textfiles/occult/CHRISTIAN/myth3.txt

[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is 
copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is 
given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following 
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist 
Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675-
8311. This article is number three in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH NUMBER 3:
THERE ARE NO DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS
By David W. Cloud

One of the common ideas on the subject of Bible texts and versions is the 
supposed non-existence of doctrinal differences between them. As an 
illustration, I quote from a letter received from a professor of Greek at 
an evangelical seminary in India:

"You have given statistics to show the difference between the UBS 
[United Bible Society] text and the TR [Textus Receptus]. But you haven't 
given a single illustration to show that the difference between the TR and 
the UBS would affect my Christian faith and life."

Robert L. Sumner makes a similar claim:

"...the rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not affect in 
any way any doctrine" (Bible Translations).

Stanley Gundry, writing in Moody Monthly, echoes this sentiment:

"Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine 
or divine command to us" (Ernest Pickering, Questions and Answers About 
Bible Translations).

We could give many more quotes from Christian leaders who say practically 
the same thing regarding the texts and versions, but this should be 
sufficient. If this idea were true that the new versions contain no 
doctrinal corruption, we would still protest that thousands of differences 
between Bible texts and versions is significant. But what they are saying 
is not true. There IS a doctrinal difference between the texts and 
versions, and we will do well to make every effort to find out which text 
has been preserved by God and to cleave to that text. 

The Bible is necessary food for the spirit, the hammer which breaks hard 
hearts, the fire which burns the soul, the light which enlightens our path; 
it is the sword of the Spirit, the living and powerful Word which discerns 
the thoughts and intents of the heart. Indeed, the Bible is our foundation; 
and if the foundation be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DULL SWORD

The Bible is called a sword. It is also said to be sharper than any sword! 
Compare Eph. 6:17 and Heb. 4:12. Who would think highly of a soldier who 
does not care if his sword is sharp just so long as he has a sword? No more 
should we think highly of those today who claim to be strong Bible  7(2 
believers but are seemingly unconcerned about the perfection of their 
Bibles, so long as they have a Bible of some sort. Far too many Christians 
cannot discern the difference between a sharp and a dull sword. And this is 
true whether such individuals fly under the flag of Evangelical, 
Fundamental, Baptist, whatever. 

This is not a light matter. A battle is raging. There are spiritual enemies 
in high places. Truth is being cast to the ground. It is difficult enough 
to win the battle when we have the sharpest sword and the most complete 
armor. Woe unto that Christian whose sword is dull! And yet, I contend that 
we have come upon an entire generation of Christians who are slashing away 
at their spiritual enemies with dull swords. 

Well, you say, be on with it. Are there really doctrinal differences 
between the texts? Can you prove it? Yes, indeed. Please give close 
attention to the following remarks:

ARE THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENCES REALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL?

First we need to emphasize that regardless of whether or not there are 
doctrinal differences between the versions, it is a strange matter for a 
Bible believer to argue that the thousands of textual differences is an 
insignificant thing.

Consider: There are 36,000 word differences between the English Revised 
Version of 1881 and the KJV. Thirty-six thousand. In the New Testament 
alone there are over 8,000 word differences between the Textus Receptus and 
the Westcott-Hort, or Bible Society Greek text [they are basically the same 
text]. Eight thousand word differences. At least 2,300 of these directly 
affect the translation. It is true that many of these are not as 
significant as others--but ALL ARE real differences, whether we consider 
them significant or not.

In the edition of the RSV which I have in my study, there are approximately 
775 words on one page. Speaking now only of the New Testament and using the 
lowest figure above, this means that approximately three full pages of 
Bible text are affected by these changes. If someone were to take three 
pages from your New Testament, either by removing the words or changing 
them in various ways, would you look lightly upon such a thing? This, in 
reality, is what men do by downplaying the differences between the two 
texts in discussion. Personally, I don't want someone taking away or 
changing three pages of my New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament 
changes), and I'll never understand how men can look so lightly upon this. 
They do, though. Consider the remarks made in the following letter from a 
missionary medical doctor in Asia. This letter was addressed to me in late 
1985:

"I cannot concern myself with the figures 8,000 and 2,000 [speaking of 
differences between the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort text]. If I 
concerned myself with those, I would have to insist that we should never 
have translated the Bible out of the original Greek and Hebrew. ... I just 
can't believe that Jesus wants us to be disunited in spirit because of 
these 481 words, or even 2,000 words. There are weightier matters. One of    
these weightier matters is unity in the body of Christ."

It is easy to sympathize with this man's longing for unity among those who 
name the name of Christ, but the unity that he calls for--a unity which 
would look lightly upon thousands of God's inspired and holy words--is 
certainly not a unity which is pleasing to Christ. We don't have to guess 
as to what the Lord Jesus Christ really thinks about someone who slights 
God's Words. Consider what He said: "But he answered and said, It is 
written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceed
eth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4; Lk. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). Jesus did not 
say that man lives by some of God's words, or by most of God's words. He 
said man lives by every one of God's words. Every word of God. This is what 
the Son of God thinks of the words of the Bible! Who are we to have a 
lesser concept?

THE PRINCIPLE OF DETAILS

Holy Scripture is filled with detail. Minute detail. Detail which is 
sometimes so apparently insignificant that its purpose is not evident even 
to the pious reader. But understood or not, the fact remains that the Bible 
is filled with detail. The Lord Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the 
Old Testament. That is detail. As we read the many genealogies in Scripture 
we note detail. And what of Noah's ark? God describes its dimensions, how 
many stories it had, the type of wood and pitch, even how many windows. 
Detail. There is the tabernacle which Israel built in the wilderness. Many 
chapters of God's Word is taken up with a description of every tiny detail 
of the tabernacle, to the tiniest hooks and the colors of the thread woven 
into the curtains. Details.

If the Bible is indeed God's Word, details are important--highly important. 
Therefore how--how, tell me!--can those who call themselves Christians say 
that thousands of Bible words are to be considered too insignificant to 
fight for? Such an attitude is not piety; it is treachery. As one godly 
evangelist from America said, "You can say you will only cut a few small 
parts from my mother and it will do no harm, but you will have to do so 
over my dead body!" In some matters "small" things become very important! 
The late John Burgon, that great nineteenth- century contender for the Word 
of God, recognized this truth in the following statement:

"This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of 
a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than 
that thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical 
narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the 
curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully." <True or False 
(Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973), p. 138.>

Let's move to another principle:

THE PRINCIPLE OF WORDS

It's not just the basic doctrines of the Scriptures by which we live, but 
the actual words and details of the Scripture. Three times that truth is 
repeated in Scripture: in Deut. 8:3, Matt. 4:4, and Lk. 4:4.    

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, 
which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make 
thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that 
proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." (Deut. 8:3)

Three times the Voice from heaven tells mankind it is not just the general 
doctrine of Scripture, or even the fundamental doctrines of Scripture that 
we need; it is every word. The argument that no Bible doctrine is at stake 
between texts and versions (even if it were true, which it isn't as we will 
see) doesn't address the real issue.

Time and again God reminds us of the importance of each "word" He has 
given. The Bible is the Word of God, but the Bible is written in the words 
of God. If we don't have the words, neither do we have the full Word. Those 
who have ears to hear, please hear what the Holy Spirit says about this:

Exodus 24:4--"And Moses wrote ALL THE WORDS of the Lord..." 

Deuteronomy 6:6--"And THESE WORDS, which I command thee this day, shall be 
in thine heart."

Deuteronomy 12:28--"Observe and hear ALL THESE WORDS which I command thee, 
that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for 
ever..."

Deuteronomy 17:18,19--"...he shall write him a copy of this law in a book 
out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with 
him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn 
to fear the Lord his God, to keep ALL THE WORDS of this law and these 
statutes, to do them."

Deuteronomy 18:18--"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their 
brethren, like unto thee, and will put my WORDS in his mouth; and he shall 
speak unto them ALL that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, 
that whosoever will not hearken unto my WORDS which he shall speak in my 
name, I will require it of him."

Deuteronomy 27:2,3--"And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over 
Jordan unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt 
set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister: And thou shalt 
write upon them ALL THE WORDS of this law...."

Deuteronomy 32:1--"Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O 
earth, THE WORDS of my mouth."

Deuteronomy 32:45,46--"And Moses made an end of speaking ALL THESE WORDS to 
all Israel: And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto ALL THE WORDS which 
I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to 
observe to do, ALL THE WORDS of this law."

Joshua 8:34,35--"And afterward he read ALL THE WORDS of the law, the 
blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the    
law. there was not A WORD of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read 
not before all the congregation."

Joshua 24:26--"And Joshua wrote these WORDS in the book of the law of 
God..."

I Samuel 8:10--"And Samuel told ALL THE WORDS of the Lord unto the people 
that asked of him a king."

Psalm 12:6--"The WORDS of the Lord are pure WORDS: as silver tried in a 
furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Proverbs 30:6,7--"EVERY WORD of God is pure ... Add thou not unto his 
WORDS, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Jeremiah 1:9--"Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And 
the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my WORDS in thy mouth."

Jeremiah 7:27--"Therefore thou shalt speak ALL THESE WORDS unto them..."

Jeremiah 23:9--"Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all 
my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath 
overcome, because of the Lord, and because of THE WORDS of his holiness."

Jeremiah 23:36--"...ye have perverted THE WORDS of the living God, of the 
Lord of hosts our God."

Jeremiah 30:2--"Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee 
ALL THE WORDS that I have spoken unto thee in a book."

Ezekiel 3:10--"Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, ALL MY WORDS that I 
shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears."

Luke 4:4--"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall 
not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD OF GOD." (See also Matthew 4:4.)

John 8:47--"He that is of God heareth God's WORDS: ye therefore hear them 
not, because ye are not of God."

1 Corinthians 2:13--"Which things also we speak, not in THE WORDS which 
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..."

1 Timothy 4:6--"...nourished up in THE WORDS of faith and of good 
doctrine..."

2 Peter 3:2--"That ye may be mindful of THE WORDS which were spoken before 
by the holy prophets and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord 
and Saviour."

Jude 17--"But, beloved, remember ye THE WORDS which were spoken before of 
the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Revelation 1:3--"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear THE WORDS    
of this prophecy..."

Revelation 22:18,19--"For I testify unto every man that heareth THE WORDS 
of the prophecy of this book ... And if any man shall take away from THE 
WORDS of the book of this prophecy..."

It should be clear from these verses that it is not only the Word of God in 
general that we need. As the Lord Jesus said, man lives by EVERY WORD OF 
GOD. In this light, the idea that thousands of omissions and changes are of 
little significance because they (allegedly) do not affect the basic doc
trines of the Bible is invalid. It's not just the basic doctrines we need. 
It's also the very words; yea, as we noted earlier, it is even more than 
the words--it is the most minute details that we need. The Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Lord from Heaven, spoke of the preservation even of the jots 
and tittles of the Word of God.

ENTIRE VERSES AND PHRASES OMITTED FROM NEWER TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS

There are 17 verses omitted outright in the New International 
Version--Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 
17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 
John 5:7. Further, the NIV separates Mark 16:9-20 from the rest of the 
chapter with a note that says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do 
not have Mark 16:9-20," thus effectively ruining the authority of these 
crucial verses in the minds of their readers. Thus another 12 verses are 
effectively removed from the Bible. John 7:53 - 8:11 is also removed from 
the rest of the text with this footnote: "The earliest and most reliable 
manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11." Yet another 12 verses are 
effectively removed from the Bible. The NIV questions four other verses 
with footnotes--Matt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of 
45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In 
addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing.  

THE PRINCIPLE OF REPETITION

Many of the omissions in the Westcott-Hort or Bible Society text (and 
carried over in the new translations) are omissions of repetitious matter. 
There are many examples of this in the Gospels. In the Bible Society text 
and the translations based on it, a phrase or verse will be left out in one 
Gospel but retained in another. An illustration is Matt. 4:4 and Lk. 4:4. 
In Matthew the phrase about man living by every word of God is intact, 
while it is omitted in Lk. 4:4. If we point out the fact that Lk. 4:4 has a 
serious omission, a chorus of voices will argue that we are pointing out an 
inconsequential matter, since the phrase is retained in Matt. 4:4. But is 
it really true that the omissions are unimportant if they are only matters 
of repetition? By no means, for repetition within Scriptures is obviously 
planned of God and has a divine purpose.

Teachers understand the importance of the principle of repetition. 
Repetition reinforces a truth; it helps the hearer grasp it; it helps the 
hearer retain it. And this is exactly the purpose for the great amount of 
repetition in the Bible and is the reason why it is so evil for someone 
like Reader's Digest to "condense" the Scriptures by removing the    
supposedly unnecessary and boring repetition. Woe unto foolhardy men who so 
tamper with God's holy and eternal Word! They will receive the reward 
promised of God in Revelation 22.

Why did the Lord Jesus Christ begin many statements with the phrase, 
"Verily, verily," when He could just as easily have omitted the word 
"verily" altogether, or at least have said "verily" only one time. 
Obviously He did this for emphasis. Why are there four Gospels instead of 
only one? The repetition within Scripture is God crying out to man, "Listen 
to this; listen to this; listen to this; listen to this!" 

Therefore, when men come along and remove some of the Bible's repetition, 
they are doing a great, great evil. That's right, I said a great evil. What 
is man that he is free to remove some of God's words and then hide behind 
the contention that God was redundant? Jesus said, "Verily, verily." What 
is man that he would edit out one of those verilys and then act as if he 
had done no harm or evil? 

A key example of this is in Mark 9 in which Christ describes Hell as a 
place "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." In the 
Authorized Version that phrase is repeated three times, in verses 44, 46, 
and 48. But in the new versions, such as the New International Version, two 
of those references are deleted (verses 44 and 46). 

We believe Jesus Christ repeated the truth about Hell being a place where 
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched because it is so crucial 
that lost men be impressed with the awfulness and certainty of Hell. Some 
will say, "But that verse is still in Mark 9:48. No doctrine is changed. No 
significant harm is done in removing verses 44 and 46, because verse 48 
which says exactly the same thing has been retained." Those who say this 
are wrong; serious harm IS done; the divinely-intended emphasis has been 
weakened. The Sword has been dulled.

By the way, someone reading this might be wondering about the textual 
authority for verses 44 and 46 of Mark 9. It is a fact that these two 
verses are omitted from practically all twentieth century translations and 
in all new editions of the Greek text since the days of the introduction of 
Westcott-Hort's text in 1881. Are these omissions based upon sound textual 
authority? Not at all. In fact, the two verses are attested to by the vast 
majority of existing Greek manuscripts, old Bible versions, and quotes from 
the writings of church fathers. The only textual "authority" for omitting 
these important verses is a handful of texts of very questionable origin, 
primarily the manuscript Sinaiticus (discovered in the 1800's in a 
wastebasket of an apostate monastery in Mt. Sinai), the manuscript 
Vaticanus (which was hidden for centuries in the library at the Roman 
Catholic Pope's palace), and one or two fifth century manuscripts of even 
lesser importance. In many places modern textual critics accept the 
extremely questionable testimony of these manuscripts while rejecting the 
overwhelming majority of existing evidence.

Consider another example of this important principle of repetition. It is 
seen in the vision which was given to Peter about the conversion of the 
Gentiles. He saw a vessel in appearance like a sheet lowered down from    
Heaven full of animals which were unclean under the Mosaic law. When the 
voice accompanying the vision demanded that Peter rise, kill, and eat, he 
balked. The vision was repeated three times. Three times (Acts 10:9-16). 
Why? For emphasis. God doesn't waste words, but at the same time ALL of 
God's words are important and are not to be tampered with by man. The 
Scriptures have already been purified seven times (Psa. 12:6). We, 
therefore, do not need a Reader's Digest condensation committee, nor a 
paraphraser, nor a naturalistic-minded critical editor, nor a so-called 
"dynamic equivalent" translator. 

Let us think a little more about the important principle of repetition as a 
tool of emphasis. Joseph testified to this regarding the prophecy God had 
given Pharaoh in a dream: 

"And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because this 
thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass" (Gen. 
41:32). 

Joseph recognized the importance even of the repetitions of God's Word. 
Through repetitions God emphasizes important truths, and removing some of 
the Bible's repetition removes some of the power and emphasis of that 
particular truth. In this we can see more clearly how the devil would 
attempt, in his subtle way, to undermine the power of the Word of God over 
men's lives by seeing that texts are made with vast numbers of omissions of 
words and phrases. The overall teaching of Scripture is not changed; 
therefore, many see no harm. An alarm is not raised by the average careless 
shepherd of the fold. But with each omission the strength and impact of 
certain truths upon the readers' lives are rendered less forceful.

THE DOCTRINE OF INDIVIDUAL PASSAGES IS CHANGED

The omissions and changes in the Bible Societies' Greek Text (which is a 
revision of the Westcott-Hort Text and is the basis for practically all 
recent translations) very definitely do change the doctrine of the 
particular verses and passages involved, and this numbers into the 
hundreds. I would remind our friends that doctrine means teaching. In the 
King James Bible, the Greek word for doctrine is also translated teaching 
and instruction. I am saying that if any teaching is changed, doctrine is 
changed. And while many of the word changes admittedly do not change the 
overall teaching of Scripture, they do change the teaching--and therefore 
the doctrine--of the particular passages.

Does not the omission of the phrase "to repentance" in Matthew 9:13 change 
the meaning of that verse significantly? As translated from the Textus 
Receptus the verse reads in the KJV, "But go ye and learn what that 
meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call 
the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Most of the new versions omit 
"to repentance," thus creating a significant difference in the meaning and 
usage of the verse. The doctrine of this verse has been changed.

The omission of entire verses, such as Matt. 12:47, 17:21, Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 
11:26, 15:28, and Acts 8:37, does significantly change the teaching of the 
passages in which they were contained.   

When the phrase "but by every word of God" is omitted from Lk. 4:4, does 
this not significantly change the meaning of that particular verse in Luke? 

We could go on and on. Can anyone seriously testify that there is no change 
in the teaching of the verses in which we find the thousands of omissions 
or additions? And even if there were absolutely no doctrinal difference 
between the two texts in consideration, which there is as I will soon 
demonstrate, this does not change the fact that hundreds and hundreds of 
doctrinal changes are made within particular passages. I do not understand 
the cavalier way these facts are treated by so many Christian leaders, even 
by many who claim to be fundamental.

MANY DOCTRINES ARE ATTACKED AND WEAKENED

While not entirely removing any "major" teaching of Scripture, the Greek 
text underlying the new versions does viciously attack and seriously weaken 
some teachings. To illustrate this I will use (primarily) the New American 
Standard Bible (NASV), known to some as "the rock of biblical honesty," and 
which is popular even in some fundamental schools and churches. There are 
many kinds of rocks, of course, and in this case the rock is brittle and 
untrustworthy. Much of the following material is used by permission from A 
Critical Examination of the New American Standard Bible by D.K. Madden. 
Copies of this excellent study can be obtained from Way of Life Literature. 
See front of book for address.

For our statements about the textual basis for a certain reading we have 
consulted several sources, including the critical apparatus in two Greek 
New Testaments. Revision Revised by John Burgon, the studies of Dr. Edward 
F. Hills, the edited works of David Otis Fuller, and personal 
correspondence with Dr. Bruce Lackey have also been of great help. Burgon's 
Revisions Revised, the two major works of Edward Hills (Believing Bible 
Study and The King James Version Defended), and Fuller's Which Bible? have 
excellent indexes, which facilitate their use as textual evidence resource 
guides. The stateside Way of Life Literature catalog contains a list of 
this type of resource material.

The fact that there is basic doctrinal agreement between the different 
Greek text families shows us two things. First, we can rejoice that God has 
overruled the wicked plan of men and devils and has maintained essential 
doctrine even in the most corrupted texts. Second, this does not mean, 
though, that the differences between the texts are insignificant and 
harmless. It does not mean that doctrine is unaffected. It also does not 
mean it is not important to find and use the purest text.

I can show someone the true Gospel of the grace of Christ with any Bible 
translation, even a Roman Catholic one. I can prove the deity of Christ 
through any Bible translation--even the perverted New World Translation 
used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I can teach the doctrine of the Atonement 
even from a perversion such as the Today's English Bible which deletes the 
word "blood" in most major passages. This shows the marvelous hand of God 
to confound the efforts of the devil. But this does not mean that the 
changes made in these and other new translations are not significant.    

The following study shows that doctrine has been affected by the modern 
versions:

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEITY

Matthew 1:25--"Firstborn" is out, speaking of the Lord Jesus.

Matthew 19:17--Instead of "Why callest thou me good?" as in the KJV, the 
NASV reads, "Why are you asking Me about what is good?" This obscures the 
true sense of the passage and of Jesus' remarks, through which He was 
pointing out the fact that either He is God or He is not good. Matt. 19:17, 
rightly translated from the proper text, is a reference to Christ's deity, 
but is removed from the new texts and translations.

Matthew 27:54--The new translations remove or question the centurion's 
clear testimony to Christ's deity. The true reading is "Truly this was the 
Son of God" (KJV). But the NASB refers the reader to a footnote here which 
reads, "Or, possibly, a son of God, or a son of a god." This is blasphemy 
against Christ. The NIV and RSV have basically the same footnote, while the 
New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and the Phillips New Testament 
incorporate the spurious reading into the text itself. The Living Bible's 
footnote here says, "Or, a godly man." Who will say this is not a doctrinal 
change?

Mark 9:24--The man's testimony that Christ is Lord is removed from the 
NASB, NIV, TEV, RSV, ASV, Phillips, Living Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New 
English Bible, and the Revised Berkeley Version (distributed by the Gideons 
in some instances as an alternate to the KJV).

Mark 15:39--The same situation exists here as with Matthew 27:54. The 
centurion's testimony of Christ's deity is removed from the text or 
questioned with a footnote, and this in spite of the fact that the reading 
of the Textus Receptus and KJV is attested by the majority of textual 
witnesses.

Luke 2:33--"In this verse the NASB, in common with most other modern 
versions, again attacks the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ by changing 
`Joseph and his mother' to `father and mother.' This same corrupted reading 
is found in the NIV, RSV, TEV, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, 
Phillips, and Revised Berkeley Version. The KJV translation is attested by 
the majority of textual witnesses."

Luke 2:43--In consistency with the reading of verse 33 noted above, the 
NASV has "his parents" instead of the correct rendering of the KJV--"Joseph 
and his mother."

Luke 4:41--The powerful and clear witness identifying Jesus as the promised 
Messiah, "Christ the Son of God," is removed by the extraction of "Christ" 
in the new versions. The NASB, NIV, TEV, RSV, etc., read, "You are the Son 
of God," whereas the KJV correctly reads, "Thou art the Christ the Son of 
God." The KJV translation is attested by the majority of textual witnesses.
   
Luke 23:42--NASB has the penitent thief address the dying Saviour merely as 
"Jesus," whereas according to the Textus Receptus and KJV, he calls him 
"Lord." This again is an important detail because it records that even when 
the disciples had forsaken their Lord and Master, God in His sovereign 
providence caused a dying penitent thief to publicly acknowledge His deity. 
This wonderful testimony is removed from the modern versions, and upon what 
overwhelming manuscript authority? Again the omission rests upon the flimsy 
foundation of a bare handful of questionable witnesses, whereas the 
majority of all manuscripts, versions, and ancient commentaries attest that 
the thief did indeed call upon Jesus as "Lord."

John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18--The NIV and most other modern versions omit 
"begotten," thereby removing an important witness to the uniqueness of 
Christ as the only begotten Son of God. (One exception is the NASV which 
retains "begotten" in these passages.) To remove "begotten" from these 
passages creates a lie within the text. Christ is not the only son of God. 
Adam is called the son of God; Christians are called the sons of God. But 
Christ IS the only begotten son of God just as the KJV correctly affirms. 
The problem here is the failure to properly translate the Greek word 
"monogenes." This is a combination of two words--"mono," meaning only and 
"ginomai," meaning to cause to be. The failure to translate "ginomai" is 
inexcusable, and even more so as it refers to our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 3:13--A very important phrase is omitted from the Westcott-Hort-UBS 
Greek text (and therefore is omitted in the modern translations). I am 
referring to the phrase "which is in heaven." The KJV reads, "And no man 
hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son 
of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." This is a plain, irrefutable testimony of the 
deity and omnipresence of Christ, but is removed from modern translations. 
The KJV translation of the Textus Receptus is based upon the majority of 
textual witnesses.

John 4:42--Again, the clear witness that Jesus is the Christ is removed. 
The KJV reads, "we ... know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of 
the world." The NASB and other modern versions omit Christ, but again, the 
KJV translation stands upon the solid ground of the majority of textual 
evidence.

John 6:69--"And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son 
of the Living God." Here is another wonderful and clear testimony that 
Jesus was the very Christ prophesied in Old Testament Scripture, yea, the 
Son of the Living God. But in this verse, the modern translations destroy 
this testimony. The NASB reads, "And we have believed and have come to know 
that You are the Holy One of God." The RSV, NIV, Phillips, TEV, New 
English, Revised Berkeley Version, and Jerusalem Bible have the same 
erroneous reading which ignores the majority of textual evidence. The 
weakened translation is based upon the authority of the same handful of 
questionable manuscripts referred to previously.

John 9:4--KJV: "I must work the works of him that sent me..." The NASB 
reads, "We must work the works of Him who sent me..." You can see that this 
slight change in pronouns from I to we removes entirely this beautiful 
reference to Christ's unique work. Seemingly small changes in the Bible can    
create big differences.

Acts 2:30--The KJV says God promised to raise up CHRIST to sit on the 
throne of David. According to the modern versions, God promised merely "to 
seat one of his descendants upon his throne." This reading is found in the 
NASV, NIV, RSV, New English Bible, TEV, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, Revised 
Berkeley Version, and other modern translations. 

The removal of the word "Christ" in the modern versions renders ineffective 
this powerful reference to the Messianic lineage of Jesus. The Received 
Text here exalts Jesus, the son of David, as the very Messiah (Christ is 
the Greek form of the Hebrew Messiah), the mighty God and everlasting 
Father (Isa. 9:6), the Immanuel, God with us (Isa. 7:14). The modern 
versions based upon a corrupted Greek text show their normal tendency to 
tamper with these marvelous testimonies to the deity of Jesus Christ.

And upon what strong textual basis did the modern Greek editors and 
translators weaken this blessed witness? What overwhelming proof did they 
have before them that would require the removal of this ancient landmark? 
As usual, the reading of the modern versions is based upon the witness of 
the same small group of questionable manuscripts, while the witness of the 
majority of textual evidence is discarded.

Acts 8:37--The NASB omits this verse and thereby removes the glorious and 
important testimony of the Ethiopian eunuch as to the incarnation and deity 
of Jesus Christ. "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, 
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God." This verse is also removed from the RSV, NIV, Jerusalem Bible, 
New English Bible, and Phillips, and is placed in brackets in the TEV, 
indicating great doubt as to its trustworthiness.

1 Corinthians 15:47--This is another serious omission pertaining to 
Christ's deity. The KJV reads, "The first man is of the earth, earthly: the 
second man is the Lord from heaven." The NASV reads, "...the second man is 
from heaven," thus effectively removing this blessed and powerful testimony 
that Jesus Christ is Lord from heaven. The NIV, TEV, RSV, Revised Berkeley, 
New English, Jerusalem, Living Bible, and Phillips imitate this perversion. 

By the way, it was the editors of the English Revised Version and of the 
Westcott-Hort text who removed this blessed witness from the Bible. Before 
that the words, "the Lord" (from heaven) had stood uncontested in most 
Bibles throughout the entire world, boldly witnessing to Christ's eternal 
deity. Upon what overpowering textual authority did these nineteenth 
century editors remove these significant and precious words? Again it was 
done only on the exceedingly weak testimony of a few manuscripts of dubious 
value against the vast majority of textual witnesses. The sad part is that 
most twentieth century translators and Greek editors have followed in these 
sad footsteps.

1 Corinthians 16:22--"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be 
Anathema, Maranatha." This is changed by the NASB to read, "If any one does 
not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha." Obviously the more 
general reference robs Christ of the witness and honor He has received from    
this passage for centuries in most Bibles. Again, this new reading is a 
subtle, but definite weakening of the witness of Scripture to Christ's 
deity. The strange thing is that even though the KJV translation is based 
solidly upon the majority of textual witnesses, the NASB does not even have 
a footnote to show that they have tampered with the Received Text on the 
basis of very slight manuscript authority. The NIV, TEV, RSV, Revised 
Berkeley, Jerusalem, New English, Living Bible, and Phillips follow the 
faulty NASB translation.

Galatians 3:17--By the removal of "in Christ," the NASB and other modern 
versions strike another subtle yet definite blow against the preexistence 
of Christ and of His part in the covenant of salvation. The KJV reads, "And 
this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, 
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul..." 
Here we are reminded that every word of the text is highly significant.

1 Timothy 3:16--KJV reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of 
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of 
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up 
into glory." The NASB (together with practically all twentieth century 
versions) reads, "And by common confession great is the mystery of 
godliness. He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit."

The following extract from a sermon by Terrance Brown, formerly the 
Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, offers important 
facts which reveal the error of the NASV reading and the shocking history 
of how this perversion crept into modern versions:

"Countless millions of the Lord's people, from the dawn of the Christian 
era to the present day, have read these words in their Bibles precisely as 
they appear in our Authorised Version, but now this powerful testimony to 
the Godhead of our Saviour is to be swept out of the Scriptures and to 
disappear without trace. If we have the temerity to murmur or complain 
about this erosion of the sacred text of God's Word we are liable to be 
accused of defending the Authorised Version on emotional rather than on 
rational grounds. Our present purpose is not so much to vindicate the 
English translation as to demonstrate that we have good reason to believe 
that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write `God was manifest 
in the flesh.' ...

"Unfortunately this `mutual toleration' was attempted by those responsible 
for the Revised Version [of 1881], and Dr. G. Vance Smith, minister of St. 
Saviour's Gate Unitarian Chapel, York, was invited to join the revising 
body. Dr. Smith attended a Communion service in Westminster Abbey in 
company with the other Revisers and in a letter to `The Times' of 11th 
July, 1870, he declared that he received the sacrament without joining in 
the Creed and without compromise of his principles as a `Unitarian.' This 
evoked a solemn protest signed by several thousand clergy, and a resolution 
of the Upper House of Convocation in February, 1871, ``That it is the 
judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord 
Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which is 
committed the revision of the Authorised Version of Holy Scripture ... and 
that any such person now on either company should cease to act therewith.'   

"Vance Smith nevertheless remained on the committee. Among other passages 
robbed of their true significance was 1 Timothy 3:16, where `God was 
manifest in the flesh" was altered to "who was manifest...' This was 
entirely satisfactory to Dr. Smith, who commented, `The old reading has 
been pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be 
by all careful students of the New Testament [doesn't that lying statement 
make you want to throw up!]... It is another example of the facility with 
which ancient copiers could introduce the word "God" into their 
manuscripts--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency 
in early Christian times to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate 
Word, and therefore as "God manifested in the flesh."' [The author of this 
book, for one, stands with those blessed early Christians in looking upon 
Jesus Christ as the incarnate God!]

"Most of the Revisers were also of the opinion that the original words 
written by the Apostles did not include the name of God, and as a result 
the Revised Version presents this text in a weakened form. 

"Notwithstanding the hostile note in the margin of the Revised Version at 
this place, <`The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient 
ancient evidence.'> there is abundant ancient evidence for the text as we 
have it in the Authorised Version, and comparatively little for the 
adulterated text of the modern versions. ...

"The great majority of the Greek copies have `God was manifested,' and very 
few indeed have `who' or `which.' At the time of the Revision nearly three 
hundred Greek copies were known to give indisputable support to the 
Received Text, while not more than a handful of Greek copies could be 
quoted in favour of `who' or `which.' It is thus apparent that the correct 
and best attested reading of this verse is preserved in the Authorised 
Version. ...

"While it is of interest to record the opinions of scholars during the last 
century, it is infinitely more important that we should know what was 
written by the Apostle in the first, and the evidence is overwhelmingly in 
favour of the inclusion of the Name of God in this text. To quote Professor 
Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology), "For God we find the great body of the 
cursive Greek manuscripts and almost all the Greek fathers ... The internal 
evidence is decidedly in favour of the common text ... The leading truths 
concerning the manifestation of Christ are concisely stated, (1) He is God; 
(2) He was manifested in the flesh..."

"This text as we have it is an integral part of God's inspired and holy 
Word. It would be presumptuous to add to it, perilous to reject it, wise 
and profitable to receive it and to remember the admonition to the prophet 
of old--`Diminish not a word.'"

To this testimony we add that of the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon 
Spurgeon:

"[If] the text does not say "God was manifest in the flesh," who does it 
say was manifest in the flesh? Either a man, or an angel, or a devil. Does    
it tell us that a man was manifest in the flesh? Assuredly that cannot be 
its teaching, for every man is manifest in the flesh, and there is no sense 
in making such a statement concerning any mere man, and then calling it a 
mystery. Was it an angel then? But what angel was ever manifest in the 
flesh? And if he were, would it be at all a mystery that he should be `seen 
of angels'? Is it a wonder for an angel to see an angel? Can it be that the 
devil was manifest in the flesh? If so he has been `received up into 
glory,' which, let us hope, is not the case. Well, if it was neither a man, 
nor an angel, nor a devil, who was manifest in the flesh, surely he must 
have been God; and so if the word be not there, the sense must be there, or 
else nonsense. 

"We believe that if criticism should grind the text in a mill, it would get 
out of it no more and no less than the sense expressed by our grand old 
version. God Himself was manifest in the flesh. What a mystery is this! A 
mystery of mysteries! God the invisible was manifest; God the Spiritual 
dwelt in flesh; God the infinite, uncontained, boundless, was manifest in 
the flesh. What infinite leagues our thought must traverse between Godhead 
self existent, and therefore, full of power and self sufficiency, before we 
have descended to the far down level of poor flesh, which is as grass at 
its best, and dust in its essence! Where find we a greater contrast than 
between God and flesh, and yet the two blended in the incarnation of the 
Saviour. Matchless truth, let the Church never fail to set it forth, for it 
is essential to the world's salvation that this doctrine of the incarnation 
be made fully known."

Thus we see that in the modern reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, in the omission 
of one highly significant word--just one little three letter word--one of 
the Bible's clearest, most indisputable witnesses to Christ's eternal deity 
has been wiped away.

1 John 4:3--"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come 
in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof 
ye have heard that it should come; and even now is it in the world." The 
NASB reads, "And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from 
God..." It is easy to see that this is a seriously weakened translation 
which does not give forth the proper test whereby we can discern the spirit 
of antichrist. The NASB rendering (which is followed by the other modern 
versions) is almost meaningless. Even Modernists, Mormons, Mohammedans, 
Jehovah's Witnesses, and Masons will confess "Jesus"--in their own 
perverted ways. The test is not whether someone confesses Jesus in a 
general sense, but whether he confesses that Jesus is the Christ of Old 
Testament prophecy. Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 and other Old Testament passages 
prophesied that Christ would be God. Jesus IS that Christ, and anyone who 
denies this is of the spirit of antichrist. The NASB reading of this 
passage is seriously corrupted.

Revelation 1:11--Without so much as a marginal note of explanation, the 
NASB removes the important words, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the 
last" from this verse. Other modern translations do the same--NIV, TEV, 
RSV, Revised Berkeley, New English, Jerusalem, Phillips.

We have looked briefly at twenty-five key passages in which the testimony    
of Christ's deity either has been removed entirely or critically weakened 
in newer versions of the Bible. The deity of Christ has not been removed 
entirely from these Bibles, but by the changes in the wordings of more than 
two dozen important passages, the overall testimony to the doctrine of 
Christ's deity has been weakened. Is this really a matter, friends, of 
little consequence as so many would have us believe? I say not.

This is not all. In addition to these major omissions are the following 
omissions of names and titles belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. For this 
list we are indebted to D.K. Madden's A Critical Examination of the New 
American Standard Bible. 

LORD--Omitted in Matt. 13:51; Mark 9:24; Acts 9:6; 2 Cor. 4:10; Gal. 6:17; 
2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 1:4.

JESUS--Omitted in Matt. 8:29; Matt. 16:20; 2 Cor. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 
1:28; Phile. verse 6; 1 Pet. 5:14.

CHRIST--Omitted in Lk. 4:41; Jn. 4:42; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 16:23; 
2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 3:17; Gal. 4:7; 1 Thes. 2:19; I Thes. 3:11; 1 Thes. 
3:13; 2 Thes. 1:8; Heb. 3:1; 1 Jn. 1:7; Rev. 12:17.

JESUS CHRIST--Omitted in 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 3:9; 2 Tim. 4:22.

LORD JESUS CHRIST--Omitted in Romans 16:24; Eph. 3:14; Col. 1:2.

SON OF GOD--Omitted in John 9:35; John 6:69.

From the above non-exhaustive study it can be seen that the Westcott-Hort-
Bible Society text and the modern translations make a definite attack upon 
the Scriptures' testimony of the deity of Jesus Christ. This one fact alone 
is sufficient cause to retain the Textus Receptus and faithful translations 
founded upon it. 

Note further that the above readings of the TR and KJV are supported by 
every edition of the Textus Receptus and of the Majority Text. Some enemies 
of the TR delight in pointing out the fact that there are some differences 
between the various editions of the Textus Receptus, such as Erasmus's, 
Stephens', Elzevir's, and Scrivener's. These critics usually fail to 
mention an important fact relevant to this issue-- the differences between 
these texts are amazingly few (and minute), whereas the differences between 
the TR and the Westcott-Hort type text are amazingly vast. 

The few differences which do exist between the various editions and 
manuscripts within the Received Text family cannot be ignored, but they do 
not present the type of difficulty as that presented by the Egyptian 
textual family. The orthodoxy of the Received Text family is seen in its 
united witness FOR the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the above 
mentioned passages.

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST

There are only two passages in the Gospel which directly contain the    
account of Christ's ascension to Heaven after His resurrection--Mark 
16:19 and Luke 24:51. It is interesting that both of these passages are 
questioned by the Westcott-Hort text and the versions which are based upon 
this foundation.

D.K. Madden notes: "Luke 24:51 AV reads--`And it came to pass, while 
he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.' NASB 
omits the last part of this verse from the text, while a marginal note 
says--`Some mss. add: and was carried up into heaven.' It is also 
significant that NASB places the last twelves verses of Mark 16 in brackets 
with a marginal note casting doubt on their genuineness, because these two 
portions of Scripture contain the only Gospel account of the 
Ascension." Also, "Luke 24:52--Worship of the Ascended Lord 
Jesus Christ is omitted from the text while a marginal note says, `Some 
mss. insert: worshiped Him, and...'"

OMISSIONS AFFECTING THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

Colossians 1:14--The AV [Authorized Version, KJV] reads, "In whom we 
have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." NASB 
omits "through his blood" (D.K. Madden).

Hebrews 1:3--The AV reads, "Who being the brightness of his glory, 
and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word 
of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right 
hand of the Majesty on high." The NASB omits "by himself" (D.K. 
Madden).

1 Peter 4:1--The AV reads, "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered 
for us in the flesh ..." The NASB omits "for us" (D.K. 
Madden).

1 Corinthians 5:7--The AV reads, "... For even Christ our passover 
is sacrificed for us." Again, the NASB omits "for us" (D.K. 
Madden).

OMISSIONS AFFECTING THE DOCTRINE OF FASTING

The new versions make a strange attack against the New Testament teaching 
of fasting. Though some references to fasting remain, several very 
significant references are removed.

Matthew 17:21--KJV "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer 
and fasting." This entire verse is omitted in the NASV, RSV, NIV, New 
English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and Phillips. The TEV puts the verse in 
brackets. 

Mark 9:29--KJV reads "And he said unto them, This kind can come 
forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting." The Bible Society Greek 
text and the new versions based on this text omit the phrase "and 
fasting." This is true in the NIV, NASV, RSV, Living Bible, Phillips, 
New English Bible, and Jerusalem Bible.
   
These two verses about fasting are certainly not the only references to 
this doctrine in Scripture, but they are the only two references which 
specifically, directly teach the importance of fasting as an aspect of 
spiritual warfare. Those who have fought spiritual battles against the 
powers of darkness know from experience the precious truth of what Jesus is 
saying in these passages. Prayer is a powerful spiritual resource, but 
there ARE demonic strongholds which cannot be broken by prayer alone 
without fasting. It is a fact, and it is a part of the Bible! 

To remove these references from the Bible is folly and evil. It is equal to 
removing part of the essential armament from a soldier's equipment before 
sending him into battle. 

The textual evidence for the references is overwhelming. Again, it is 
basically a matter of the vast majority of textual witnesses on one hand 
(which support the fasting readings) against the flimsy, questionable 
testimony of two manuscripts, primarily-- Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 

Personally, I will require a much stronger witness than this before 
allowing someone to remove these blessed Scriptures from my Bible. In fact, 
you will not take them from my Bible, thank you! I consider these 
references so important spiritually, that the removal of these two passages 
alone demonstrate to me the error of following the Westcott-Hort textual 
principles which allow the Sinaitic and Vaticanus manuscripts to overthrow 
the testimony of multitudes of other witnesses.

There are four other passages dealing with the doctrine of fasting which 
are removed in the new versions:

Acts 10:30--Here we read in the King James Version and most of the old 
Protestant translations in various languages that Cornelius was fasting and 
praying. The new versions, following the lead of the Westcott-Hort Greek 
text, remove the word fasting. This is true for the RSV, NASV, NIV, Living 
Bible, TEV, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, the New Berkeley Version, 
and Phillips.

1 Corinthians 7:5--The KJV reads, "Defraud ye not one the other, 
except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to 
fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for 
your incontinency." Again, rejecting the majority of textual witnesses, 
the new versions remove fasting from this important passage. This is true 
for all of the versions we have been checking as mentioned above. 

2 Corinthians 6:5--The KJV reading, "fasting," has been changed 
in the new versions to "hunger." Obviously hunger and fasting are 
two different things. In 2 Cor. 11:27, where the Apostle Paul gives a 
similar listing of some aspects of his ministry, he mentions both hunger 
AND fasting. We see from this that the Holy Spirit is not using these terms 
synonymously. Therefore, this is another attack upon the biblical doctrine 
of the spiritual benefit of fasting.

2 Corinthians 11:27--The KJV reading, "fastings often," is 
replaced in the new versions with "often without food." The comment    
on 2 Cor. 6:5 above applies here as well. One can be hungry and go without 
food without it being connected with the spiritual life and warfare. The 
KJV reading says, "in hunger and thirst, in fastings often." A 
clear distinction is made between the hunger Paul often endured and his 
frequent times of spiritual fasting. If in these two passages the Holy 
Spirit is referring to the apostle's spiritual battles, to spiritual 
fasting, which is most probable since such a distinction is made, the 
modern translators have done a great evil in removing this teaching through 
their versions. 

When the reading of these six verses is taken together, a definite pattern 
of attack appears in the new Greek texts and versions upon the doctrine of 
fasting as a spiritual weapon. This is even more serious in light of the 
fact that we are warned in Scripture that spiritual warfare will grow in 
intensity as the time of Christ's return draws near. "This know also, 
that in the last days perilous times shall come. ... But evil men and 
seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 
Tim. 3:1,13). Don't be deceived, dear Christian friend, into accepting a 
Bible version which removes these important spiritual weapons from your 
life.

By no means are these all of the doctrines attacked in the modern versions, 
but from with these examples the overall result can be seen. It is admitted 
that the above doctrines are not entirely removed in the modern versions, 
but there is no doubt that a definite weakening of doctrine has taken 
place.

Some of the most precious passages dealing with these doctrines have been 
tampered with--for example, 1 Tim. 3:16, dealing with the deity of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. There is not a clearer testimony in the New Testament to 
Christ's deity than this. As one writer has noted, the Westminster 
Confession, which supports each of its doctrinal statements with Scripture 
references, uses 1 Tim. 3:16 as proof of its testimony to Christ's deity. 
Few Christians in evangelical circles would use this today, because first, 
it is not in their Bibles; or second, it is not in the Bibles used by those 
with whom they are dealing. This is the sad fruit of Westcott-Hort textual 
work.

MORE THAN 50 TEACHINGS ARE REMOVED, WEAKENED, CHANGED OR ADDED IN THE 
UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES GREEK TEXT AND THE NEW VERSIONS

The following list is by no means exhaustive, but we will note over fifty 
different teachings which either are removed entirely, weakened, changed, 
or added in the UBS text. You will look in vain for these teachings in the 
new English translations. Someone might reply that the following things do 
not affect one's Christian faith and life, but one can say that only by 
ignoring the truth that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and 
ALL of it is profitable for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly 
furnished unto all good works." Man might say we don't need the 
following teachings; God says we do.

Remember, too, that "doctrine" simply means teaching. Thus, when    
any teaching of Scripture is removed or changed in the modern versions, in 
actuality, a doctrine has been removed or changed.

(1) The doctrine pertaining to the exact purpose, power and importance of 
FASTING is removed from the Bible in the UBS text.

Though we have already mentioned this, it is proper to point out this fact 
again in the present context. At least six significant references to 
fasting are removed in the UBS text, and two of these are related to the 
teaching that some demonic strongholds can be broken only through 
fasting--Matt. 17:21 and Mk. 9:29. The omission of the word 
"fasting" in these two verses completely removes this particular 
doctrine of fasting from the entire Bible. Yes, there are other references 
in the Bible to fasting, but no other references unequivocally specify its 
effectiveness in spiritual warfare. 

(2) The teaching of the virgin birth is effectively removed from the 
epistles in the UBS text.

Those who deny the virgin birth love to point out the supposed fact that 
the apostles did not refer to this doctrine in their writings to the 
churches. These liberals are wrong, of course. The virgin birth is referred 
to in Gal. 4:4 and Heb. 2:16, but the "small" changes made in these 
passages in the UBS text and the new translations effectively remove the 
possibility of these verses being references to the virgin birth. Gal. 4:4 
in the NIV reads "born of a woman," whereas it reads "made of a 
woman" in the KJV. To be born of a woman is natural; to be made of a 
woman is supernatural! Heb. 2:16 in the NIV reads, "For surely it is 
not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants," whereas the KJV reads, 
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him 
the seed of Abraham." In the NIV we find Jesus helping the Jews; in the 
KJV we find the preexistent Christ becoming a Jewish man through the womb 
of a virgin.

(3) The teaching that Christians are to withdraw from men who "deny the 
doctrine which is according to godliness," is removed from 1 Tim. 6:5.

The phrase "from such withdraw thyself" is attested by the majority 
of Greek manuscripts, and the chief support for omitting the phrase is 
merely the corrupt Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts. 

There are other passages which contain the doctrine of separation, but each 
has different kinds of separation in view. No other passage in the Bible 
contains the exact doctrine taught in 1 Tim. 6:3-5, that Christians are to 
withdraw from those who deny the doctrine according to godliness in the 
ways spoken of there.

There are many promoting a worldly Christianity, scoffing at biblical 
standards of personal holiness such as abstinence from rock music, alcohol, 
drugs, immoral and violent movies, even saying homosexuality and divorce 
are not displeasing to God. Too, there are a growing number of supposed 
Christians who believe homosexuality is a proper lifestyle. 1 Tim. 6:3-6 is 
a plain prophecy of such men, concluded by the command to separate from    
them. Often I have wanted to use this passage to exhort such separation, 
but I could not because those to whom I was speaking used Bibles which 
deleted the clause about separation. In light of the growing tendency among 
professing Christians to deny the doctrine of godliness, this passage 
becomes more needful with each passing year.

(4) According to the UBS text and the new translations, eagles fly in 
Heaven and give messages from God. Rev. 8:13 in the NASV is representative 
of the modern versions: "... I heard an eagle flying in mid-heaven, 
saying with a loud voice, `Woe, woe, woe, to those who dwell on the 
earth.'" You won't find this doctrine anywhere in the TR or the KJV!

(5) The teaching that the healing of Peter's mother-in-law was immediate is 
entirely removed from the UBS text by the omission of the word 
"immediately" in Mk. 1:31.

(6) The doctrine that Jesus came expressly to call sinners to repentance is 
omitted in the UBS text. The words "to repentance" are omitted in 
Matt. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17. Other passages, such as Matt. 4:17, have Jesus 
preaching repentance in the modern versions, but only the two referred to 
say expressly that this was His actual purpose in coming.

(7) The doctrine that every sacrifice shall be salted with salt is omitted 
entirely from the UBS Greek text by the omission of the words "every 
sacrifice shall be salted" in Mk. 9:49.

(8) The teaching that the young ruler had to "take up the cross" is 
omitted entirely from the Bible in the UBS text by the removal of those 
words in Mk. 10:21. This account is repeated in Matt. 19:21 and Lk. 18:22, 
but the reference to Christ's command that the young ruler must take up the 
cross is not contained in these passages.

(9) The matter of trusting in riches making it hard for men to enter the 
kingdom of God is removed from your Bible if you use one based upon the UBS 
text, because the words "for them that trust in riches" are omitted 
in Mk. 10:24. Other passages mention the rich man (Matt. 19:23,24, etc.) 
but no other New Testament passage explains that the wealthy man's problem 
was the matter of "trusting in riches." 

(10) By omitting the words "of the saved" in Rev. 21:24, the 
teaching regarding these future things is significantly changed.

(11) The teaching that Mary was blessed among women is removed. The modern 
versions omit "blessed art thou among women" from Lk. 1:28. No 
other verse says this, and it is omitted in all new versions. Perhaps this 
is unimportant? Who are we to say? This IS a Bible doctrine in the TR and 
KJV, and it is NOT a Bible teaching in the UBS text or new translations.

(12) The teaching that Jesus commanded the devil to get behind Him is 
omitted. Lk. 4:8. Matt. 4:10 reads, "Get thee hence, Satan," but 
says nothing about Satan being commanded to get behind Jesus. This teaching 
is missing from new versions of the Bible.
   
(13) The teaching that the apostles James and John were wanting to imitate 
Elijah in calling fire from Heaven is removed. "...even as Elias 
did" is omitted in the UBS text in Lk. 9:54.

(14) The teaching that the apostles did not "know what manner of 
spirit" they were of and that "the Son of man is not come to 
destroy men's lives, but to save them" is removed from the new Bibles 
by the omission of these words from Lk. 9:55,56.

(15) The teaching that Jesus was struck on the face is removed entirely 
from the New Testament. The modern versions remove the words "they 
struck him on the face" from Lk. 22:64. Parallel passages say they 
smote and buffeted Him in a general sense, but only this one verse 
specifically mentions the striking of His blessed face.

(16) The teaching that Peter "wondered in himself at that which had 
come to pass" is removed from the Bible, because the entire verse of 
Luke 24:12 is removed from the UBS text. A parallel passage, John 20:3-7, 
says Peter went in the tomb and saw the grave clothes, but does not mention 
about him wondering in himself about the whole matter.

(17) The UBS text and new Bibles remove the teaching that the disciples 
worshiped Jesus as He ascended to Heaven. The words "and they 
worshipped him" are removed from Lk. 24:52.

(18) The teaching that Jesus was preferred before John is omitted from the 
UBS text by the omission of the words "preferred before me" from 
Jn. 1:27.

(19) The new Bibles which follow the UBS text remove the doctrine that 
Jesus was in heaven even while He was on earth. The words "which is in 
heaven" are omitted from Jn. 3:13.

(20) The UBS text and new Bibles remove the doctrine about the people 
waiting for the moving of the water and about the angel stirring the water 
in Jn. 5:3,4. Both verses are omitted. By the way, this KJV and TR reading 
is supported by the vast majority of manuscript evidence. We might not 
understand this passage; we might not even like it. But the fact remains 
that the Textus Receptus contains it. It has been in the Bible through the 
centuries, but it is deleted from the UBS text.

(21) The doctrine regarding the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11 
either is removed or is included in brackets, thereby placing its authority 
in grave doubt, but is supported by the majority of manuscript evidence. 
Much doctrine is contained here, some of which is in no other passage of 
the Bible.

(22) The teaching that Jesus addressed Thomas by name is omitted in Jn. 
20:29 and is contained in no parallel passage. This might seem an 
insignificant matter, but how precious it is to see Jesus calling His 
own--and a faithless, stubborn one at that!--by name. These little 
"insignificant" details of God's Word hold much wonderful doctrine.
   
(23) That which Philip the evangelist required of those he baptized is 
removed from the new Bibles, together with the wonderful confession of the 
eunuch who was saved while riding in the chariot. See Acts 8:37, which is 
omitted in the new versions.

(24) The teaching that Paul was being deeply convicted by the Lord is 
removed from the Bible by the omission in Acts 9:5 of "it is hard for 
thee to kick against the pricks."

(25) The teaching of what Paul first said to the Lord Jesus Christ is 
removed from the Bible with the omission in Acts 9:6 of "And he 
trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" You 
cannot find out what Paul first said to Christ in the new Bibles.

(26) Most of Tertullus' speech is removed from the Bible, together with any 
teaching it contains by the omission of Acts 24:6-8.

(27) The teaching that the other prisoners were delivered to the captain of 
the guard while Paul was allowed to dwell by himself is removed from the 
Bible by the omission of Acts 28:16.

(28) The teaching that the Jews left Paul after his words recorded in Acts 
28:25-28 and that they had great reasoning among themselves is removed from 
the Bible by the omission of Acts 28:29.

(29) The teaching that those who turned from the truth were filled with 
"fornication" is removed from the Bible by the omission of this 
word in Rom. 1:29. Other Bible passages speak of the fact that fallen man 
commits fornication, but no other Bible passage says specifically, as this 
one does, that fallen man became "filled with fornication" when he 
rejected God.

(30) The teaching that if something "be of works, then it is no more 
grace: otherwise work is no more work" is removed from the Bible by its 
omission from Rom. 11:6. Though the first part of this verse is retained 
and the teaching of the first and second halves of the verse is similar, 
the teaching of the two clauses is not exactly the same; and the teaching 
of the second clause is removed from the Bible in the new versions.

(31) Doctrine regarding keeping or not keeping holy days is omitted from 
Rom. 14:6, with the deletion of the words "he that regardeth not the 
day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."

(32) By the omission in Rom. 14:21 of the words "or is offended, or is 
made weak," the UBS text removes some doctrine from the Bible in this 
context.

(33) The doctrine that we are to glorify God in our spirit as well as body 
is removed in 1 Cor. 6:20 with the deletion of the words "and in your 
spirit, which are God's."

(34) The doctrine that fasting and prayer is the only thing which is to 
keep married couples from their physical relationship is removed by its    
omission in 1 Cor. 7:5.

(35) By the omission of the words "by the law" in 1 Cor. 7:39, the 
teaching is removed from this passage that it is the law which binds the 
woman to her husband while he is alive--1 Cor. 7:39.

(36) The doctrine that Jesus is the Lord from Heaven is removed from the 
UBS text and new Bibles by the omission of these words in 1 Cor. 15:47. The 
KJV says, "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the 
Lord from heaven." The NIV, as a representative of all modern versions, 
reads, "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from 
heaven."

(37) The truth that the covenant of God promised to Abraham was IN CHRIST 
is removed from the Bible by the omission of these words in Gal. 3:17.

(38) The doctrine that we are members of Christ's flesh and of His bones is 
removed by the omission of these words in Eph. 5:30. The KJV reads, "For we 
are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." The NIV, again 
representing practically all modern versions, reads, "for we are members of 
his body."

(39) The teaching that Christians are to mind the same thing is removed by 
the modern version omission in Phil. 3:16. The KJV reads, 
"Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the 
same rule, let us mind the same thing." The NIV reads, "Only let us 
live up to what we have already attained." You can see that the entire 
last half of the verse is omitted, as it is in all the modern translations 
which follow the critical text. The doctrine of walking by the same rule is 
therefore removed from Scripture.

A similar thought is in Rom. 15:5,6, but there is a distinct difference 
between the two (as is usually true of similar passages and which is 
another reason for the repetition). Rom. 15:5,6 is speaking of the 
Christian's attitude toward another--"be likeminded one toward 
another." Phil. 3:16,17 is speaking of Christians being of one mind in 
doctrine and practice. This is a different matter, and the removal of the 
teaching of Phil. 3:16 is sad in light of the widespread apostasy from the 
doctrine and practice of the apostles among professing Christians in our 
day. 

(40) Col. 2:11 teaches that it is the sins of the flesh which are affected 
by regeneration and not the body itself. This doctrine is changed in the 
new Bibles by the omission of the words "of the sins." This changes 
the entire doctrine of this important passage on salvation.

(41) The teaching that preachers are to be examples "in spirit" is 
removed by the omission of these words in 1 Tim. 4:12.

(42) The teaching that Philemon was asked to receive Onesimus is removed 
from the Bible by the omission of the words "receive him" in Phile. 
1:12.
   
(43) The doctrine that Jesus "by himself" purged our sins is 
removed from the new Bibles by the omission of these words in Heb. 1:3. 
This doctrine that Christ wrought salvation entirely by Himself is nowhere 
else exactly stated.

(44) Christians are to confess their "sins" to one another, 
according to James 5:16 in the Westcott-Hort and UBS text. The TR uses the 
Greek word paratoma, which refers to "a side-slip, lapse, 
deviation, faults" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). The UBS 
text, on the other hand, uses hamartia, the "most comprehensive 
term for moral evils" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New 
Testament Words). The reading of the new versions fits the Roman 
Catholic doctrine of confession, whereas the TR reading does not.

(45) The teaching in 1 Peter 1:22 that it is through the Holy Spirit that 
we obey the truth for salvation is removed from the new versions by the 
omission of the words "through the Spirit." 

(46) The doctrine that Christ is glorified on our part when we endure 
reproach and suffering is removed by the omission in 1 Pet. 4:14 of the 
words "on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is 
glorified."

(47) The teaching is removed from the new Bibles that the "old 
commandment" referred to by John is the one we have "heard from the 
beginning" by the omission of this phrase in 1 Jn. 2:7.

(48) The proper test to determine the false spirit of antichrist is removed 
from the new Bibles by the perversion of 1 Jn. 4:3 in the UBS text. The KJV 
reads, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come 
in the flesh is not of God..." The NIV reads, "But every spirit 
that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God..." There is a great 
difference between these two tests. Every false spirit will 
"acknowledge Jesus" in a general sense, but the spirit of 
antichrist will not "confess that Jesus Christ is come in the 
flesh," referring to the fact that Jesus is that very Messiah, that 
very God manifest in the flesh, promised in Old Testament prophecy. We 
considered this earlier when discussing the modern version omissions 
pertaining to Christ's deity. This is a serious textual and translational 
error. 

(49) The doctrine that we love God because he first loved us is removed 
from the new Bibles by the omission of the word "Him" in 1 Jn. 
5:19.

(50) The teaching that "there are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one" is 
removed from the new Bibles by the omission of these words in 1 Jn. 5:7. 
Absolutely nowhere else in Scripture is the doctrine of the Trinity stated 
so clearly. Though this reading is not supported by the majority of 
existing Greek manuscripts, it does have some manuscript evidence and other 
authority to support it. It was not something Erasmus or someone created 
from thin air! It is true that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained    
elsewhere in Scripture and does not depend upon this one verse, but it is 
also true that nowhere else in the Bible is the doctrine of the Trinity so 
clearly and simply stated as here. We must remember this is a  2verse which 
God has blessed throughout the world for 450 years by the vast influence of 
the Received Text, the Authorized Bible, and the other great Protestant 
versions which were carried to the ends of the earth. It is thus impossible 
not to see the hand of God in the preservation of this reading in our old 
Bible.

(51) The teaching that the fire which destroys the armies of Satan at the 
end of time is from Heaven is removed by the omission of the words 
"from God out of" in Revelation 20:9.

(52) The teaching in Rev. 22:19 that those who tamper with God's Word will 
have their part taken out of the book of life is changed. The new texts say 
"tree of life" rather than book of life.

In all of these instances the doctrine of the Bible IS changed by the 
reading of the new translations. Some might argue that none of these are 
significant. Others will argue that only a few are significant. However, 
whether or not these changes are considered significant by men is not 
relevant. My argument is that the omissions and changes in the UBS text and 
new translations do affect the doctrine of the Bible. The common 
evangelical myth that there is no doctrinal difference between texts and 
versions is just that--a myth.

Consider again the voice of a well-known evangelist:

"...the rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not affect in 
any way any doctrine" (R.L. Sumner, Bible Translations).

This, my friends, is a myth.

May the precious Lord Jesus Christ give His people wisdom to know His voice 
in this amazingly confusing day. We need the sharpest sword possible. We 
need all of the words of God. Actually, the thing that is most urgently 
needed among God's people today is a heart of willingness to obey His 
voice, for He has already promised, "If any man will do his will, HE SHALL 
KNOW OF THE DOCTRINE, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" 
(Jn. 7:17).