Riders of the Wrecking Machine

Part One: Fruit of the King James Version

Bernard Pyron

The decline in the belief in the Bible has been to a great

extent the result of the years of higher criticism, the historical-

critical method, textual criticism, Westcott-Hort and the many new Bible

versions. All this created uncertainty in the minds of many in the

Multitude about which translations are reliable and even doubt about which

verses should be in the Bible? As a result they lost trust in the

Bible, which is what Satan sought to do from the start in moving men

to try to replace the King James Version.

There is very little preaching for Christian morality today. Many

different kinds of false doctrines are taught and believed in within

mainstream Christianity or "Churchianity."

THE FRUIT OF THE KING JAMES VERSION

The Greek text of Desiderius Erasmus (1467-1536) - The Textus

Receptus - was directly responsible for the

Protestant Reformation. Erasmus published five editions of the Textus

Receptus, in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. The English King James

Version used in large part later editions of the Textus Receptus.

The First Fruit of the Greek text created from five to ten

Byzantine Greek texts by Erasmus was the Reformation itself.

Martin Luther's German Bible, important for the Reformation,

appeared in 1634. Luther used the Second Edition of the Erasmus Textus

Receptus for his German New Testament, which he translated before the

Old Testament.

The King James Version has been used by English speaking peoples for

almost four hundred years and has brought many to salvation. It was

used in many great revivals. Gerald R. McDermott says of the 18th

century Great Awakening

that "Yet within a decade the greatest evangelical awakening since

the Reformation broke out across America, England and the Continent.

By the time it subsided, the political and social cultures of the

Anglo-American world had been forever changed. Christian values had

left their mark on the world beyond the church."

That was fruit of the King James Version in action.

There were two large 18th century revivals inspired by the King

James Version, The Great Awakening in the American colonies, and the

English Evangelical Revival.

McDermott says "So in the 1720s and 1730s, after decades of feeling

that true religion was dying, American and British evangelicals

turned to prayer for such an anointing. The first answers seemed to

come in 1734-35 with the Connecticut River Valley revivals, led by

Jonathan Edwards' congregation at Northampton, Mass. Then the same

pattern appeared elsewhere. Days of fasting and prayer preceded

revivals at Gloucester, Halifax, and Middleborough, Mass. The first

signs of revival at Portsmouth, N.H. and at Wrentham, Mass., appeared

during fast-day services. And in August 1743 Rev. John Sutherland in

Golspie, Scotland, started three prayer groups to pray for an

outpouring of the Holy Spirit. A year later, revival fell. Seventy

people were converted in his church alone."

I am sure that Jonathan Edwards was using the King James.

McDermott goes on to say that "George Whitefield was the catalyst for

the largest explosion of religion in 1740. A mere 24 years old, he

preached more than 175 sermons in a 45-day whirlwind tour of

Massachusetts and Connecticut. Most of his sermons were preached to

immense crowds; his farewell sermon in Boston was heard by 20,000."

"But if some clergymen were responsible for first sharing the news,

it was the laity who took the message and ran to their neighbors.

Unlike awakenings in previous centuries, the 18th-century awakening

was propelled primarily by laymen, not clergymen. Even Edwards, the

awakening's first great leader, said the momentum came from below,

especially young people, whose "lay testifyings" produced a "great

noise" that was heard throughout the region."

"The revivalists believed the Holy Spirit's presence would be

palpably manifest. Edwards believed that the Spirit could be

discerned, that he moved a congregation "by a mighty invisible

power," and he sometimes caused a "visible commotion." The above is

from: http://www.christianword.org/revival/wakeup.html

Some historians say that the Great Awakening of the 1734-1740 period

had such an impact upon the culture of colonial America that the

colonists had the backbone

to take on the British, who had the top Navy and Army in the world.

In England, John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of Methodism, preached

many sermons and led tens of thousands to Christ

with the King James Bible. Francis Asbury (1745-1816), one of

Wesley's contemporaries,

carried the King James Version thousands of miles throughout the U.S. in his

saddlebags and saved thousands. David Brainard

(1718-1747), brought it to the American Indians. Charles Spurgeon

(1834-1892) preached the KJV to millions more.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/KJV4.htm

There was what is called a Second Great Awakening in New England,

Kentucky, Tennessee and in other states from about 1800 to 1830. This

great revival was started by the preaching of James McGready in Logan

county, Kentucky in 1800. Charles G. Finney held revivals from 1824 to

1837 in New York state. This Second Great Awakening lasted about 30

years. In 1800 to 1830 American Christians were almost all using the

King James Version. The

first copy of the King James Bible known to have been brought into the

colonies was taken by John Winthrop to Massachusetts in 1630.

Gradually the King James Bible replaced the Geneva Bible among the New

England Puritans and became the one English Bible of Americans until

late in the 19th century.

http://www.historians.org/tl/LessonPlans/wi/Hoeveler/Religion.html

And so the King James Version was used for the two great revivals in

America, the first from about 1734 to 1740, and the second in 1800 to

1830. These revivals - which put the stamp of the King James Version

on American culture of the 18th and 19th centuries - were not the

only fruit of the KJV among English speaking peoples. Millions in

England,South America, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and elsewhere have

been convicted of sin and saved by preaching from and personal reading

of the KJV.

Christians in England had sent out missionaries who used the KJV and

translations of it into native languages to convert many people over

the world. Following the second Great Awakening, the American world

wide missionary

movement continued. J. Hudson Taylor was the first American missionary to

inland China in 1865. http://philologos.org/__eb-jki/tape06.htm

Since then, thousands of American missionaries have gone to foreign

lands, carrying the KJV, to "Go thee therefore, and teach all nations,

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the

Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)"

Those who defend the new Bible versions might argue that Billy

Graham"s preaching has led many to salvation, and he promotes the

NIV. But they paint themselves into a corner if they bring up Billy

Graham. He had an emotional appeal, but he made too many statements

opposed to Bible doctrines. In addition,

while Graham was holding his crusades, belief in the

Bible was declining, America was moving farther into a post-

Christian culture, gnostic mysticism was sometimes posing as Holy

Spirit spiritual experiencing, the New Age Occult religion got going

after about 1968 and even Christians were acting more and more in

immoral ways.

Can the advocates of the new Bible versions, based on the

Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text, claim to have produced the same kind

and same amount of fruit produced by the Textus Receptus and the King

James Version? Its true that the New International Version has been

around less than thirty years. The New American Standard came out in

1971, and the Revised Standard in 1952. But the English Revised

Version was published in 1881 and its American counterpart, the

American Standard Version in 1901, enough time to generate some fruit.

Have these versions produced fruit comparable to the KJV?

On http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/id_1.html

it is said that

"...the fundamental difference between the New Testament in the

American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New English

Bible, Today's English Version, New American Standard Bible, New

International Version, etc., on the one hand, and in the AV (King

James Version) and NKJV on the other is that they are based on

different forms of the Greek text. (There are over 5,500 differences

between those two forms."

The NKJV may be based on the Textus Receptus instead of Westcott-Hort

but it also has problems in its doctrines and in the way it states

them.

CREATORS AND DRIVERS OF THE WRECKING MACHINE

Many professors of theology, preachers and their followers no longer

believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They do not accept the Bible's

statements that God is able to preserve his true word. One

of the reasons they have lost much of their faith in the Bible is

because of the teaching in the seminaries of higher Bible criticism,

textual criticism

and the Westcott-Hort theory.

These professors created the Wrecking Machines which

weaken, undermine and dilute the doctrines of the Bible. As a result,

professors of theology, many preachers and their sheeple do not think

the Bible is inerrant or has been preserved by God.

Two 19th century English professors created the new Greek text which

became the basis for almost all the new Bible versions. These were:

Brooke Foss Westcott 1825-1901, was professor of divinity at

Cambridge. With F. J. A. Hort, he published The New Testament in the

Original Greek (2 vol., 1881)

Fenton J. A. Hort 1828-1892, was also a Professor at Cambridge

In 1881 when Westcott and Hort published their Greek text, the English

Revised Version of the New Testament was published, based on the

Westcott-Hort Greek text, instead of the Textus Receptus.

Westcott and Hort used two main Greek texts as their sources for their

Greek text:

THE VATICANUS

The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481.

It was written in the 4th century. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28,

Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles

(1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of

Revelation.

THE SINIATICUS

Siniaticus is a manuscript which was found in 1844 by Constantin (von)

Tischendorf on a trash pile outside the walls of St. Catherine's

Monastery, at the base of what some believe is the mountain where

Moses was given the Ten Commandments, Mount Sinai.

The riders of the Wrecking machine are the followers of the seminary

trained professional Christians who have promoted the new Bible versions.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE

Higher criticism of the Bible, as well as textual criticism, began

before Westcott and Hort published their new Greek text in 1881.

Biblical criticism was started and carried on by professors and

intellectuals who valued reason and man-made assumptions over faith

and revelation. Many of them were Germans influenced by the philosophy

of non-Christians like Hegel. Their work over a few centuries has

discredited parts of the Bible. Their analysis techniques were picked

up by some theologians and used to instill doubt about Biblical

accounts of prophecy, miracles, and demon possession. Later on, even

mainstream theologians began to use "higher" biblical criticism to

determine:

"which are the most reliable and trustworthy texts" of the Bible.

who were the authors of the 66 books of the Bible

when were they written

which passages are of real events; which are myth, legends, folklore,

etc. Which are religious propaganda, etc

Some theologians and ministers have seen that biblical criticism

may threaten an individual's faith:

G. Maier describes higher criticism as: "a truly dictatorial regime in

theology." It results in "an uncritical and unjustified denigration

of the Biblical text" and a "godless technique that eroded the Word of

God itself." 4

G. Maier, "The End of the Historical-Critical Method," Concordia

(1974).

Some Christian scholars who are more faithful to the Lord have

criticized many so-called Higher Bible Critics" as being uninspired,

not having the Holy Spirit, without faith, and without salvation. The

Higher critics, they say, have had a destructive effect on the faith

of Christian leaders trained in the seminaries and upon the followers

of these leaders in the churches.

The higher Bible critics are academics and not men of God. Few - if

any - of them appear to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Higher Bible Critics taught that Scripture should be understood

and interpreted within the historic and cultural setting at the time

it was written. They would ask how the author and his readers at

about the time he wrote understood the text he wrote. Some of these

critics would say that apocalyptic literature as in Revelation,

Daniel, Ezekiel and Zechariah was perhaps understood by many in the

early church, but we are not familiar with this type of literature.

The higher critics might also argue that we should not take a prophecy

from these apocalyptic books out of its context and apply it to our

times as a prediction of coming events.

This view undermines trust in the Scriptures, and faith that God

also inspired these prophecy books. Its a result of starting

from the idea that we can treat the Bible as we would treat any

ancient book of literature, which is an idea believers should reject.

The assumption that these books were written only for readers of the

author's culture and time period just will not hold up in view of the

promises of the Bible about the word of God. Texts promising that the

Bible is inspired, is truthful, and has authority and other promises

that God will preserve his Word as such argue against this view.

The critics may also tell us that we should not look for and make use of

the strands of teachings found in Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel or

Zechariah that we may find in other books of the Bible. Since the

prophecy books can be understood only in their context, the critics

might say, we cannot take a metaphoric prophecy out of that context

and string it together with a prophecy from some other book of the

Bible.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is

to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than

other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible

is inspired by God, and that God has control over all that goes on in

this world.

The reference (1881) above is: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New

Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881,

and Introduction and Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882

(revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892). In it Hort gives the

theories, or assumptions, they used as the basis for selecting the

Greek texts..

But the problem with starting from the assumption that the Bible is

just like any other old book is that the meaning of Scripture is given

by the Holy Spirit. And if a textual critic does not have the Holy

Spirit, he is likely to make mistakes in handing the word of God.

John 16: 13 says "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he

will guide you into all truth..." I will show later that Westcott and

Hort did not believe in many of the teachings of the Old and New

Testaments and very likely were not inspired by the Spirit.

John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England during the late 19th

century said the following about the inclusion of a

Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort that:

"But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar,

my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do

you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained

without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be

invoked by faithful prayer."

The 1881 committee's purpose was to consider the issue of revising the

King James translation. Dean Burgon and F. H. Scrivener lost their

battle with Westcort and Hort over the revision of the King James

Version.

Textual criticism is concerned with finding errors in texts.

Supposedly, the goal of textual criticism of the New Testament is to

recreate, as closely as possible, the original writings of the

apostles. This is the smokescreen that Westcott and Hort

used to pull off their great swindle. They managed to establish as a

basis for translation a Greek text based on Alexandarian manuscripts

which dilute, abbreviate leave out, and cast doubt upon many New

testament doctrines and teachings. Westcott and Hort set out to

discredit the Textus Receptus which more careful study now suggests

may be closer to the original autographs than the Alexandrian texts.

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812), an earlier textual critic,

published some critical rules for accepting or rejecting New Testament

wordings. One of Griesback's critical rules was that

"the hardest reading is best." Another was"the shorter reading is

best, based on the idea that

scribes were more likely to add than to delete. These are really

assumptions which have little if any empirical evidence to support

them.

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort in the 1881 edition of

their Greek New Testament also proposed

critical rules, including the rule, or assumption, that the shorter

reading is best, meaning it is assumed to be closer to the original

writing of the apostles.

In part, with this and other assumptions,Westcott and Hort justified

to their many followers the undermining of the text of the King

James Version and the Textus Receptus. In time the substitution of

their 1881 Greek text for the Textus Receptus led mainstream

evangelicals to turn to the new translations and reject the King James

Version.

A summary of the assumptions of Westcott and Hort that they used to

select the Alexandrian Greek texts and reject the Textus Receptus can

be found in the book by Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D.

Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual

Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/King%20James/believes_westcott_hort.htm

The stuff below is from this link:

ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT:

1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of

the Apostles

2. A scribe usually went about

blending the texts available to him

trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call

conflation.

3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions.

4. Shorter readings are preferred.

5. More awkward sentence grammer is preferred.

Westcott and. Hort claimed that a shorter

reading of a New Testament verse is closer to the original autograph

should be used in translation.

But what they did, in effect, was set up their critical rules to

reject many longer verse readings in the Textus Receptus and accept

the shorter readings of the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Vaticanus

and Sinaiticus. They rationalized this rule by claiming a shorter

reading is more accurate because of the

assumed blending together of two or more different shorter Greek

verses practiced by the scribes. The scribes, they assumed, merged

verse wordings from different Greek texts into one new reading.

But typists, or ancient scribes who copied manuscripts by hand, it

would seem, are more likely to leave out words that they are to add

words to merge two different versions of a Bible verse into a new

verse.

In the theory they concocted to justify their use of the Alexandrian

Greek texts, Westcott and Hort implied that

Christian scribes had deliberately changed some verses of the

Scriptures. Having been interested in the occult, maybe Westcott and

Hort did not want to consider the possibility that

men like Origen or Marcion did part of the changing of verses in

some copies of the New Testament to fit their false doctrines.

Marcion was a gnostic and Origen of Alexandria, Egypt may have been

influenced by gnosticism.

The main assumption of Hort in his Introduction and Appendix (1882) to

the Westcott-Hort, The New

Testament in the Original Greek (1881) was that the Textus Receptus

was a late Greek text and therefore not as close to the original

writings of the apostles as the fourth century Vaticanus and

Sinaiticus.

A key part of Hort's theory was his argument on the lateness of the

Byzantine text which was used to create the Textus Receptus.

To treat the Scriptures

as any other book means that Westcott and Hort and their followers

who ride their Wrecking Machine

(1) ignored the reality of Satan who tries to change God's Word

(2) had little faith in God's promise to preserve His Word.

Since Satan has tried to inspire scribes and theologians to change the

word of God, we might expect to find that some copies of the New

Testament were changed to support gnostic or other false doctrines -

at least some changes were made. Large changes in doctrines might

have been rejected even by Christians in Egypt in the fourth and fifth

centuries and so the changes had to be subtle.

In II Corinthians 2:17 Paul says "For we are not as many which

corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the

sight of God speak we in Christ."

Colwell,(1952), who once was a follower of Westcott and Hort, but who

changed his position, says that:

"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were

created for theological or dogmatic reasons. Most of the manuals and

handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell you that these

variations were the fruit of careless treatment which was possible

because the books of the New Testament had not yet attained a strong

position as 'Bible.' The reverse is the case. It was because they were

the religious treasure of the church that they were changed ... most

variations, I believe, were made deliberately. ... scholars now

believe that most variations were made deliberately"4

E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?(Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 53, 58 & 49.

J. Gresham Machen in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, warned

what would happen if the liberals

gain control of the evangelical churches. They would retain the name

and some of the trappings of genuine Christianity but the substance

would be lost. The "liberals," or academics, who, for the most part,

do not

have the Holy Spirit, and do not believe all the teachings of the

Bible, have not only taken over the evangelical churches, they have

also taken over the seminaries that train the preachers.

http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/scopes/Declension.html   Bernard