January, 2008: -In going through this page recently discovered that several of the links are no longer available; so the range of topics is now somewhat limited. But you might still find what remains useful to your research.

Bible Texts & Versions (KJV Defense Library)
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm

A mixed bag. This page links to many files regarding textual preservation, authority, authenticity, copyists, editors; dynamic equivalency, textual criticism, the late manuscripts, how the modern perversions have changed doctrine. Erasmus, Ruckman, Wycliffe, Westcott/Hort, etc.

The information you find here about the ancient texts and their preservation is outstanding. But their heavy leanings towards KJV-only is unfortunate. They understand the Hebrew/Greek manuscripts that have preserved God's Word...but I don't think they have actually compared them to the KJV to see just how many errors there are in the KJV 'translation' of those texts. Their basic premise is that the KJV is without essential error. Furthermore, they seem to think the KJV is a "protestant" Bible. The 1611 included the catholic Apocrypha. At the time the KJV came out, the "Geneva" was the "protestant" Bible.

Out of the multitude of links on the page, you might find the following assortment helpful:

• ARE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS BASED ON WESTCOTT- HORT?
• DO THE MODERN VERSIONS CHANGE DOCTRINE?
• EXAMINATION OF MODERN NEW TESTAMENT TEXT CRITICISM THEORY AND METHODS (CAUTION: This one opens with a lie when it includes NKJV in their list of Westcott/Hort translations. True, the NKJV has apostasy added to it by its scholars, but they didn't come from W/H. A person might want to look in the direction of "Rome" (?) for their origins.)
• IS THE RECEIVED TEXT BASED ON A FEW LATE MANUSCRIPTS?
• TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS DRAWN FROM THE WELLS OF INFIDELITY
• WHICH EDITION OF THE RECEIVED TEXT IS THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD?

Disclaimer: Read for the historical perspective and scholarship, but watch out for their KJ-onlyism. The way so many authors link KJV and TR together in the same breath, one might be deceived into thinking they are the same thing. They are not. Please keep in mind: the TR is the Greek, and the KJV is a 'translation' -from- out of that Greek.

Scriptural analysis of passages marked as "NU" in the NKJV marginal notes, going through Acts and Romans. The most blatant errors of the perVersions noted, with brief explanation as to 'why' the errors are so important.

As the title suggests, this page delves into problems that exist with the KJV. While its list of KJV errors is not totally complete, and not without its own errors in how it would wish to correct the KJV in many places; it begins with a very good synopsis of Heb/Grk textual origin issues. Antioch/Alexandria. And also includes a list of KJV problems related to what we continually say, that some of it comes from Rome and Catholic manuscripts. BTW... these people are KJV users.

From VW's Discernment Archives as received via a subscriber some time ago. While this page begins with Morris' reasons for using the KJV, later into the piece he gives a very good scholarly synopsis of the Heb/Grk manuscripts origins... Antioch/Alexandria

While Hunt also has a 'problem' regarding the doctrine of Repentance, this Q/A from the Berean Call contains some good 'balanced' comments on the KJV-only issue. Although, he fails to give weight to the importance of the Antioch/Alexandrian differences.

Links to two articles discussing W/H's deliberate changes and distortions of the Greek texts to conform to their own personal heresies, as well as exposes of their occult connections.

Bible Text: 'translation issues'
http://www.a-voice.org/bible.htm#issues

Topic Search: 'translations -of Scripture'
http://www.a-voice.org/search/t.htm#translat

Topic Search: 'KJV-only'
http://www.a-voice.org/search/k.htm#KJV-Only

This link needs to be included to give support to the NKJV; to counterbalance the KJV-leanings of the sources which speak of manuscripts and differences. The KJV-onlyists would have us believe it is totally corrupt. But even when using KJV study tools, using the plumb line of the 'original' Heb/Grk texts as the criteria, not some church-of-Rome-leaning 'translators' who came along -after- the "holy men of God" who were "borne along by the Holy Spirit" (2Pt1:21), according to my studies, it comes out rather "on top" of the pile. It discusses: 1) Word of God, 2) Antioch & Alexandria, 3) KJV vs NKJV, 4) Publishers and Royalties, 5) Triquetra Symbol, 6) To the Glory of God.

A representative list of known errors that one typically finds in the NKJV, compared to the Masoretic/Textus Receptus Hebrew/Greek texts... NOT KJV or some other English version. Also includes some KJV issues/errors.

There was another website that some subscribers recommended for this "list", a site that many other KJV-only sites link to because of it's KJV-only materials. (Many of those sites are run by True Believers) But because it is a prime example of 'Ephesian' KJV-only Phariseeism we speak of so much, and is the place we have observed in the past that teaches that Salvation "doesn't include" Repentance... I simply cannot bring myself to recommend its links that list translational differences. If we wanted an example of what we proclaim against continually, where salvation happens by "repeat-after-me" and "really mean it" and now "fill out this card", this site is the embodiment of everything evil we speak of regarding the "pretend christians" of fundamentalist phariseeism.

It has a rather scathing set of opinions about the NKJV and, among other things says, "The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes! [compared to the KJV] And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV!" This last bit about "MOST...match"ing, even going by his own published lists, is a blatant lie! On his lists the NKJV appears next to scarcely a 'few' references that involve these others. And the places it does appear, the NKJV is actually more accurate to the Heb/Grk. And it closes its views of the NKJV with the statement, "And it's certainly NOT true to the 1611 King James Bible!" [Comparing to AV1611 - Not the Heb/Grk] So, even though it has some rather comprehensive 'long' lists, I cannot, in good conscience, send anybody there for any reason. Sorry! You who know of the site probably already know 'to whom' this refers. For you who don't, or are not sure, I will not list its URL, lest others go and partake in the filth.

There is also an article that several KJV-only websites post: "The New King James Bible Examined" By M. H. Reynolds, Fundamental Evangelistic Association. Again, if people would look at the 'body-text' of the NKJV and compare it to the Heb/Grk, instead of the KJV, they might be embarrassed by their claims. These various ones list, among others: Acts8:9, Rom4:25, 2Cor2:17, 10:5, Col3:2, 1Th5:22, 2Tm2:15, etc, complaining how the NKJV 'changed' it 'from-the-KJV'. But if they would bother looking up such references with even a lexicon, they would see that the NKJV is correct, and KJV is either wrong, or its word choices are not 'as good' as the NKJV's. And when they make the claim about NKJV in Is66:5, that is a blattant lie. The phrase they say the NKJV 'omitted' is there, albeit reworded. But he claims that it "disappears without explanation". And yet he begins many of his paragraphs speaking of the "duplicity" of various entities connected to the NKJV. Perhaps, on that count he needs to first look in a mirror! (Mt7:3-5)

Let us remember that when the "holy men of God" were "moved by the Holy Spirit", the Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The AV1611 came 1500-3000 years later, and is a -TRANSLATION-OF- copies of those Heb/Grk manuscripts. God's Word did not begin in 1611, in English. And yet, many AV1611-ists proclaim that the KJV in some cases actually "corrects" the -originals-!! Apparently those "holy men of God" didn't get it right the first time! God "blew it!!" ??? At least, in context of their rhetoric, that's what the AV1611-onlyists would have us believe. The "faith" and God's Word was "once for all delivered to the saints". (Jude3) When the KJV has differences compared to the Heb/Grk, and they say the KJV supercedes the Heb/Grk, they are, in effect, proclaiming an "other gospel". When they do that, they (not KJV) are "accursed". (Gal1:8-9) Amen!

Just a reminder: for all the rhetoric here, and in these links, please remember that there are four 'recommended' English translations, coming from Antioch... NKJV, LITV, MKJV, KJV They all have various translation-related errors. But they are all God's Word; not because of the scholarship, righteousness and/or skills of the translators, but -BECAUSE- they -COME-FROM-ANTIOCH-. If you read from the KJV regularly, you are not "accursed", if you do so for the right reasons. If I hear somebody reading from KJV I do not bristle up and gasp, like the KJV-onlyists do when something other than KJV is read in their presence. Please understand that we are not condemning the reading of the KJV. Far from it! What we expose is the raising of a 'translation' above the 'original texts', and 'worshiping' the -translation-, instead of that "first love" (Rev2:4) for the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His Word. "Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day" (Ps119:97) They do not love His Word, they love the "KJV/AV1611".

Again, please understand... I have nothing against the KJV, or those who read it as their primary text. Perhaps it seems that way, because the subject comes up so often. But there is an infesting sore called, "KJV-only-ism". -THAT- is what we warn against. One name/website was brought to my attention by a few people (I already know/knew of it). The man seems to be faithfully "contending for the Faith" on many things; many good writings regarding charismania, ecumenism and rock music, etc. He is highly respected by many (and I noticed in one file that he even reminds his readers how highly respected he is, too, and how widely he is known); but he proclaims that there are "no errors in the KJV". Well, as I sit here without even thinking too hard, I can easily come up with two places where the KJV blatantly promotes catholicism when it changed "passover" to "Easter" (Acts12:4), and Mariolatry when it changed "No" into "yes" (Lk11:28) in response to the idea of "blessing Mary". This KJV-only-ism comes from the fundamentalist side with the same militance that tongues and spirit-filling comes from charismania. The one is called "Ephesus" (Rev2:1-7), and the other, "Laodicea". (Rev3:14-19) Many of them don't believe in it, but they are both commanded to "Repent..." (Rev2:5,3:19)

While the KJV has little translator imperfections (the translators never claimed it was divinely inspired or perfect), its long-standing test of time in bringing thousands to Saving Faith in Jesus Christ (Rom10:17) is a testament to God's Sovereignty in preserving His Word. While I use the NKJV, I am fully aware that it, too, contains translator errors. And when the KJV is more correct, I readily say so. Sometimes, neither is quite correct, and I say so...honestly.

The reason I stand so strongly in this matter is because, as I was reminded in my reading this morning (the day this is being written) that I am called to a "rebellious house". (Eze2:6) I had thought to "soften" these few summary paragraphs, but was reminded "..for all the house of Israel [pretend church] are impudent and hard-hearted. Behold, I have made your face strong against their faces, and your forehead strong against their foreheads..." (Eze3:7-8) And I cannot, I -DARE- NOT, "be rebellious like that rebellious house.." (Eze2:8) and make up lies and/or withhold the Truth, and say any less than is required of me to say.

Amen!