Revelation TV, London
Should We Exclusively Use the King James Bible?
Jack Moorman, Pro (6 books)
James White, Anti (20 books)
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD Comments
August 31, 2011
Jack Moorman: (20 minutes)
When an edition of the Bible has become a 400 year standard, that is certainly quite a matter of wonder and a case
And especially so when that Bible is still widely used.And especially so when the language of that Bible, though different, is
The King James Version was always different.It was never current. It was never
contemporary. It was never like your morning newspaper.
It was always a step up. It was not Elizabethan.
The King James Version is a 400 year standard. That
is a matter for great reflection.
a standard you know where you stand.
With a constant flow of modern versions and revisions
of these versions, you’re not so certain where you stand. The footing is not so secure. It’s more tentative. It’s more provisional. It’s not quite as nailed down.
This evening I want to show that the Authorized Version prepared during the years 1604-1611 is fundamentally
superior to the modern versions.
And I emphasize the term fundamentally because, whilst there are many issues involved here, there
is one great mount impassable issue that, with respect, I don’t believe my friends who use the modern versions
can adequately address this issue.
If you can see this issue and, if you can see the major issues, I do think the secondary issues begin to
fall into line.
FIRST MAIN POINT: My first main point is that I
propose that the King James Version is a very accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew words which God inspired in the
ONE: These words were given by inspiration verbally, the faith once delivered, Jude,
verse 3. There is no secondary inspiration that these words were preserved verbally.
TWO: Christ promised in Matthew 24, verse 35, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words
will not pass away.
THREE: Christ further promised that the Holy Spirit would guide believers into all truth concerning
these words; John 16:13 compared to John 17:17.
FOUR: These preserved Greek and Hebrew words would not be difficult to find across the centuries;
Deuteronomy 30:14 “The Word is very nigh thee. These words would not be hidden in a desert. These words, like Codex
Vaticanus, would not be hidden in the Vatican Library. These words, like Codex Sinaiticus, would not be found near
a waste paper bin in a Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. These words would not be out there somewhere
but we’re not just certain where they are.
**FIVE: These words during the manuscript period would be found in the multiplication of
Scripture rather than being hidden away. Second Corinthians 9:2 says “And multiply the word soon.” Psalm 117:15
“His Word runneth very swiftly.” Psalm 68:11 “The Lord gave the word and great was the company of those
that published it.”
And then, and then in time, the 47 KJV translators divided into 6 companies, gathering at Oxford,
Cambridge and Westminster would accurately translate these preserved originally inspired Hebrew and Greek words into
the English of the Authorized Version.
SECOND MAIN POINT: I
propose, as shown by that most remarkable of documents, the Authorized Version Preface, known as “The Translators
to the Readers” that this was likely the most unique gathering of godly scholarship ever. As to the originals from which they translated, they say:“The originals thereof being from heaven, not of earth, The Author being God, not man.The Indicter the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or prophets. The Scriptures being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect.”
Unlike biblical scholarship today, these
men were not tainted by irrationalism, by unbelief, by uncertainty.
As to how they approached their work, the Preface says:“And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge? And they had
knowledge. They were the great grammarians of the land. “And
in what sort did they assemble? In their own knowledge, or sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment as it were in an arm
of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in Him that hath the key of David –opening and no man shutting. “If you ask what they had before them:“Truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New. These are
the two golden pipes through which the olive branches empty themselves in to the gold.”“Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew,
Syrian, Greek or Latin, or no nor the Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch.”
“Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done and to bring back to the anvil
that which we had hammered.”“We have
at the length through the good hand of the Lord upon us brought the work to that past which ye now see.”As to their result and conclusion they say:“
Truly good Christian reader, we never though from the beginning that
we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one in the literary sense a good one, but to make a good
one better or out of many good ones one principle good one, not justly to be accepted against. That hath been our endeavor.
That hath been our mark.”
“Many other things we might give thee warning, o gentle reader, if we have not exceeded
the measure of a preface already.”
are brought unto fountains of living water which ye dig not. Do not cast earth into them with the Philistines, neither prefer
broken pits nor tread under foot so precious things. Neither yet with Esau sell your birthright for a mess of pottage.”
When one disparages a passage in the Authorized Version, it is correct to ask them ‘How long did you look
at that passage before you were prepared to surrender it?’ 1259
THIRD MAIN POINT:
Mount Impassable, Mount Impassable: I propose that there is a huge Mount Impassable difference between
the Greek text that underlies the Authorized Version and that of modern versions. 1321
Authorized Version Text:
ONE: This text represents the vast majority of the 5500 Greek manuscripts
that we now have. Most of these Greek manuscripts are obviously very much used.
text has 2900 more words.
THREE: This text is doctrinally fuller.
This text is cohesive.
FIVE: And yet among the manuscripts that support this text, there is just
enough difference to let you know that they are not lateral copies or reproductions of other manuscripts.
SIX: But they are each individual witnesses representing long lines of transmission into the past. 1431
If you were ask how many were a copy of each other -- probably less than
Kirsopp Lake said of those he looked at
“almost all are orphan children. We’ve got nearly 5500 manuscripts of the type that underlie the Authorized Version;
they’re all independent witnesses – not copies of each other.”
Gordon Fee asks “How does one account for its dominance
and general uniformity. How did the Byzantine Text become dominant?” And this text spread widely. 1517
THE MODERN VERSION:
text underlies most of our modern Bibles: [Nestle-Aland Greek]
ONE: This text is represented by 2 very old
manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus dating from about the year 360 A.D.
TWO: It is also supported by not more than 40-50 other manuscripts. 1604
THREE: This text has 2900 fewer words.
FOUR: This text is less doctrinally distinct or full.
FIVE: This text is not cohesive. Klaus W and Barbara Allen of
the Munster Institute, the primary architects of this text say “The papyri and majuscules of this type of text are,
for the most part, individual witnesses despite sharing general tendencies of the form of the text. They differ so widely
from one another that it is impossible to establish generally any directly genealogical ties among them.”
SIX: This text did not spread widely. It is mainly an Egyptian text, manly an Alexandrian-type
Bruce Metzger lists 25 heretical groups and documents that came from Alexandria.
It was not a good place to get a Bible. 1719
This is the fundamental Mount Impassable issue that we face:
Almost all manuscripts cohesive, doctrinally distinct, spread widely against a small number of manuscripts
not cohesive, not so doctrinally distinct, did not spread widely. This is Mount Impassable for our friends who use the modern
Bibles. I feel this must be addressed. 1800
FOURTH MAIN POINT: Truth Speaks First Beginning with the inspiration of the autographs, in each of the major
epochs of how the Bible came down to us – from inspiration to our having it in our hands today—truth spoke first.
Dissent, division, debate, corruption would follow,
but in each major epoch truth would have the first voice. 1848
ONE: In the 850s there was a change from
the large-lettered uncial text to the small-lettered minuscule text. Virtually every manuscript that went through that change
was of the type that underlies our Authorized Version. Again
Barbara Allen and Klaus W. at the Munster Institute say “Although transferring other ancient Greek literature into the
new script involved a work of criticism, this was not the case for the New Testament. At least in the sense that no attempt
was made to base the newer manuscripts on the oldest available texts. This was not an accident of history. We see the
hand of God in this. TWO: During the initial printing of the Greek NT during the early 1500s, it does not seem to have occurred
to any of those so involved, to set type for any other type of text than that which underlies the Authorized Version.
2013There was no debate; there was no dissent. Other
manuscripts were known. They left them where they lay. But nothing approaching an Aleph B Vaticanus or Aleph B Sinaiticus
type of text made it within sight of the newly established publishing houses in Europe. 2041
Some accused Erasmus of haste in getting out his
1516 edition to the printer. He did get in a bit of a hurry. He did make a few mistakes. But I’m glad he got in a hurry.
Just in time for a monk with a piece of paper nailing it to a door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther would
take Erasmus’ text and translate it into German. The rest is history. Not an accident of history; we see the hand of
God in this.
FIFTH MAIN POINT: Would
it matter if you’ve got 2900 fewer words in your New Testament? Would it matter if you had a total of 8000 other differences? Would it matter if doctrines were not so clearly stated of if key doctrinal verses are missing? We’ve got here 356 doctrinal passages in the Authorized Version generally
missing in the modern version. We have checked these against the entire strata. The NAS has 214 fewer names for Christ. 2400
JAMES WHITE:There are differences in every single manuscript. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
White: But I also believe that King James-only-ism removes the best defense we have of the
veracity of the New Testament because it goes back to a standard which cannot be substantiated.
White: There is not a Greek text in the entire world that reads like the Textus Receptus, not
a single one.
White: In fact the text (held up by Moorman) is actually the work of a
man named Scrivener who went back to the KJV itself and created a Greek text which agrees with the KJV.
White: There are over 1800 differences between the TR and the Majority
or Byzantine Text.
White: Erasmus produced 5 editions between 1516
and 1535. Luther used the first edition which had “do penance” rather than “repent.” Yes, God was
involved with that. 2708
White: In 1550 Stephanos produced the TR, the Received Text of his day.
Along with Erasmus’ and other texts, this was used by the KJV translators. They used the printed editions.
White: They knew there were
other manuscripts. Nobody at that time knew about Byzantine or Alexandrian text types. They did not make a decision
to reject anything.
White: In fact Erasmus
himself wrote to his friend Bombasius in Rome when he was in the controversy about First John 5:7. He asked his friend whether
the Vatican manuscripts (Vaticanus?) contained it.
White: Erasmus would have loved to have used that manuscript. The idea that they
somehow chose not to because they knew about the text types cannot be substantiated from historical sources at all. 2807
White: Erasmus only had about a half dozen manuscripts to work with. The earliest was from around 1000 A.D.
White: Between 632
A.D. and 732 A.D. Islam conquered N. Africa to Portugal and Spain to the holy land and stopped just south of Constantinople
(restated). Islam was not good for the production of Bible manuscripts. Latin replaced Greek in the West and the Latin Vulgate
was used for 1100 years.
White: Erasmus came under a great deal of pressure for coming up with a
new translation. He came under a great deal of pressure because he dared to question the book that obviously God had used
for 1100 years to guide his church and that was the Latin Vulgate. 2913
White: Every time something new came out, someone opposes it just as the King James was opposed. The Pilgrims
detested the King James. They thought it was the liberal translation. They preferred the Geneva Bible and God greatly used
the Geneva Bible that came out before the King James.
White: But why is it that I would believe that the [Nestle-Aland Greek, 27th Edition]
is far more defensible and that we need to be very careful about the King James-only movement?
White: Because I debate non-religious and non-Christians. There is
this drive among every religious group to have a single religious text and have no questions about it – and I understand
that. I understand having it black and white and no problems.
White: Here is the
problem. That is not how God gave us the Bible.
White: No two Greek manuscripts read identical to one another.
White: Erasmus had to examine manuscripts and he made choices. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic
priest; he made mistakes. 3028
White: So we have to examine the scholarship
If they used textual critical scholarship to choose between manuscripts, and even the King James manuscripts – these
two texts do not read identical to one another [Oxford and Cambridge KJV].
White: The King James translators had to make choices even between the
printed texts that they used.
White: So, if we did it from 1604 to 1611, why do we stop there? The King James translators
never said that we were to stop there. They never even suggested that this was the final word and so we have to continue on.
White: If the King James translators were here today, they would not be King James-only-ists,
because they believed in the necessity of revision and the examination of manuscripts.
And if they had available what we have available, they certainly would not take the position that is taken by King James-only-ists
White: I do want to correct at least one misunderstanding. Sinaiticus was
not found in or near a trash can. All you have to do is read von Tischendorf’s own firsthand account of his discovery
of the manuscripts. A monk brought it out wrapped in red cloth. People in monasteries do not wrap garbage in red cloth. 3135
White: The KJV is a text which had been used for 200 years at that time
[Sinaiticus was found].
White: The [Nestle-Aland Greek] text was not based simply on Aleph A and
B (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). White: Since the 1930s we have discovered a number of papyri manuscripts that go far closer
to the original than any work of antiquity.
White: When I debated Bart Erman he admitted in our cross-examination segment
that the New Testament is the earliest attested document from all antiquity. He could have said also the most widely attested
document of all antiquity.
White: We can get much closer to the originals than any other work of antiquity in those papyri
manuscripts. And what do those papyri manuscripts tell us? – that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent the text
from the second century.
White: There is no Byzantine manuscript that contains specifically and only Byzantine readings,
until the fourth or fifth century.
White: And so we’re talking about the earliest, the most primitive manuscripts.
White: And they didn’t all come from Alexandria,
Egypt. The library there had people coming and going from all over the world.
White: The idea is that Alexandria was full of heretics. The Byzantine manuscript’s come
from around the area of Byzantium.
White: Arianism was very strong in that area. And the person who defended the deity of Christ
against the Arians after the Council of Nicea was a man named Athanasius and he became bishop of Alexandria in Egypt. So anybody
can make an argument in regards to church history. 3305
White: I would simply challenge pastor Moorman this evening “Show
us any evidence that any of these manuscripts were touched by, influenced by, tinged by any heretic that you can name and
we can then deal with that kind of assertion that is made, but simply making a general assertion doesn’t work. 3325
White: I believe in the deity of Christ and debate
the subject. The modern translations based on the Nestle-Aland 27th edition are in much better shape to defend
the deity of Christ than if you are utilizing the Byzantine text.
White: Now I realize that there are texts where the King James testifies to the deity of Christ
where modern translations do not. One of the most famous is First Timothy 3:16. The KJV reads “God, who was manifested
in the flesh.” Modern translations read “he who was manifested in the flesh.” In the early large letter texts (uncials) the early Christians used abbreviations to try and
get more on a page. They would abbreviate holy names as one or two letters and put a line over the top of them. In the uncial
abbreviations the only difference between “God” and “he who” was a line in the middle of the first
letter of “God” which is not in the first letter of “he who.” 3536
White: Remember what you are originally writing on –papyrus-- which
is made up of leaves that are pressed together and crossed or leather manuscripts, vellum, all of which have seams in them.
And you’re reading somebody else’s handwriting. No conspiracies here. It is very easy to understand why someone
would misunderstand or misread someone else’s. 3610
White: Codex Sinaiticus’ original reading was hos, “he
who.” About 700 years later someone wrote theos above it.
White: So every time there is a text where there is a difference in regards to the deity of
Christ or anything else --- I have examined every single one of them.In John 1:18, for example, the King James does NOT contain a reference to the deity of Christ that is found
in the modern translations – where Jesus is described as the mono-genees theos, the unique God.
White: So in every one of these examples, there is no
reason to think that there is some type of conspiracy. There is no reason to think that modern translators –
White: And please hear me here; I am a conservative.
I do not defend all modern translations; there are garbage modern translations. There are cultic modern translations like
the New World Translation which does not even deserve the word, translation at all. That’s just a perversion of the
White: And unfortunately it is Europe which produces
most of the liberal stuff. But there are fine excellent modern translations of the Bible that will give a much more consistent
and full testimony to the deity of Christ.
White: Not only because of the text they use, but also because we have
grown in our understanding of the Greek language. At the beginning of the 19th century there was a man by the name of Grandville Sharp. He recognized
something about the Greek language – a set of rules now called the Grandville Sharp Construction. In Titus 2:13 and
Second Peter 1:1 we have references where Jesus is identified as God (God and Savior Jesus Christ). That rule was discovered
after the translation of the King James Bible. 3819The
translators of the King James were much more familiar with Latin and so they do not translate the Grandville Sharp constructions
in those places as clearly as we do today. And in fact many people look at the King James and say it is two different people.
Well, the rule says they are one person. So one of
my questions this evening especially for Pastor Moorman is this “Is there any place in the King James where we’ve
come up with a better translation that what appeared in 1611? I would expect he would have to believe that because no one
here uses the 1611 KJV.
White: If you’re reading the standard King James Version today, you are reading the 1769
Blainey Revison. That’s what is normally printed, but there are two editions of that, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions
and they’re not identical to one another. 3904
White: Almost nobody reads the 1611. But even if you did, you would know
that there were changes made after 1611. And so which one is the final authority? Even as the King James translators were
producing their text, the different committees did not translate things in the same way. In Matthew they translate the commandment
“you shall not murder” and in Romans they translate (the same Greek words) as “you shall not kill.”
I’ve even had atheists use that as an example of contradiction in the Bible.
White: Now the question is “Will Pastor Moorman admit that it would
be better to translate it the same in both places? Would it be better to fix the translation in Romans 9:5 so that it is as
clear in its testimony of the deity of Christ as the New King James Version is?
White: And what about those places where the Textus Receptus is absolutely alone in its reading?
No Greek manuscript in the world has what it has in its reading? For example in Revelation 16:5, both of these texts used
by the King James translators speak of God as “the one of who is, who was, the holy one.” In 1598 Beza looked
at the form of the word and conjectured that the original Greek should have read “and shall be” and placed that
in his text. No one before 1598 reading the Greek New Testament had ever seen that before.
White: What I want in the Bible is what John wrote in the Revelation. I want what John wrote
in the Gospel of John. I want what Paul wrote in Romans. I do not want what a scribe wrote or thought should have been written
1000 years later even if that becomes the most popular text.
White: There’s a reason why the Byzantine is the most popular. Again, Latin Vulgate
in the West; all the other places where Greek was being spoken were taken over by Islam. Guess what place is left over
producing Greek manuscripts – the area around Byzantium. And so the text type that was predominant there becomes the
vast majority. 4152
White: But the vast majority of those come from
over 1000 years after Christ. If you just look at the first 1000 years of church history, the majority of texts is not the
Byzantine text; it is the Alexandrian text. 4203
White: And so if your arguments produce
a different text depending on where you are in church history, that presents a bit of a problem. I want to know what the original
writers wrote and God has given us the means to know that.
White: People ask, “Why couldn’t God avoid the textual variation?” The way
God did this – the Christians let everybody copy their manuscripts. Thousands of those manuscripts were destroyed by
Roman soldiers. What that results in is a manuscript tradition that goes all over the world.
White: Do you know what I hear my Muslim friends say “You put the
deity of Christ and the resurrection in the New Testament.” That’s absolutely impossible. There was never a
time when anyone had control over the manuscripts of the New Testament. That is completely bogus.
White: We can demonstrate that what we have in the New Testament IS what the Apostles communicated.
White: The cost of that was having to compare manuscripts with manuscripts
in regards to the spelling of words, and the order of words, and whether a phrase is there or not.
White: But the other cost would have been far greater because if we only
had one manuscript, then whoever controlled that one manuscripts [must have] never tampered with it.
White: That’s the problem the Muslims have. They have a revised text. They have to trust
that Ussman got it exactly right.
White: We don’t have to do that. God provisionally has provided us with a solid foundation
for believing in the inspiration and accuracy of the New Testament. 4413
AUDIENCE: Regarding 1 Jn 5:7, a Unitarian named Vance was on the (modern
Westcott-Hort revision) translation committee. The Bible says that the Word is spiritually discerned. How can a Unitarian
have spiritual discernment? [Did a Unitarian influence removing texts like 1 John 5:7 from the Westcott-Hott revision?]
White: That is the advantage of committee translations rather than one person. It was not in Erasmus’
first two (of five) versions. The early church never used that text as a proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity.
There are people who summarize the belief in words similar to that, but in no way is the doctrine of the Trinity dependent
upon that. If we include 1 Jn 5:7 in the NT, we are
saying that the Greek manuscripts tradition can become completely corrupted for 1500 years and lose vitally important
White: Nobody who believes in the Majority Text theory should support 1 Jn 5:7 because the
Majority Text doesn’t contain it either.
White: It is a much later edition. It is found only in Latin manuscripts and only in
very late 14th century and beyond Greek manuscripts. 4954
Moorman: Obviously I disagree with that. I’ve got this book here,
Where the King James Version Departs from the Majority Text. My main concern is the way my learned friend here is
using this term, the Majority Text. The KJV is not a Majority Text.
Firstly, with Vance (the Unitarian on Westcott-Hort’s committee), I want to know that the men
who translated my Bible were sound men on the deity of Christ. I am very concerned about the chief architect of this Bible (Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition).
Kurt Aland, toward the end of his life, wrote a book entitled The History of Christianity. In this, on page 198,
he queries, he makes a statement which certainly falls short of a ringing endorsement of the deity of Christ. I am also concerned
that Kurt Aland in a 1960 book titled “The Problem of the Text” was prepared to consider removing six of the last
books of the New Testament: Hebrews, Revelation, (2nd Peter), 2nd John, 3rd John and Jude.
And so it is important.
Moorman: When you take 1 John
5:7 out, it does leave its footprint. If you speak to a native Greek speaker on this, the genders do not match up. There is
strong reason for it being there. There is a tremendous attack upon it. We have given evidence. Many have gone way beyond
what I have written. Michael Maynard has written nearly 400 pages showing the debate over this text.
MODERATOR HARRIS TO WHITE: Your point was that it was not in the Majority Text. 5225
White: There is no error in the genders. The KJV has no comparative apparatus; the Nestle-Aland has an exhaustive
apparatus. Even if Kurt Aland was
the worst heretic the world, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest.
White: I can show that in 1 John 3:1 the KJV is missing an assertion of the sonship of Christ.
Is that because Erasmus tampered with the text? It’s very easy to make those kinds of assertions. Those are conspiracy
White: Here’s the problem. I have the data. I am not limited to what Kurt Aland tells
me. I can make the textual decisions myself.
White: There were thousands of column notes in the KJV when it was printed. 5420
Moorman: I don’t believe that my learned friend has traversed Mount Impassible. He can talk about all
of the variants here (in the Nestle-Aland Greek) but these are really constant witnesses who are talking primarily of the
50 or so manuscripts that will support that text. They do not give a voice to the majority. We’ve got these 5500 manuscripts
that support this fuller type of text, 2900 extra words --
MODERATOR: Do all those 5500 texts have those
Moorman: No. It’s in the Latin. It’s strongly supported elsewhere. Admittedly it
is one of those unique passages as is also Revelation 16:5. Moorman: But I would also like to show some hybrid verses that he’s not so aware for his texts too. He’s
got 2; I have 105.
White: Would you accept changing Revelation 16:5 which Beza changed?
No. “My words shall not pass away.” The KJV is the preserved Word of God. Somewhere we have got to have closure
…. [interrupted by moderator] 5700
EMAIL: Which is worse
– giving them a bad modern version or giving them an older version they cannot read?
EMAIL: There are so many new translations, it is becoming a joke. Is this not the recipe for
White: We do have a glut. Every major publishing house now wants its own
EMAIL: Describe the variations.
White: The vast majority of variations do not change the meaning. Of the approximately 400,000
variants, you would not be able to explain what the difference is for 99% of them because it cannot be translated.So you have about 1%, or about 4000 variants which actually impact the
meaning of the text. Of those, only 1500-2000 could be original. Doctrine does not change; a list of verses will differ. 1 hour into debate
Yes, you have the correct doctrines, BUT they are not as frequent. An airplane can fly on only 1 of 3 engines. But wouldn’t
we be happier going across the Atlantic with all three? [Much audience applause.] They’ve been diminished.
Moorman: Again, this book [holding up Where the
KJV Departs from the Majority Texts] gives you documented evidence how that there was a battle over the doctrinal heart of
scripture in the early centuries. It does show that the type of manuscripts that underlies the Authorized Version does go
far back into the past.
Moorman: It does show that indeed there is a significant doctrinal lessening
in this type of text (Nestle-Aland).
Moorman: Seeing the list of all of the missing passages back in Johannesberg in 1970 is what
really got me thinking.
White: “Missing” – in comparison to what? The KJV has
been made the standard.
White: The issue has to be “What was originally written?”
White: Clearly there
is “added” material in the expansion of titles in the Byzantine manuscripts.
White: The KJV has to be tested on the very same level as all translations before and after
[Note: White means “according to our rules” – all of which can be challenged. (1) older
is better, (2) shorter is better, (3) harder to understand is better and (4) not cohesive is better. He does not allow that
the 4th century A and B also had long-lost 4th century Greek texts used by Jerome to translate the Latin
Vulgate. He does not allow that the Old Latin Jerome was updating reflects the existence then of both Western and Byzantine
The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the LXX is very old. Harris: Is further revision essential?
The KJV was certainly refined; it was not formally revised. I still haven’t found out what Bible my friend (White) uses.
Yes, we can get a fuller meaning but I don’t
like to change a 400 year standard. That is a marvel. We don’t have any other standard. Nothing else has been offered
to us. The NAS and NIV have already been revised several times. So we have no standard.
White: Those are the same arguments used against Erasmus in defense of the Latin Vulgate.
Whet: [Brings up Rev 16:5 again.]
I have dealt with 1 John 5:7. And I will spend time studying Rev 16:5.
Moorman: I think there
is a point that you have not dealt with: You have not traversed Mt Impassable.
White: I believe I have.
No, you have not. You have got two old manuscripts; it is still Aleph A and B.
That is not true.
Moorman: It is.
White: How many times
does that text reject A and B in favor of the papyrus? Moorman: There are only 214 times where these agree that the Nestle-Aland
text departs from it.
White: And why do you think so?
Moorman: On your website you say that you
believe in an eclectic text. “Eclectic” means “choose.”
Moorman: So you’ve got these 50 manuscripts: you’ve got these 2 primary pillars
(A and B); you’ve got about 8 or 9 papyri that are reasonably full. These are your 50 manuscripts but you PICK from
them. These are not cohesive.
White: What do you mean “cohesive”?
[Moderator interrupts] 1:13
Why ignore older texts?
Moorman: Why did they ignore them? They ignored them for 1800 years.
AUDIENCE: Because we just discovered them. The KJV is too hard to understand.
Moorman: It is not as difficult as you say.
White: [Reads list of 15 hard words.]
Moorman: That’s 15. Read them all.
White: P52 is the
AUDIENCE: How do you know that your earliest manuscripts were not copied from an earlier manuscript
from which the Textus Receptus was also copied? White: Because we have no evidence of it.
Harris to M: Why not update the KJV by including the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Moorman: The KJV translators did
know about Vaticanus which was locked away. They obviously knew about the Latin Vulgate which was never a Textus Receptus
by the way. The Vaticanus was locked away in the Roman Catholic Church and it was never used amongst God’s people in
any sense. But, yes, we do have some manuscripts today and they weren’t used because they are corrupted.
MODERATOR: Can you explain why you believe they were corrupted and the KJV-TR was not corrupted?
Moorman: (A) We’ve got 5500 manuscripts – many of them with these
2900 additional words.
were those words added to 5500 manuscripts cohesively over a wide geographic area?
Moorman: You’ve got two primary manuscripts with 50 supporting manuscripts with 2900
fewer words. Now that is your Mount Impassible. These (two manuscripts) are not as cohesive (as the 5500). They are not as
MODEERATOR: I think James feels he has climbed that.
White: As I pointed out, Erasmus knew about Vaticanus.
Moorman: And he left
it where it lay.
White: Did he ask Bombasion to check out 1 John 5:7 in the Vaticanus? Yes
Moorman: I don’t know.
White: He did. And he used to support his non-insertion of it in the second edition (of his
Moorman: I have never read that quote.
[NOte: White should produce a pin-pointed reference for such an important quote proving that
Bombasius did indeed use Vaticanus B.
White: So they were aware of it and they recognized
it and they did not know about text types at that time. There was no rejection of these other manuscripts.
White: They’ve been discovered since then and I believe that any fair reading of the
Preface of the KJV will show that, if those translators had the manuscripts evidence that we have today, they would utilize
all of them for the production of their version. 1:21
Shakespeare has not been changed and people understand it.
AUDIENCE: Dr. Franklin Logsdon reversed his NAS view and is now KJV only.
EMAIL: White stated that the Pilgrims hated the KJV, yet their leader had a copy of it in his house.
Have you distorted the truth?
White: The Pilgrims as a whole distrusted the KJV because it was a government-sponsored
Bible. King James told the translators that they could not translate ecclesia as anything other than church. They
could not translate baptizo as immerse. The real issue is “What did the inspired Apostles originally write?”
White: And I think we’ve seen by looking at Rev 16:5 that the TR has a unique reading
that no other manuscripts in the world reads.
White: If you take the position that Pastor Moorman takes, you are saying that Christians for
1500 years did not have the full word of God.
Moorman: God has promised to preserve his
words -- plural. If the words were given verbally, they’ve been preserved verbally. They could have been found by any
Moorman: And it seems strange that, for 1800 years we’ve not had the true Word of God.
Moorman: Then it was restored from all places a manuscripts that was hardly ever used (Vaticanus);
it’s in better shape than this Bible of mine – Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus.
Moorman: So now we’ve got this two-fold pillar and we’ve got 50 other manuscripts
that give partial support to it. They are not cohesive. Your peers at Munster will tell you that they are not cohesive.
Moorman: We’ve got the vast majority of manuscripts that support this Bible. I acknowledge that I have
to address Rev 16:5 (with further study). However Maurice Robinson (SWBTS) has 105 passages (of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)
which appear in no other manuscripts (compared to one (Rev 16:5) in the KJV.
The modern translators have no standard. While will not even tell which English version
he prefers. An audience member will remind us that we dare not change Shakespeare but spend the
time required to learn its archaic words. Some things are better left as they are. Sounds trite, but it is true. People want a standard. Moorman’s presentation is outlined point by point and he sticks to his points.
White’s arguments are not outlined or cohesive. He uses a scattergun tactic designed to make his opponent spend so much
of his time answering dozens of charges that he does not have time to present his own case fully. It does not work on Moorman. “Which God inspired in the beginning” refers to Moorman’s conviction
that God providentially protected and guided the manuscripts used by Erasmus and Erasmus himself. The best Hebrew and Greek
scholars were used to translate the best available manuscripts which they believed God has miraculously preserved. White makes no such confident assertion about the texts he defends. His understanding
of inspiration is lacking. White wants us to believe that God’s original Words had passed away, were hidden
in the Vatican library, or were lost in a monastery in Sinai until late in the 1800s. They had not been available for most
Christians throughout the ages. White quotes no Bible texts to validate any of his premises. If the original words
had been hidden until the 1860s, then the Holy Spirit could not have used them to save and sanctify. This is opposite to what White teaches. Yet God’s Word itself promises that His
Word would be nearby at all times. That which God’s Word says about itself is the opposite to what White teaches.
Instead of being widely copies and widely distributed, it was hidden and lost for over 1800 years. White claims that the divine preservation was hidden and unavailable to the masses until
modern textual criticism began in the late 1800s. Moorman believes God preserved it through accurate translation. The KJV translators believed in both the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures
they were working with. Modern translators believe that such can only be retrieved through their own painstaking deep research
and methods. They believe that the ordinary believer must trust their scholarly conclusions since they do not know Hebrew
and Greek. The KJV translators worked from the same Greek texts used on the Geneva Bible to update
it. On the other hand Westcott and Hort disobeyed the king’s order to update the KJV and produced an entirely different
Bible based on entirely different Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They sincerely believed they were handling the Word of God. This is a very strong argument which begs the question “How did the same 2900
extra words get into all of them? Although Moorman will repeat this many times as Mount Impassable, White does not challenge
it. White does not attempt to explain the general uniformity of so many texts. His attempt
to explain this with the Muslim conquest is inadequate since His favorite documents (A and B) had been around for over 300
years BEFORE the Muslim conquest. If A and B had not been rejected as corrupted, they should have been spread widely and copied
widely in areas which the Muslims did not conquer. **Read the extensive article about Sinaiticus in Wikipedia. It admits that Sinaiticus
differs from all other Alexandrian texts by having Textus Receptus readings in John, chapters one through eight (minus part
of John 8). This is strong proof that one of the scribes had TR document equally as old as Sinaiticus. The lack of widespread copying and widespread distribution is the weakest point of
modern textual-criticism. Sinaiticus is so poor in its Revelation that Revelation is admitted to be obviously very corrupted.
How can this be if it is so close to the originals? And what were the Alexandrian manuscripts copied from in order to be much
more correct concerning Revelation? Are not even older lost Greek manuscripts necessary? Modern textual critics have invented a rule that shorter usually means closer to the
original. However the very nature of hand copying results in omissions rather than additions. If their logic were true, the
more something is copied, the shorter it should be. Modern textual critics have invented a rule that confusing texts are closer to the originals
than texts which are clear. This is absurd if one believes in an Omniscient Omnipotent God who is communicating to His created
minds. And both camps claim that an Omniscient God has preserved His originals. Again, this is not something which an Omniscient Omnipotent God would do. God is not
the Author of confusion. Babylon is Satan’s realm. As previously mentioned, an authentic accepted “original” reaching back
to the early second century would have certainly been widely copied, widely circulated, and reach all parts of the Roman Empire.
It would not have been limited to areas in which the Muslims would later destroy Bibles. This is the peak of Mount Impassable
which White never traverses. He cannot explain why so few copies of the best “originals” exist. This statement would be unnecessary if they Alexandrian texts has been accepted and
spread widely. If Moorman had explained each point in a little more detail, the debate would
been much easier. I do not think that his points were understood or well-explained.
This is Moorman’s weakest point. He achieves nothing with it, especially when
his opponent claimed that his documents were much older and spoke first. Moorman should have pointed out the many non-Greek
documents such as the Old Latin and Syriac which reflect a TR original. This is strong evidence that the older A and B had been rejected for some reason. If
A and B had been accepted, copied, and spread widely, they would have certainly been included in the change-over from the
large uncial Greek to the small minuscule Greek. If Vaticanus B had been so important and so revered as nearest to the original, the
Roman Catholic Church would have certainly wide reproduced it either in monasteries or on the printing press. This is good
evidence that the RCC has rejected it as corrupt. The point is that God providentially timed the Reformation to coincide with Erasmus’
production of the Textus Receptus Greek. God did not time the Reformation to coincide with the modern translators’ Greek
compilations. God’s hand was in the timing. Moorman’s weakly worded point is valid and White’s argument
in favor of his view of 1 John 5:7 could have been used against him concerning the remainder of the text. You have not come to a place yet where you can place an English version in somebody’s
hands and say “This is the Word of God.” The “manuscript” you believe is the Word of God is the 27th
edition of an extremely eclectic Greek Nestle-Aland text which only Greek scholars can read. It is not functional for the
average Christian. White has no English standard. His nearest standard already has 27 editions and one
of its authors suggested removing 6 books from the Bible. And there is not an English text or any other modern version text in the entire world
that reads like the Nestle-Aland or you would recommend it. The Greek texts behind the T-R are much closer to the actual text
than are the Greek texts behind the NAS or your non-existent favorite. White later challenges on two major
texts while Moorman challenges on 105. This is a lie to discredit the TR. The current mass-produced copy of the KJV is the
1769 edition which differs from the 1611 manly in spelling, punctuation, and word modernization. Scrivener’s 1833 Paragraph
Bible is not the standard edition so popular today; and even it was replaced by another Paragraph Bible which sought to restore
the KJV-TR base. For details see the Wikipedia article on the Authorized King James Bible. There are over 3036 differences between Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in the Gospels alone -– not including minor errors such as synonym and synonym
departures. And their agreements are even fewer. Hoskier, Codex
B and its Allies, Vol II, 1914, 1 (161). Herman Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol II, 1914, 1 (153, 161).] Nobody claims that the KJV-TR is based on the Majority Text or that it should agree with the Majority Text.
The argument is fabricated. The KJV-TR is based on the form of the basic Greek text which God providentially guided Erasmus
to produce from preserved Greek Orthodox texts. This is hard to accept by those who do not believe that God can and has preserved
His Word through Divine Providence.Other Crucial Comparison Facts:(1) Of great significance to textual critics, B differs from Aleph 652 times
in Mark alone and with D 1944 places. In comparison Stephanus’ TR from 1550 and the Elzivir brothers’ TR in
1624 only differ in 19 places in Mark and 287 places total. Robertson, Introduction, 18-20, 1925 (65).(2) In 1896 Burgon wrote that Tischendorf made a scandal of the science of textual
criticism. After Sinaiticus Aleph had been discovered following seven editions of his New Testament, Tiscendorf then made
3572 changes to his eighth edition based solely on Aleph. Burgon, The Traditional Text, 160 (105).(3) Sinaiticus A dates to the 4th century. It often follows the T-R in the Gospels.
[How is this explained if the T-R did not exist?] Acts and Epistles are a mixture of B and Aleph. Sinaiticus A has both
Epistles of Clement of Alexandria which deny the literal resurrection of bodies (108).(4) Burgon (1896) wrote that since B and Aleph keep company with A, C and D which are evidently
corrupted, [If one is to be judged by the company one keeps], then they are in bad company. Burgon, The Revision Revised,
1883, 16-18, 30-31 and Burgon, The Traditional Text, 1896, 84 (161). Erasmus was not finished. The first edition was full of typesetting errors. The second
edition was missing 1 John 5:7. KJV advocates believe that God guided Erasmus to complete his work. The Roman Catholic Church
did not prevent Erasmus from correcting “do penance” to “repent.” The key point is that Erasmus retained
all of the 2900 words deleted by the Alexandrian texts and rejected those texts as corrupt. And Erasmus used the very best editions which God had providentially preserved in the
Greek Orthodox Church. White spends most of his time attacking the KJV and very little time giving the details of his own
favorite Greek compilation. This is an absurd statement; it makes no sense. Whether they called them “Alexandrian”
or not is irrelevant. The plain facts are (1) they knew the other texts such as Vaticanus existed and (2) by refusing to use
them, they did make a deliberate decision to reject them.” First, we have no way of knowing which other variant texts Bombasius checked for Erasmus.
Second, the fact that Erasmus’ finished product contained almost all of the 2900 extra words found in the TR which are
not in Sinaiticus A and Vaticanus B proves that Erasmus rejected the vast majority of whatever other text types he had been
told about. This is pure hopeful speculation. If Erasmus had “loved” the other documents,
he most certainly would have used them. Why would Bombasius, the Vatican librarian offer hundreds of variants if Erasmus was
not permitted to use them? No. Erasmus decided to use only a few manuscripts after rejecting many as corrupted.
As a monk in the service of the Roman Catholic Church, the documents he did use most certainly would have been approved by
his church. Research reveals that Erasmus had many other manuscripts to work with and chose to focus on a few which he thought
were the best. (Not realizing that God was guiding his choices.) Modern translators have done the same thing. They have rejected
most of the very earliest documents as corrupted and have focused on a few they deem less corrupted. Oldest are not necessarily
the best. With scores of monasteries producing manuscripts and thousands available, the Greek Orthodox Church would have destroyed
older worn copies. This statement is designed to traverse Moorman’s Mount Impassable. The argument
supposedly solves the problem of why there were so many of the Byzantine manuscripts and so few of the Alexandrian manuscripts. The argument fails for several
reasons: (1) a minimum of 300 years passed between the writing of A
and B and the Mohammedan conquest – perhaps even 400 years to 200 A.D. if they had been widely copied
and if the Alexandrian texts had been accepted as the best Greek documents and nearest to the originals -- they had 300-400
years to convince the early church of their superiority and become established throughout the Roman Empire. This did not happen.
(2) The argument that Latin became dominant in the West does not traverse
Mount Impassable because Greek remained dominant in the East. Again, if these Alexandrian manuscripts (some say copied in
Caesarea of the East) had been around since 200 A.D., they had centuries to prove their worth even in the East before Muslims
destroyed the southern part of the Eastern Roman Empire. That did not happen. Constantinople (Eastern Rome) ruled Alexandria
most of the time during those early years. (3) If the Alexandrian manuscripts
had been recognized and accepted as valid, the Greek Orthodox Church would have certainly adopted those documents long before
632 A.D. Mount Impassable is still not traversed.(4) If they had been
recognized as the best, surely they would have also been copied in Western monasteries and widely distributed in the West
before Latin gained ascendancy. Surely a few copies would have survived hidden in Western monasteries. Yes, but he was not excommunicated for using the longer, smoother, easier-to-read final
product which reflects the Byzantine and rejects the Alexandrian. Major point. This statement does not argue for or against any view. The Geneva
Bible was based on the T-R also. Finally, six minutes into his 20 time allotment, White pretends to discuss his own
document but again attacks the KJV. Therefore (to answer his own question), while refusing to defend any particular English
version, the 27th edition of a Greek-only text is more defensible and is NOT a standard. Question: How can it be
more defensible when you still do not have a standard English text which every English reader can read? How can a Greek-only
text be preferred over a KJV-only text? What percentage of Christians can read Greek and say they have the best version of
the Bible in front of them? He still has not told us HOW his text was created. One would expect some detail here about HOW he thinks God gave us the Bible: details
of his methods. None are given here. Since White says that modern textual-critical
methods have almost restored the Bible to its original form, does he believe that the original was verbally inspired, without
error, and easy to read? Or does he believe that God gave us a perfect Bible and then allowed it to be severely corrupted?
White does not go there. This is definitely true when comparing his own A and B. Those 5500 TR-related manuscripts
differ very little whereas the 50 Alexandrian manuscripts differ widely among each other. Erasmus’ choices were to accept the newer manuscripts which had only minor differences
and reject the older manuscripts which had major differences among themselves. Modern textual-critical researchers make mistakes
also. But KJV-TR advocates believe that God providentially guided Erasmus, Stephanos, Beza and the KJV compilers in England
from 1604 to 1611. White is still not telling us how his scholars make their decisions. Everything is
anti-KJV-TR. He implies that, since the KJV scholars did not have the Alexandrian documents and modern methodology, they made
a lot of errors. The existence of committees allows him to overlook the ethical moral standards and Christian commitment of
both sides. The KJV translators were all dedicated Christians who believed in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures they
were handling. Among the modern translators were men who did not believe in divine inspiration, were more Roman Catholic than
Protestant, disobeyed King James’ orders, dabbled in heretical practices, and had a predetermined decision to destroy
the KJV. There is a double standard being applied here. The Oxford and Cambridge cannot be nearest
the originals because they have very minor differences. Yet where A and B agree they are supposed to be nearest the originals
although they have 3036 differences between each other in the Gospels alone. (ibid, Hoskier, Codex B) One of the rules of
textual criticism is that shorter and harder-to-understand readings are to be preferred. Those who believed in divine inspiration
would have rejected most rules used by modern text critics. The KJV translators used the best educated linguists of England and chose not to reject
the Greek manuscripts before them which were rejected by Westcott and Hort and other modern critics. The difference is God’s
guidance. None of the subsequent KJV editions (not revisions) from 1611 to 1769 attempted to
substitute Vaticanus readings because they considered it corrupted. They believed that the TR had been providentially protected
by God. Their stated goal was to make “of a good text a better one.” They believed
that the TR-style text on which the Geneva and Bishop’s Bible was translated was divinely inspired and protected. Their
revision of the Geneva and Bishop’s Bible into the KJV were not major overhauls based primarily on two highly questionable
texts – Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A. The examination and rejection of Alexandrian manuscripts had been done for them
by Erasmus. Protestants did not have access to the Vatican Library, especially during the Protestant Reformation and Council
of Trent. “Certainly?” White is out of order for a debate. His learned opponent “certainly”
has all this modern information and does not agree with him. Read the Wikipedia article, Sinaiticus A, Discovery. Tischendorf is all over
the place and back and forth. He made many trips. It is highly likely that both accounts are true. For example, when he first
saw it, it was or near a waste basket. Then the monks realized it had value, removed it, stored it away, and later presented
it wrapped in a red cloth. Although irrelevant, the matter is far from settled. The great majority of it is. One source says that 90% of your text is from Vaticanus
B, 7% from Sinaiticus A, and almost 3% from Alexandrinus A, a few from very corrupt Uncial D and a few others – 3 major
sources of 50. Jones, page 154; reference lost. What are White’s percentages? In practice modern textual critics have rejected as corrupted most of their own 40-50
manuscripts which are even older than A and B. Very old sources can be very corrupted sources. The most widely copied and distributed documents of all history are certainly
NOT the Alexandrian texts since only one copy each of its major contributors has been found! It has not been “attested”
that Sinaiticus A and Vaticanus B were not considered corrupt by the early church. The fact that they have not been widely
dispersed in either the West or Constantinople argues against any wide acceptance. No. They tell us that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent “a” text from
the “fourth” century similar to some error-filled papyri from the second and third century. It is erroneous to
attribute to them “the” original text without any proof that the early church accepted them as such. Papyri decompose
quickly unless kept in a dry climate. Although papyrus was used as late as the 12th century in the Byzantine Empire,
none has been discovered. It is not unusual that the earliest paper copies and fragments of the Bible did not survive in wet
humid lands. Pay attention to what White is saying here. He has earlier consigned A and B to around
325 A. D. – that is the same FOURTH CENTURY as the earliest Byzantine text! Also, while omitting the story of the woman
accused of adultery in John 8, Sinaiticus itself departs from the Alexandrian texts in John 1 to 8 and follows the Byzantine
text. Evidently some scribe had the (now lost) Byzantine text. When there are thousands of copies being made in monasteries
across the land, there is no need to preserve old worn-out copies after they have been copied. “Earliest” and “most primitive” do not mean “best”
or “originals” if not accepted and attested by the church. This proves my point and disproves White’s point. It is irrelevant where the
manuscripts came from. It they had been considered nearest to the originals, they would have been widely copied and dispersed
by those “coming and going from all over the world” for 400 years – from 200 A.D. to 632 A.D. and afterwards
in Greece and the East. This is irrelevant for both sides of the argument for the same reasons just stated. While it is true that Arianism was strong in the East and Africa, the church councils
and Eastern Roman Emperor were mostly anti-Arian. Thus the argument is moot for both viewpoints. But one cannot ignore the
fact that church history provides no abundant widespread copies of the Alexandrian texts. As is the practice of all modern
heretics (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Science, the writings of Ellen G White), following the death of the last of
the Apostles around A.D. 100, some portions of the original Inspired Word certainly would have fallen into the hands of uninspired
and unregenerate men who deliberately changed it to match their false theology. (1) The Ebionites (90-300?)certainly influenced Origen who produced Alexandrian
texts. They were Jewish Christians who did not associate with other Christians; only accepted Matthew’s Gospel, revered
James the Just and rejected Paul as an apostate. They taught that a human Jesus only became the Messiah after His baptism.
Naturally their Bible would have been very corrupted. (2) Between 175-195 Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, accused an Ebionite, Aquila of Sinope (d135),
of being a wicked perverter of the Scriptures. Aquila had been excommunicated for astrology and worship of dead bodies. He
even supervised the building of the temple of Jupiter on the Temple site and helped to place the emperor's idol there.
Yet, after being guilty of all this, Aquila produced one
of three Ebionite Bible manuscripts accepted and used by Origen (d254) as inspired in his Hexapla. Aquila changed
the Greek word parthenos (virgin) in Matthew 1:23 to Pantheras, a blond German soldier, and father of Jesus
through Mary. Ante Nicean Fathers, Vol 1, Roberts and Donaldson edition, 1867; Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
Bk III, chap 21, 451 quoted by Wallace (93). Origen (d254) must have referred to it to write his own new
version.(3) Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (168-176) said
that the scriptures had been deliberately altered in his day. Gnostics (A. D. 100-200) taught that Jesus was only a spirit
being and did not come in the flesh. (4) Marcion (85-160)
was an early very influential wealthy bishop in Rome who was later excommunicated. Marcion held dualistic Gnostic beliefs,
rejected the Old Testament, highly exalted Paul’s writings, suggested only 11 N.T. canon books and removed passages
relating to Jesus’ humanity. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, chapter 23 (134). (5) Valentinus (c 140), a Gnostic, was accused of corrupting some texts by J.W.
Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels; ed. Edward Miller, 1896, 214-218,
287-291 (157).(6) Gaius (170-200) named four heretics
who altered texts and had disciples copying them. They could not produce the originals. Wilbur Pickering pointed out that
Gaius' accusations that the scribes had deliberately changed Greek manuscripts would have been hollow unless he (Gaius)
could produce the originals to prove his point! J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1883, 323-324 (148). Pickering,
The Identity of the NT Texts, 1977, 109-110 (148).(7)
According to Tertullian (160-220) and Augustine (354-430) scribes in Africa were constantly editing and revising the manuscripts.
F. C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Italia, Cambridge, 1896 quoted in ISBE, Vol 4, 970 (167). (8) Origen (d254) was accused by Jerome and Epiphanius of Subordinationism (a
form of Arianism). He assembled the Hexapla, a parallel Bible with 6 columns: 3 Ebionite OTs by Aquila, Symmachus
and Theodotian, a Greek OT Septuagint and a Greek New Testament which many believe spawned Sinaiticus Aleph and Vaticanus
B. Knowing the Gnostics and Arians who influenced Origen and the many accusations of contemporary Church Fathers just quoted
(Irenaeus, Dionysius, Gaius, Tertullian, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Augustine), it is highly likely that he and/or his school
also inserted false theology into the Hexapla.It
is extremely difficult to reconcile two ideas: (a) that Origen believed 3 corrupted Ebionite O. T. documents in his Hexapla
were inspired enough to be included and (b) that Textual-Critics claim that these corrupted texts did not influence Origen's
revision of the Alexandrian texts. (9) Eusebius of Nicomedia
(d341) wrote that Constantine [in 331] asked him to make 50 copies of the Bible for distribution to the churches. Although
there is no historical or scientific evidence, advocates from both the modern textual-critical camp and the T-R camp agree
that the 50 copies mentioned by Eusebius used the Alexandrian text.If W-H are correct and the Byzantine text completely replaced the Alexandrian within 50 years, text-critics
must explain why they were replaced by a Syrian text type. Again, If the Church around A.D. 350 had accepted the Alexandrian
text-type as the best nearest to the originals (and copied from even older documents), why were they evidently
rejected, not widely copied, and not widely distributed throughout both the Western and Eastern Roman Empire? This
was still centuries before the Muslims destroyed Bibles in only in the southern half of the Empire. There was still almost
300 years to become widespread. The Church around AD 350 must have rejected he Alexandrian text type as inferior. (10) Jerome (347-420) was accused in 386 by Helvidius, a contemporary, of using
corrupted texts. Post Nicean Fathers, Vol VII, Schaff, 1892/1983, 338 (108).Westcott and Hort admitted that Jerome's Latin Vulgate in places disregards Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus
Aleph in favor of Codex A for 22 significant agreements with the Traditional Text. Is this not an admission that A
and B were “corrupted” in at least 22 places? See WH, Introduction to the NT in the Original Greek, 1882,
187-188 (167). Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1956. White testifies against himself when he refuses over and over to endorse any single
modern textual-critical-produced text. Since most Christians cannot read the Nestle-Aland Greek, they cannot possibly quote
it to argue against other religions. After all, it has already been revised 27 times. When will they have it right and declare
“This is the standard text which replaces the KJV!” This example only shows what “could have” happened and not what “did”
happen. The opposite could just as easily be true: a careless copyist could have miscopied from an original tattered worn-out
manuscript and then discarded the original when his copy was complete. While the corrector may have been influenced the newer Byzantine text, that newer Byzantine
text may have been recopied since the first century and providentially preserved by God. Also, do not forget that the Alexandrian
text was never accepted by the Church as nearest the original. Yes. Read both. The KJV-TR reads “only begotten son” (Greek huios) while
the NAS reads “the only begotten God” (theos). Decide for yourself which version has been changed. I accuse the modern translators, beginning with Westcott and Hort of assuming that
two questionable documents should replace 5500 attested documents. I ask them to explain why their so-called-closest-to-the-originals
had NOT been widely dispersed from 200 A.D. until 632 A.D. even in non-Muslim controlled lands. Again, which modern English translation do you recommend? Or are 27th editions
of the Greek Nestle-Aland not enough? Europe originated the “liberal stuff” and the result is that now Christianity
is on a serious decline there as they have rejected an inspired Bible and its God. So we are to reject the liberal theology
coming from Europe but accept their rules of textual-critical criticism. First, Grandville Sharp’s construction is not without its detractors. See Daniel
B. Wallace and a critique of Wallace by Stanley E. Porter, McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON. Second, do we make new
revisions to clarify things which can be explained in the pulpit? The Nestle-Aland Greek already has 27 editions. No “standard”
changes that often and maintains respect. These are still only minor changes which qualify as “editions” and not
“revisions.” Notice that White’s own Nestle-Aland Greek text calls itself the 27th “edition”
and not the 27th “revision.” Editions are minor changes mostly to update grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
I would suspect that the Nestle-Aland’s 27 editions have undergone far more changes than the KJV’s editions. Which one of his 27 editions is the final authority? Which discredits the KJV claims
to best reflect the original because God preserved it. Modern critics use the same processes by which they discredit the KJV
to VALIDATE their own claim that theirs is nearest to the originals. It is evident that “Thou shalt not kill”
means “murder” since violation of “Thou shalt not kill” resulted in killing the one who murdered. If we made new editions every time a question
of translation occurred which can be explained in the pulpit, there would be endless editions. The Nestle-Aland Greek already
has 27 editions. Again, no “standard” changes that often and maintains integrity. The KJV of Revelation 16:5 may be all alone in the Greek, but Erasmus got some of his
material from the Latin which was based on an earlier (lost, discarded, or replaced) Greek manuscript. Moorman countered several
times that there are 105 such readings in White’s text and White never denied it. The KJV school still contends for
Divine preservation and guidance. What he wants and already has is no English version standard which he will claim as
his own. What he has is the 27th edition of the Greek Nestle-Aland listing thousands of variants which almost no
average Christian can ever read. What he wants and has is a version produced by unproven “rules” including one
that says that the more difficult to understand passages are nearest the original – that insults an Omnipotent Omniscient
God. White never talks about his methods and rules in this debate; he only attacks the KJV. As long as he does not tell us
how he does things, he does not open himself up to be critiqued. Since White repeats his false history, I will repeat the Mount Impassable he cannot
climb. If White’s claim that A and B date to about 325 A.D. and are copies of an early 2nd century text,
then he destroys his own argument in two ways. (1) If his text had been accepted as the best and nearest the originals, then
it had about 400-500 years (A.D. 100 to 600) to have been copied and widely circulated before the Muslims conquest
began in 632 A.D. (2) The text would have been widely circulated both in the West and East where the Muslims did not conquer.
(3) Thus there would not have been a need for the Byzantine-style TR to arise. (4) Many copies of A and B and other Alexandrian
documents would have been copied, preserved, and widely distributed even in Western monasteries, (5) since Sinaiticus contains
Byzantine text in most of John 1 to 8, Sinaiticus proves that the Byzantine text was available to scribes at the same early
date and (6) if Muslims were so intent to destroy all Bibles, why did they not destroy the Bible inside the monastery at Mount
Sinai which was deep inside Muslim territory? (1) Why is it true that the majority of Alexandrian texts (total about 50) are over
1000 years old? a) because they are found in very dry areas of the desert and b) there was no necessity to keep worn-out Byzantine
texts because newer copies were always available --- being copied and widely distributed in monasteries. (2) The only reason that the Byzantine text exists to have great great supremacy over the
Alexandrian texts is that the church accepted it as nearest to the originals and rejected the Alexandrian texts as corrupted.(3) The Magdalen Papyrus, fragments of Matthew 26, have been known since 1901 but evidently
kept secret by modern textual critics because it contains the Byzantine reading of Mt 26:22. In 1994 it was dated A.D. 66
by Dr. Thiede; in 1954 it was dated A.D. 180-200. (4) The Old Latin
which predates Jerome’s 382-405 Latin Vulgate contains many Western and Byzantine-style text proving that such existed
in the 4th century. (5) Sinaiticus A proves that an early Byzantine text existed with its use
of Byzantine text for most of John 1 to 8.(6) Modern text critics have
rejected the vast majority (of 50) of the oldest manuscripts as corrupted and have settled on a small number which are considered
the least corrupted. We know what the original writers wrote because we believe in Divine providence and
preservation. Modern-textual critics want us to believe that God’s method of preserving His originals involves (1) a
working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, (2) many years of slow multi-step research, and (3) so far at least 27 editions without
White recommending a single English Version as his standard. White deems God incapable of preserving His Word clearly and
accessible enough for all to read. Then why weren’t your favorite manuscripts copied and distributed all over the
world? Why were only the “corrupted” ones copied and distributed? That makes no sense at all. This counters White’s
own logic. First, thousands of Roman soldiers became Christians and actually helped spread the manuscripts around the world
as they were transferred. Second, again, if the Alexandrian texts had been recognized and accepted, they would have been the
most common texts found throughout the Roman Empire – and they were not. White has a low view of Divine Omnipotence
if he thinks that God did not protect His originals from the beginning. That is exactly why it is illogical to argue that the Alexandrian texts were confined
to only (future) Muslim controlled territory when they had 400-500 years to spread before A.D. 632. Then do it; don’t just talk about it; do it. Demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt (1) that A
and B were considered nearest to the original by the early church, (2) that the Nestle-Aland 27th Greek edition
is nearest the original because your methods and rules are infallible, (3) explain why God chose NOT to widely circulate His
best text for over 1800 years (4) but chose instead to hide the best and (5) allowed an imposter to spread. Yet you are struggling to provide the one accurate original manuscript which is tamper
prof. the KJV-TR is tamper-proof because God has miraculously guided and protected it. In fact there are over 5000 manuscripts
which have not been copied from each other but contain almost the same longer readings of the TR. And the church certainly
must have rejected the Alexandrian as corrupted because it did not command monasteries to mass-copy them. You have presented us with a 27-times-edited text only in Greek and want u
trust you that you got it right. On the other hand, we can trust that the Omnipotent Omniscient God got it right by preserving
the TR and guiding Erasmus.
So now White is arguing, as we do, that God has providentially protected the originals
but his process has God only protecting a few copies and hiding them until the 1860s when textual-criticism came of age. What
a weak God he serves. His methods are so complicated that over 150 years and 27 editions later White still will not recommend
a single English version which is nearest to the original. There is good evidence that some of the very oldest Old Latin manuscripts contained
1 John 5:7. White’s argument falls hardest on himself. (1) If the KJV restored it, it was missing for 1500 years but
(2) if modern text critics correctly remove it, then it, the originals would have been hidden (by God) for 1800 years. The KJV-TR does not claim to be a Majority Text. Its defenders claim that it was the
true text providentially preserved by God. The Latin Vulgate was composed from the best Greek manuscripts available in 382 A.D.
White makes no comment. It does matter to him what theology his translators hold as
long as they follow procedure. The integrity of Erasmus and his fanatical devotion to getting the Greek translation
correct is documented. It is an affront to Erasmus to compare his integrity to that of Westcott, Hort, and Aland. The KJV advocates accuse the modern text advocates of promoting a text type which was
known but rejected and not widely dispersed. On the other hand, the modern text advocates accuse the TR advocates of finding
a way to add 2900 words to over 5500 differently produced copies of the Bible over the entire known world. White makes no effort to defend Westcott, Hort, or Aland’s views of inspiration.
He may have the data and the ability to read Hebrew and Greek, but the average Christian does not. Many of the oldest Old Latin manuscripts contain 1 John 5:7 and it was translated from
the best Greek texts then available. White makes no effort to defend this argument. White argues about 1 Jn 5:7 and Rev
16:5 which he says appear nowhere else. Moorman claims that A and B contain 105 texts which appear nowhere else. We should prefer learning how to read a good older version to being influenced by a
bad modern version. I was a NAS fanatic until recently. I feel betrayed. If doctrines do not change when comparing the KJV with the modern text, then why did
White earlier say that allowing 1 John 5:7 would mean that his text would be “completely corrupted”? Greek Gnosticism almost destroyed Christianity during the second century (100-200 A.D.)
and it was strong in Alexandria. Many early Christian writers and teachers from Alexandria were Gnostics who had good reasons
to tamper with the Greek texts. White has no standard and Moorman keeps asking for it. His offered text is the 27th
edition (yes, 27th with many more to come) of Nestle-Aland’s Greek text containing thousands of variations.
He never answers the question by naming a single modern version such as the NAS or NIV.] White has not proven his point that the 50 older texts he has have a better genealogy
than the 5500 TR manuscripts. He simply states it as fact. Once again, according to White, the Alexandrian purest text had
been around since A.D. 200 and had at least 400 years before A.D. 632 to prove itself, to become attested, to gain supremacy,
to be copied, and to be widely dispersed throughout the entire Roman Empire. The fact that it did not do so is evidence enough
that it had been rejected as non-authentic. By the middle of the 4th century Gnostics had over 250 years to delete
passages while a purer text was being preserved by God in Greece and the East. With thousands of copies available, there would
be no reason to preserve older copies and they would have been destroyed as we replace old worn-out Bibles with newer ones. Where is his proof? Where is there a statement anywhere in history that the Eastern
Church added the same extra 2900 words to over 5000 copies? Why could it not just as easily be charged “Clearly there
is “removed” material from the Alexandrian texts controlled by Gnostics.’ White means “according to our rules” – all of which can be challenged.
(1) older is better, (2) shorter is better, (3) harder to understand is better and (4) not cohesive is better. He does not
allow that the 4th century A and B also had long-lost 4th century Greek texts used by Jerome to translate
the Latin Vulgate. He does not allow that the Old Latin Jerome was updating reflects the existence then of both Western and
Byzantine texts. Until another standard appears which is accepted by most and does not require constant
revision, it would make no sense to abandon an effective standard. This is a poor comparison. Erasmus lived in an era where every European nation had its
own peculiar language and only the Roman Catholic Church exclusively used Latin. The KJV translators merely made a better
Bible from the Geneva Bible. On the other hand Westcott and Hort violated their commission from the King of England to only
update the words and punctuation of the KJV. God does not bless deception. They created an entirely new version based on entirely
different Greek manuscripts. When White brings up
Rev 16:5 (Moorman’s admitted weak point), Moorman
counters with his strong point.
If the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text only disagrees with Sinaiticus
A and Vaticanus B 214 times, then Moorman must be correct in saying “It is still A and B.” The point is that the
modern versions of the Bible fundamentally and overwhelmingly come from only two highly questionable documents hidden from
mankind in the Sinai desert and in the Vatican library. That is not the way God spreads His truth. White will not support any modern version as his standard but wants to destroy the
only standard available. This is Moorman’s Mount Impassable. White’s assortment of old manuscripts
is an assortment of questionable papers and each reader must be fluent in ancient Greek to decipher the them and decide for
himself which constitute the true Word of God. This is the way they say God works. The best part of the debate is interrupted when Moorman is on the offense and White
is on the defense. Except for A and B, none of White’s 50 manuscripts fragments fit into each other like a puzzle and
complement each other. This is not true of the 5500 TR manuscripts. Why would an Omnipotent and Omniscient God hide His true Word for 1800 years and then
allow it to be produced by translators who did not believe in key doctrines or the inspiration of the Bible? – Vance,
Westcott, Hort, Aland. On the other hand TR advocates believe that God preserved His true Word through
the Greek Orthodox Church, the Old Latin and many other very old translations of the early Bible. Moorman’s point is that there are not that many and the list is short. It is far
easier to learn a few obscure words than to scrap the standard and allow unbelievers and heretics to manipulate newer versions
as have happened. P52 does not denote Byzantine or Alexandrian text types. The Magdalen Papyri, P66, is
at least as old as P52 and perhaps older; it reflects the Byzantine text type. Both P52 and P66 only prove the antiquity of
Scripture. Neither are conclusive evidence for or against any document theory. Very good question. If the copyist were a Gnostic OR Arian who wanted to subtly remove
references to the deity of Christ or holy titles, this would be a good place for the two schools of thought to split. Neither is there conclusive evidence that A and B had ever been accepted by the Church.
It would be nice to hear a discussion on P66. While knowing of the existence of Vaticanus B locked away in the Vatican Library, Erasmus,
who was extremely determined to produce a good Greek translation, made a choice NOT to use it. White never attempts to answer this Mount Impassable question. And the moderator does
not press him to answer it. Personally, I do not think Moorman presented it well. This is an odd exchange. Many Latin manuscripts translated from very old Greek texts
contained 1 John 5:7 while Vaticanus B does not. The Old Latin would have been translated from an even older lost Greek manuscript.
It is odd that Erasmus would only use Vaticanus to omit 1 John 5:7 in his first two editions and then use both/or the Old
Latin and Latin Vulgate in his last three editions (admittedly while objecting that it was not in the Greek). Then (to White’s
dismay) Erasmus rejected Vaticanus in favor of thousands of other words it contained. Erasmus must have sensed that the Greek
beneath the Old Latin must have agreed with the TR. Clearly Erasmus rejected most of the Vaticanus as he would have also the
Sinaiticus A. The question is “Did Bombasius give Erasmus variations from Vaticanus or other
Greek manuscripts in the Vatican library? Assuming that White is correct and Erasmus did use the Vaticanus B to leave it out of
his first two editions, White wins the battle but loses the war because Erasmus subsequently rejected thousands of other omissions
in the Vaticanus in favor of Byzantine readings. White should produce a pin-pointed reference for such an important quote proving that
Bombasius did indeed use Vaticanus B. Objection. There most certainly was a deliberate rejection. We know exactly what Greek
manuscripts Erasmus decided to use – those Byzantine documents long-preserved by God and used by the Greek Orthodox
Church. Erasmus gives no acceptance of Vaticanus or any widely deviant text type hidden in the Vatican library. Since the
Eastern Roman Empire dates back to around A.D. 300, one must conclude that the Greek church there preserved its Byzantine
text from that early date and rejected the Alexandrian texts. White misses this main point of Mount Impassable. They should not have required “being
discovered since Erasmus’ time.” If they had already long been accepted as the nearest to the originals, they
would have already been predominant, accepted, widely copied, and widely distributed. Vaticanus B has not “been discovered
since then.” The simple fact is that Erasmus and he translators of the KJV must have known about its existence and chose
to reject it as corrupted. Very very good point. Although Shakespeare has been edited, the edits stay with its
Elizabethan English genre. Shakespeare lovers take the time to learn new words rather than ruin the standard. Do some research on S. Franklin Logsdon. It will amaze you how thorough his research
was in support of the KJV. King James’ rules are nothing compared to the unproven rules used by modern translators.
They throw out 5500 manuscripts in favor or two to nine merely because they are much older and partially agree with each other.
They usually throw out texts which are longer, fuller, more cohesive, and easier to understand. Check out their list of rules. What he means is “no other existing Greek manuscript in the world.” White
keeps hammering Moorman on one text which he admits needs more study and refuses to comment on the fact that his own version
has over 100 such texts. That is how one would think that an Omnipotent and Omniscient God would reveal Himself.
White never addresses remarks which refer to the Bible itself. Moorman wins this point. His 1800 (100 to 1900) trumps White’s 1500 (100-1600). If the Roman Catholic Church thought that the Vaticanus B was superior to other manuscripts,
it would have certainly requested monks in monasteries around the world widely copy and widely distribute it – and it
is very evident that such was never done. The same is true of Sinaiticus. If it had been accepted between 200-633, the church
would have certainly commanded it to be widely copied and widely dispersed. Moorman’s last words effectively counter White’s strongest argument against