By Dr. Jim Ellis, Pastor
New Testament Baptist Church
Cape Coral, Fl.

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (Psalms 12:6,7).

There seems to be an unending flow of Bible translations, all claim ing to be more accurate than the others. The most recent of these is the New International Version. In this message we shall examine those claims, as well as claims of every single modern translation since the Revised Version of 1881.

By way of introduction, it is needful to become familiar with some terms that will be pertinent to this message, "Mocking Bird Theology" and "Sacred Cow Theology." "Mocking Bird Theology" refers to someone teaching a particular doctrine because someone taught him, and someone taught him, and someone taught him, etc. "Sacred Cow Theology" means someone is always right because he claims to be a theologian. I'm afraid we've listened to too many men in these two categories, without questioning to determine if they are right. It's time that we who claim to be Bible-believing fundamentalists begin investigating some of these false claims.

Let's examine the basic positions or views toward the Word of God:

1. The Roman Catholic position says that the "Church" is the final authority.

2. The liberal position is that the Bible is a collection of myths and fables.

3. The neo-orthodox position states that the Bible becomes the Word of God as it speaks to me. ("The Bible is inspired in spots, and I'm inspired to spot the spots.")

4. The so-called conservative position is that the Bible is the Word of God in spite of many faulty translations, such as the King James.

5.The Bible-believers' position is that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God, without contradiction or error.

Note that the first four all have something in common -- man sits in judgment on "The Book." In the fifth position, "The Book" judges man.

May we also consider the fact that it is inconsistent to claim to believe in divine inspiration without believing in divine preservation. As Psalms 12:6,7 tell us,

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
"Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

I have heard men boldly say they believe in the verbal inspiration of the Word of God and then come right back and recommend some modern translation from the Egyptian (Alexandrian manuscripts. By the way, the Alexandrian manuscripts did come out of Egypt, since Alexandria is in Egypt. That is something the Alexandrian cult doesn't tell us. This brings us to an examination of the Greek manuscripts.


There are in reality only two Bibles; that is, there are only two families of Greek manuscripts. One of these families comes from Alexandria, Egypt, and is known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These are primarily written in classical, Platonic Greek (notes in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), on vellum, in block letters. The two usually regarded as "the final authority" are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). The Greek Text of Wikgren, Black, Aland, and Metzger uses those two as its authority to translate Mark 1:2, "lsaiah the prophet," rather than "prophets." (See footnotes in that text.) The first two manuscripts cited as authority for omitting Mark 9:44 and 46 are the same two. When you see a note in a Bible that says, "not in the older and better manuscripts," the reference is usually to these two.

The famous Sinaiticus was the manuscript (along with Vaticanus) that Westcott and Hort decided was better than the majority text of the Syrian Byzantine family (Reformation Text and Receptus). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) was discovered in a wastebasket in a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai in 1844 by Tischendorf. According to an article by M. H. Reynolds,

Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus, noted at least 12,000 changes which had been
made on this manuscript by others than the original copyist (THE PLYMOUTH CRUSADER, March-
April, 1978).

This is the manuscript that is the one considered superior to the traditional Syrian Byzantine by "scholars" in articles in Christian periodicals. Just imagine, an Egyptian, North African, Greek manuscript being superior to the Reformation text! Hogwash!

The Codex Vaticanus is the other manuscript considered to be "older and better" than the Receptus or the Syrian Byzantine family. The Vaticanus (Codex B) was discovered in the Vatican library in 1481. The entire book of Revelation is missing from this manuscript, as well as numerous other Scriptures and portions of Scriptures. It contains "Bel and the Dragon," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," (just kidding) and other books of the Apocrypha just as ridiculous. Every modern translation of the Bible is from these two aforementioned manuscripts, including the New American Standard Version and the New International Version. These are the Alexandrian Greek texts of the Alexandrian Cult.

The other important family of Greek texts is the Syrian Byzantine family. Regardless of what you may have been led to believe, this is by far the majority text. These are written in Koine Greek of the common people, in small letters (cursive), on cheap paper the common people could afford (papyrii). Antioch was in Syria and "... the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). 1'11 take a Syrian Greek Text any day over a text from Egypt in North Africa.

Brother Reynolds, in the same article already quoted pointed out, that, "Of the 2864 cursive and uncial manuscripts, 19 out of 20 agree with the Receptus," which is the Greek Text that the King James Bible is translated from. The Receptus is only one Greek Text of the majority Syrian Byzantine family. The issue today is not merely a single text, but, rather, an entire family of Greek Texts, as opposed to the Egyptian, Alexandrian Texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). This Syrian Byzantine family is the one from which Martin Luther translated his REICHTEXT.


Origen of Egypt is considered te be the source of both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. How "godly" was he? He referred to Jesus Christ as the "Ktisma," or the "Created One” (ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA). He believed in universal salvation, unbaptized babies going to hell, reincarnation and transmigration of the soul (MANUAL OF CHURCH HISTORY, A. H. Newman). He also believed that the devil will be saved in the end (Dr. Ruckman). He took great liberties with the Word of God. From Dr. David O. Fuller's bool WHICH BIBLE, we read the following:

Origen had so surrendered him self to the furore of turning all Bible events into allegories that he himself, says, “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.”

In order to estimate Origen rightly we must remember that as a pupil of Clement, he learned the teaching of the Gnostic heresy and, like his master, lightly esteemed the historical basis of the Bible. As Schaff says, "His predilection for Plato (the pagan philosopher) led him into many grand and fascinating errors. He made himself acquainted with the various heresies and studied under the heathen Ammonius Sacca, founder of Neo-Platonism. He taught that the soul existed in eternity before it inhabited the body, and that after death, it migrated to a higher or lower form of life according to the deeds done in the body. Finally all are to return to the state of pure intelligence, only to begin again the same cycles as before. He believed that the devils would be saved, that the stars and planets had souls, and were, like men, on trial to learn perfection" (Dr. David Fuller, WHICH BIBLE, pages 109 and 110).

Anything that Adamantius Origenes (Origen) didn't agree with, he changed. Finally, in order to be more "holy," he castrated himself.

Westcott and Hort were the ones who decided in the latter part of the 1800's that the Sinaiticus was superior to the text of the King James Bible. Remember, it was discovered by Tischendorf in a Greek Orthodox monastery in a wastebasket (where it belongs). Let's examine these two theologians. For the benefit of those not familiar with the term, a Mariolator is one who worships the Virgin Mary.

Westcott wrote to Archbishop Benson on November 17, 1865,

I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness.

Hort wrote to Westcott:

I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry.

Hort wrote to Westcott on October 17, 1865, I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.

Hort wrote to Westcott,

But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood (WHICH BIBLE by Dr. David Fuller, page 196).

These two men are the "fathers" of all modern translations of the Bible. The King James Bible had been translated in 1611 by men who knew about the corrupt manuscripts, but rejected them in favor of the Receptus. Now, I know someone is thinking about Erasmus at this time, but the Textus Receptus of Erasmus was only one Greek manuscript of the Syrian Byzantine family (the majority text). The issue is not one isolated manuscript, but families of Greek manuscripts. After deciding that the Sinaiticus was superior to the King James text, Westcott and Hort compiled their own Greek text. The Greek texts of Nestle and Wikgren-Aland-Black-Metzger are basically Westcott and Hort Greek texts. While pretending to merely correct the King James in a few places, they departed from the Receptus 5337 times. In the resulting Revised Version of 1881, they differed from the King James over 36,000 times. Does that sound familiar? After the RV came the American Standard of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the New American Standard Version, and now the New International Version. Every single modern translation is from the corrupt Egyptian, North African, Alexandrian text.

Out of the horse’s mouth

The Greek Text that is used in most “conservative” seminaries is that of Dr. Eberhard Nestle. On page 59 and following of Nestle’s Greek Text, his son writes the following:

The present pocket-edition of the Greek New Testament appeared for the first time in 1898, edited by my father, Eberhard Nestle, D.D. (1851-1913). It has been his intention to offer the result of the scientific investigation of the 19th century, instead of the still widespread cheap editions of the so-called Textus Receptus, which goes back to Erasmus. He therefore deliberately refrained from giving a wording of the text dependent on his his own, and therefore subjective, critical examination of the different versions, but took as the basis the great scientific editions of the 19th century of Tischdndorf (of Leipzig) and Westcott andHort).

Page 60--Nevertheless, of course, my father knew quite well that a certain one sidedness adhered to this text (Textus Receptus), in so far as all the three collated editions rest substantially on the great Egyptian MSS., in their use of which H and W preferred the Vaticanus (B), T the Sinaiticus, found by him.

From this we can readily see the hatred for the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus from which it came. “H and W” are references to Hort and Westcott. His endorsement of the Alexandrian Greek texts is quite clear. The “T” is a reference to Tischendorf.


If there is a difference in Bible versions, one is right and the other is wrong. The difference is in which Greek they are translated from---the corrupt Egyptian or the pure Syrian Byzantine.

Even Dr. Scofield got caught up in the Westcott and Hort theory. In Romans 8:1, Scofield says “The statement ends with Christ Jesus; the last ten words are interpolated.” If you are looking in the wrong Greek text, you won't find it; but if you are looking in a Berry's Interlinear, you will find every word of it.

Now let us proceed with further evidences. In Mark 1:2 the King James reads "prophets." In the corrupt Greek it reads "lsaiah, the prophet." Every modern translation reads "lsaiah, the prophet," or "the prophet Isaiah." The fact is that verse 2 is not a quotation from Isaiah, but from Malachi 3:1. Verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3. The King James and the Receptus are right with "prophets" (plural).

In Mark 9:44 and 46 the New International Version completely omits the verses and the verse numberings. Look at the New ASV and see if you can find those verses. (Guess which Greek text it is from).

In James 5:16 the King James says, "confess your faults one to another." The corrupt Greek says "confess your sins one to another." Guess who wants you to confess your sins to a man? Did I say the Sinaiticus was discovered in a Greek Orthodox Catholic monastery? And what is the name of that other one of the Alexandrian texts? Oh yes, it is the Vaticanus! Where is it? Why, in the Vatican, of course.

In the corrupt Greek the blood is omitted in Colossians 1:14, even in the New ASV.

Check John 9:35, if it says "Son of God," it is from the pure text; if it says "Son of Man," it is from Origen's. What difference does it make? Salvation does not come by believing on Jesus as the Son of Man -- but Jesus as the Son of God.

Now check out these verses: Mark 15:28, Acts 1:3 (Compromisers don't believe it is infallible.); Luke 2:43; 1 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 23:14 (Oops, where did it go?); Revelation 1:11 (Alpha and Omega is omitted in NIV and many others.); Acts 20:28; Luke 23:42. "Begotton" is omitted in John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 5:7,8. There are many more, but these should be enough to convince the honest investigator.

One of the most obvious arguments in favor of the King James Bible (I don’t call it the King James Version) is that it is the only one that is not copyrighted (all the others are--do you think God would allow His Word to be copyrighted? The love of money is the root of all evil (I Timothy 6:10).

Now, if Westcott and Hort discovered the truth about the "older and better manuscripts" being the true Word of God, then we have been without the Word of God for 1600 years, and Psalm 12:7 isn't true. But GOD DID PRESERVE HIS WORD! We have had it all the time!


It is not a King James Bible! How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible? One of the examples of the problems in the New King James translation is found in Acts 2:27 and 31. In the King James the Greek word “hades” is correctly translated “Hell.” The New King James Translators merely brought the Greek word over into the English-- “hades.” That is called “transliteration.” But the King James translators had an insight into the Word of God that the liberals on the translation committee of the NKJ did not have. The doctrine is that Jesus went to Hell for our sins, deposited them there, and came back.

The King James reads in verse 27-- “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

Verse 31 reads-- “He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

All the Old Testament sacrifices were types of Christ. In Leviticus 23 which refers to those sacrifices and feast days we see a continual reference to “fire,” “baken,” and “burnt offering.”
In verse 8-- “an offering made by fire.” Verse 12-- “burnt offering.” Verse 17--- “baken.”
verse 18-- “fire.” Verse 25-- “an offering made by fire.” Verse 27-- “an offering made by fire.” Verse 36-- “an offering made by fire” twice in the same verse. Verse 37-- “an offering made by fire.”

Do you think the Lord is trying to tell us something? Jesus was an offering for our sins!

Also, the Old Testament, in the New King James, follows the the Revised Standard Version of the National Council of Churches. Does that surprise you--it shouldn’t. On the translation committee of the New King James was Dr. Duke McCall, former President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as the one time President of the Baptist World Alliance. He was about as liberal as you can get.

A few examples of the RSV in the NKJ are as follows:

Job 1:1 In the NKJ we find the word “Blameless,” which is only in the RSV. Not in the King James.

Job 3:7--”Barren”--RSV. Not in the King James

Job 3:8-- “Leviathan”-- RSV. Not in the King James here.

These are only a few examples--there are many. When someone claims that the NKJV is only making the old King James easier to understand and then translates from the perverted RSV, that person cannot be trusted. That is total dishonesty or stupidity!

This material I have given you is just scratching the surface of the problem. This is just putting it in a nutshell. If you will consider the basic things in this document and then develop it from here, you will be well ahead of the so-called scholars.

In the last book of the Bible God warned, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the w-o·r·d-s of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: "And if any man shall lake away rom the w-o·r·d-s of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things, which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18, 19)

Amen !

Só use as duas Bíblias traduzidas rigorosamente por equivalência formal a partir do Textus Receptus (que é a exata impressão das palavras perfeitamente inspiradas e preservadas por Deus), dignas herdeiras das KJB-1611, Almeida-1681, etc.: a ACF-2011 (Almeida Corrigida Fiel) e a LTT (Literal do Texto Tradicional), que v. pode ler e obter em, com ou sem notas).

(Copie e distribua ampla mas gratuitamente, mantendo o nome do autor e pondo link para esta página de

(retorne a Bibliologia-Traducoes/
retorne a http:// )