Choosing A Good Version of the Bible
by: Joe Spangler
Much has been said in recent years about using modern versions of the Bible. Some have pointed out the serious nature of the errors contained in most. Others have ridiculed those who have warned of the grave dangers in their use. Bible study is indispensable for the soul's salvation. Obviously then the use of a reliable version of the Bible is also a must!
When we read of a "version" of the Bible, we are talking about a variation in form. The variation may be in translation, phraseology, or vocabulary as long as such is accurate or faithful to the original language texts. A version is unacceptable and abhorred of God when it materially alters God's chosen word by addition or subtraction of passages, phrases, or words (Galatians 1:6-9, Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5, 6, Revelation 22:18, 19).
The heart of the problem goes deeper than just best phraseology, translation, or ease of readability. The core that spoils the bushel of modern versions is the "version" of the Greek text underlying most of them. Beginning with the Revised Version of 1881, the text used has in large measure been the Hort-Westcott text or a relative of it. Doctors Hort and Westcott fabricated a theory of textual criticism and then used this theory to eliminate a number of words, phrases, and passages from the New Testament. Many variations with little or no authority were exalted to the margins of the new text and the RV, thus confusing and shedding doubt as to the integrity of the received readings. The Hort-Westcott text is largely based to two faulty manuscripts which do not always agree with each other and even lack large sections of the Bible. You may note that some modern versions refer to these manuscripts as "many", "more reliable", "most", and "most ancient authorities" to justify their tampering with the New Testament.
Hort and Westcott had been commissioned by the Southern Province of the Church of England to revise the King James Version of 1611. They were instructed to correct "only plain and clear errors" and use the Received Text from which the KJV had been translated. They seized the occasion and the funding behind it to construct a brand new Greek text and then translate the RV from it. The scandal did not go un-protested then,
nor does it now by those desirous of a reliable version of God's Word.
Dr. Scrivener was on the revision committee (composed mostly of higher critics) and was outnumbered and outvoted throughout the entire proceeding as he tried to preserve the Received Text. Scrivener wrote in reference to the "new Greek text"?
...Its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture...Dr. Hort's system is entirely destitute...not only of historical foundation, but of all probability...The system which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned. (Plain Introduction, 1883)
Other contemporaries either refused a part in this diabolical deed or at least cried out against it. Our contemporary, the late A. G. Hobbs, describes the Hort-Westcott doings as "one of the greatest SATANIC CONSPIRACIES ever perpetuated in the religious world..." A few years back Brother Hobbs published the centennial edition of John William Burgon's exposition of the conspiracy, "The Revision Revised". If you are considering using a modern version, it is wise to pursue Burgon's book, Foy E. Wallace's "A Review of the Modern Versions", and Robert R. Taylor's "Challenging Dangers of Modern Versions". We would not knowingly build our spiritual house on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:24-27), so why should we use versions based on "sandy foundations"?
Unlike the Revised Version of 1881 and its successors, the King James Version of 1611 is based on the Textus Receptus or Received Text. The weight of evidence from translations, versions, manuscripts, copies, and the patristic writers is with the Textus Receptus and thus the KJV. One modern speech translation of merit based on the Received Text is the New King James Version.
Some of the modern versions contain doctrinal errors such as the doctrines of "faith only", "total hereditary depravity", theistic evolution, and premillenialism. An ample supply of Gary Colley's tract on the versions is in the foyer. You may want to review it for a catalog of departures from truth.
A modern speech translation can be helpful if it is also based on a reliable text and free of doctrinal error. Unfortunately, many of the versions in the guise of aiding readability merely swap words about or sometimes replace a word with one more difficult or obscure. Why not use a reliable version, like the KJV, and when confronted with an unknown or "archaic" word, look it up in a dictionary? This is what we do with other literature. If we would attempt to speak more like the Bible reads, its vocabulary would be ours and would never cease to be "modern". For nearly four centuries Bible students have understood the meanings of "wot" (know), "prevent" (go before), "thou, thee, and ye" (you), and a host of other words. People with less education than most of us have accurately comprehended the KJV, so why should the highly educated modern man have any difficulty with it? Let us not sacrifice truth for "ease of readability" as must be done with most modern versions. Read Romans 16:17, 18.
While not condemning private study with modern versions (though such is often a dangerous practice) we would suggest they not be used in public gatherings such as the assembly or classes. Wisely our elders have requested that only the KJV be used in classes and assemblies. The decent and orderly thing to do in such instances would be to use the version most commonly used and understood (KJV). The vocabulary of modern versions is uncommon and thus hinders communication.
Please, if you are serious about using a modern version, make sure it is reliably based on good Greek and Hebrew texts such as the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text. These have stood the tests of time and honest criticism. Consider their importance to your soul and that of others.