frank.  Who moved the Stone? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987

Wilkins, Michael, J. and J.P. Moreland, eds. Jesus Under Fire. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985

Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence. San Francisco: Harper 1988

Schonfield, Hugh. The Passover Plot. New York: Bantam 1965

Johnson, Timothy Luk. The Real Jesus. San Franscico: Harper 1996

Strobel, Lee. The Case For Easter. Grand Rapids:Zondervan 2003

 

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Copyright © 2017 airrington.com. All Rights Reserved.  WordPress Plugin

Website is Protected By Using The WP Site Protector Plugin From : ExattoSoft.com