 |
| Edward Hills, The KJV Defended |
VI. Examples of Abandoning the Traditional Text of the King James Version
Edward Hills, The KJV Defended
As opaque as text criticism seems to be, many examples of
their purifications come directly from blatant circular reasoning, not science –
“This is the best because it comes from the best manuscripts, Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus.” However, if we consider Hort’s attitude of loathing toward the
Traditional Text, the governing approach seems to be, “If the reading omits
essential words from the Traditional Text, it must be the original, best, and
purest reading.” Therefore, not Traditional is the preferred reading and
a triumph over the Dark Ages of Faith. Karl Barth and Charlotte Kirschbaum – “The
Bible contains God’s Word but is not God’s Word.” Oxford would say, “Like the
clouds in the sky, the phrases of the Bible take on whatever meaning seems best
for the viewer.”[1]
Below are some examples of modern text criticism altering
and removing the text itself. Both reflect the rationalistic era that grew from
Pietism, at Halle University and other centers.[2]
The assumption was that the New Testament is based upon an original kernel of
truth with layers of miracles and superstition added, since (they claim) Jesus
was just a man greatly admired and even worshiped by the disciples. The apostle
Paul turned this local legend into the Redeemer of the world. This was the core
of the Seminex movement in WELS-LCMS, which triumphed over Lutheran doctrine by
making Justification without Faith and Fuller Seminary’s Church Growth the twin
themes of their denominations.[3]
The advance of this dual agenda was greatly helped by replacing the KJV with
the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and other
atrocities.
The Ending of the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew
6:13
“For thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.”
Our New Testament
professor in college said, “The ending of the Lord’s Prayer was added.” The
anti-KJV academics ignore the early verifications of passages they would like
removed from the Greek text. When they say the verse was added from another,
early source, such as writings of the early Church Fathers, the reverse is just
as likely – these fathers were quoting the New Testament text they knew from
first centuries.
Mark 1:1 – “the Son of God” removed
“The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God]” This is an example
of a removed phrase (Wescott-Hort) that is not easily noticed. For example, a
believer who reads “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” will fill in
what is associated with that phrase, since He revealed as the Son of God.
However, those modern critics who reject the divinity of Jesus also believe (so
ironic) that they can find the historical kernel of truth in the text we have,
though it is encrusted with later traditions (they claim). Therefore, the
manuscript without “the Son of God” must be the best one since it is the more
difficult reading (for believers) and also is shorter.
Claiming that a version of a story is later because of
its greater length – that is absurd, but it remains part of the arsenal used
against the Traditional Text. This also contributes to denying the Holy Trinity,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[4] Our
college professor denied the Trinity was in the Bible. He was correct about the
word itself, which developed later, but I objected with the Great Commission – “baptizing
them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” He said,
smiling, “Those words were added to the lips of Jesus.” Who added them and
when? – that does not matter when one is convinced that the original documents
or early teaching lacked those oppressive terms.
The Woman Taken in Adultery, John
7:53-8:11
John 7:53 And every man
went unto his own house.
8Jesus went unto the
mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and
all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the
scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they
had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in
adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such
should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that
they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger
wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued
asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and
wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,
went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was
left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up
himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those
thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And
Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Yes, some manuscripts omit this passage. Modern Bibles
drop it below the main text as a footnote or explain in the main body that “many
witnesses omit these verses” That alone opens the agenda of the Bible being an
uncertain record. Some have said, “This story is clearly out of context and
does not fit where it is placed.” That is so subjective, the fitting and
placing resting in one’s imagination. I taught the Gospel of John in Greek,
online, word by word, verse by verse. I failed to see a change in the text or
some kind of missed placement – both rather obvious in my sideline of teaching
and grading assignments, some of which suddenly become masterful discussions of
a topic and match a source verbatim,
using Google. There is much more to this, which I will add later.
[1] “Hamlet
- Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? Polonius - By the
mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet - Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius
- It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet - Or like a whale? Polonius - Very like a
whale.”
[2]
Fortress Press, from the Lutheran Church in America, promoted the early
scholars of the modern Biblical studies in a series of books. Later, when
reading more about Halle University and Pietism, I realized the core of this
group came from Halle University, a missionary school of Pietism that converted
itself into the citadel of German Pietism. Many Halle professors, like Friederich
Schleiermacher, wrote a Life of Jesus, which were meant to concede what
was actually true about the Biblical accounts.
[3]
Objective Justification dogma is kept secretly until it is exposed. The same is
true of Church Growth, which is denied until it is defended against the filthy
hordes who criticize its crafts and assaults.
[4] The
doorman for our apartment building in St. Louis wanted a copy of Catholic, Lutheran,
Protestant. He said he appreciated the explanation of the Trinity because
various people (perhaps Jehovah’s Witnesses) had left him confused.
