BIBLE VERSE: ” For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” —-Ephesians 2:8-9

BIBLE THOUGHT:  When it comes to Salvation, it is ALL GOD. Man cannot and does not have anything to do with it as Ephesians 2:8-9 states.  Works comes into play after an individual is Saved.  But, irregardless of what the Bible says, man insists that he have a part in Salvation. There are many denominations that love to add works to Salvation. It makes an individual feel good about themselves, as if they have accomplished something. For those who teach such false doctrine, it is considered “another gospel”  and let them be accursed.  (Galatians 1:6-8).  The Law was intended for Israel ONLY  (Leviticus 27:34).  Even after we are Saved we are still under Grace.  Galatians 3:11 states “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Galatians 2:16  says “for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”  And then in Galatians 2:21  ”I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

DAILY THOUGHT:  ”Salvation belongeth unto the LORD.”  —Psalm 3:8

QUESTION: Can someone get saved if you are using a bible other than the King James?

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture.

It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and II Timothy 3:16.

It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See I Peter 2:2.

It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening Scripture.

It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but you will never be a threat to the devil by growing.

QUESTION: Didn’t the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscnpts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn’t have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.

QUESTION: Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

ANSWER: The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible is those same autographs preserved up to today.

EXPLANATION: The best way to simply describe inspiration and preservation of the Bible is as follows:

Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus, vellum, etc.) and uses men to write His words.

Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses men to preserve them to today.

Both of these actions are DIVINE and are assured by God as recorded in Psalm 12:6,7.

6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

In Psalm 12:6 God assures us that His originals are perfect. Even though penned by fallible men with the heinous sins of: murder (Moses and David), adultery (David), idolatry (Solomon), and denial of the Lord (Peter). God’s words are untainted by the sins of the penmen.

That the originals were inspired perfect in their entirety is an undisputed belief among fundamentalists today.

But most fundamentalists argue that only the “originals” were perfect. They say that today we have nothing but copies and translations of those copies. They seem indignant at the thought that any “mere translation” should be considered a perfect copy of the originals. They claim that copies and translations are products of uninspired men and therefore must all contain mistakes.

Fundamentalists clinging to this tenet are misled. Their folly in accepting this erroneous teaching is fourfold.

1. It is somewhat confusing and unexplainable that a person could claim that God could not use sinful men to preserve His words when all fundamentalists believe that he used sinful men to write His inspired words. Certainly a God who had enough power to inspire His words would also have enough power to preserve them. I highly doubt that He has lost such ability over the years.

2. Why would God inspire the originals and then lose them? Why give a perfect Bible to men like Peter, John, James, Andrew and company and not us? They had seen, heard, and touched the Lord (I John 1:1). We haven’t! If anyone ever needed a perfect Bible it is us, nearly two thousand years separated from a Saviour we have never seen!

Why did God inspire a perfect original if He didn’t plan on preserving it? Couldn’t He have afforded some errors in His originals just as some believe He has allowed some errors in today’s Bible? Or do critics of God’s perfect Bible believe that God was unable to prevent errors in the copies? It would seem like only half of a God who had the power to do one but not the other.

3. It is a “convenient” faith which cannot be tested. In other words, it is rather safe to believe in a perfect set of originals which have been LOST. Since they are lost, no one can ever practically challenge such a belief. Adherents to such a shallow persuasion can rest safely in the fact that they will never be proven wrong since the evidence needed to prove them wrong (the “originals”) is lost.

But if they dare put the same faith in a Bible available today, they know that they will definitely be bloodied defending their faith.

Thus, to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not to believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe nothing at all.

4. Regardless of their arguments against the doctrine of a preserved perfect Bible, such a fact is as much guaranteed by Scripture as the bodily return of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8).

Psalm 12:7 plainly states, “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired. Not too much of a feat to overwhelm such an omnipotent Being.

The fearful fundamentalist launches two attacks on the Scriptural teaching found in Psalm 12:7.

1. They claim, “Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible.” Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let’s look at this verse in the New International Version.

“O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.”

This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word “shamar” meaning “to keep” which the New International Version translators render “you will keep us” is found in the future second person singular “thou shalt keep” and is directed to the THIRD person plural “them” and NOT the first person plural “us” as the New International Version translators rendered it.

Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable New International Version.

Psalm 12:7 is not God’s promise to preserve the Jews, a promise which flourishes elsewhere in in Scripture. It is God’s promise to preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as described in Psalm 12:6.

2. Ofttimes a Christian, whose faith is too weak to accept the literal truth of Psalm 12:6,7, will piously quote Psalm 119:89.

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”

Then he will state that God actually meant that He preserved His perfect Bible in Heaven, not on Earth. And they say this with a straight face! This escape to a house of straw is embarrassingly humorous.

First, it is foolish for anyone to believe that God inspired a perfect original on earth so that He could have it brought to Heaven. Is that supposed to be the reason that He wrote the originals? The answer is embarrassingly simple. The Bible is addressed to man, not God. God did not write a perfect book directed to man and then put it in a library in Heaven where man cannot benefit from its existence. Again we ask, “What good to us, here and now, is a perfect book locked up out of reach in Heaven?”

Secondly, Psalm 12:6 makes reference to His words being on earth. To preserve them somewhere other than on earth is not to preserve them at all. So we see then that God inspired the originals perfectly. Then over the centuries He has preserved those same words to today. They are found in the Authorized Version.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:

In the area of “inspired translations,” it might be noted that the double truth of Genesis 22:8 which, in a King James Bible, is plainly revealed as a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ, is lost in such weak translations as the New King James, the New International Version, and the New American Standard Version.

QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will “stun” Bible believers. It doesn’t.

The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts in existence throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 A.D. (NOT to be confused with Jerome’s corrupt “Vulgate”) or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 A.D.

That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God’s reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.

QUESTION: Can someone get saved if you are using a bible other than the King James?

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture.

It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and II Timothy 3:16.

It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See I Peter 2:2.

It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening Scripture.

It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but you will never be a threat to the devil by growing.

QUESTION: Aren’t archaic words in the KJV 1611 in need of updating?

ANSWER:  Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible but No, we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.

EXPLANATION: That there are archaic words in the Bible is very true. An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day speech and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic word is found in I Corinthians 10:25.  ”Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.”

The word “shambles” is archaic. It has been replaced in common speech with the word “market place.” Indeed we can be certain that “shambles” was a much more accurate description of the ancient market place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed from common use.

Well then, shouldn’t we publish a new translation which removes “shambles” and inserts the more common “market place”?

No, what we should do is turn to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice and see what the Bible practice is concerning archaic words. For surely we believers in a perfect Bible will want to follow the Bible’s practice concerning archaic words.

In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for handling archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. “Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.

2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.

3 And the asses of Kish Saul’s father were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses.

4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.

5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.

6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.

7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?

8 And the servant answered Saul aga^n, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.

9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.

11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?”

Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9, we are not only confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for handling it.

We find Saul and one of his father’s servants searching for the asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5). They decide to go to see Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).

In verse 11 we are going to run into an a¨chaic word. But, before we do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to tell us about it. Notice that verse 9 states that “he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.” Thus we see that, between the time that this event took place and the time that the incident was divinely recorded the word “Seer” had passed from common use to be replaced with “Prophet.” “Seer” was now archaic.

BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word appeared.

“And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?”

Please note that the verse retains the outdated word “seer.” It does not say, “Is the prophet here?”

Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but did not change the holy text!

So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations such as we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the congregation something to the effect that “What beforetime was called `shambles’ is now called `market place’.” But we should leave the archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words than God has.

So, the answer to the question is, “Yes, there are archaic words in the Bible but No we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them. God didn’t change His Book, He certainly does not want us doing it.

QUESTION: Should the italicized words be removed from the KJV and what do they mean?

ANSWER: If we remove any of the italicized words we must either remove them ALL or accept them ALL as Scripture.

EXPLANATION: Following are the problems with removing the italicized words from the Bible:

1. Anyone who has ever translated from one language to another knows that words MUST be added to the finished work to complete the sentence structure of the new language.

All translators do this when translating the Bible. The King James translators were men of integrity so they put the added words in italics.

Example #1:

Psalm 23:1 reads “The LORD is my shepherd” in the King James Bible. The word “is” was added by the translators to complete the sense of the sentence, and is italicized.

Psalm 23:1 in the New International Version reads, “The LORD is my shepherd,” with no italics.

So it is plain to see that both sets of translators added the same word to complete the sentence. Yet the King James translators put the word in italics to inform the reader that they had added it.

Example #2:

John 1:8 reads, “He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light” in the King James Bible.

John 1:8 reads, “He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light” in the New King James Version.

Again, both sets of translators have added words to their translation so that it would make sense. In this case it is the phrase “was sent.” Yet again, it is the King James translators who put their addition in italics for clarity.

Thus we see that the translators of our Bible should be commended on their integrity and ethics for their addition of the italicized words instead of castigated for a practice which all of our modern “would be” scholars follow routinely–and less honestly, if you consider that they don’t bother to italicize their added words.

2. Critics of the Bible, fundamental or otherwise, claim that the italics can be removed, but NEVER remove them all. Usually they are stumped by a passage such as the word “unknown” in 1 Corinthians 14. Since they cannot explain the passage with the italicized word in the passage they make the thoughtless statement reproduced above and remove the problem word.

But this opens a tremendously large “can of worms!” For if we say that italicized words do not belong in the text, we cannot say that one italicized word should be removed from the Bible, but we must say that ALL italicized words must be removed from the Bible. Even the casual student of Scripture knows that the Bible will make no sense at all if ALL italicized words are removed.

To remove one italicized word and leave another in is to claim Divine Inspiration in knowing which words should go and which words should stay.

Regardless of how great a preacher, soul-winner, or scholar might be none of us are going to bow our knees to them with the claim that they are Divinely inspired to reject or accept words in the Bible. If we are so foolish as to exalt a man’s opinion in such a way, who should we exalt? There are hundreds of Bible critics who would vie for the office of “Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector.” Who would be the lucky person? How would we choose him? And WHO would be so naive as to think that all Christians would follow his decrees? Yet without his decrees we have NO WAY OF KNOWING which italicized words belong in the Bible and which ones do not.

So we see that overcoming problem passages will require prayer and Bible reading instead of carelessly removing a troublesome word.

3. One of the classic defenses for leaving the italicized words alone is found in II Samuel 21:19.

“And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaaroregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

By omitting the italicized words we have the Bible saying that Elhanan killed Goliath. Of course everyone knows that I Samuel 17 says that David killed Goliath. So we finally have the Bible that all lost men love to refer to when they say, “The Bible has contradictions in it.”

Of course, our “Divinely inspired Bible Corrector” would probably say the italics in II Samuel 21:19 do not need to be removed. But then who’s to know which words to remove or which ones to keep in unless God “appeared” to them and told them.

4. Our fourth and best reason for not meddling with God’s choice of words for His Bible comes from none other than the Apostles Peter and Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

First, take a Bible (King James, of course) and read Psalm 16:8. I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

You will notice that the two words “he is” are in italics. Yet when we find the Apostle Peter quoting this verse in the New Testament in Acts 2:25 we find it says:

“For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:”

So here we find the Apostle Peter quoting Psalm 16:8 italicized words and all! You would almost believe that God wanted them in there wouldn’t you?

Now it might be pointed out that Peter was an unlearned and ignorant man (Acts 4:13) and so, lacking the “benefits” of a Bible college education, he blindly accepted the Bible (King James?) as every word of God. But let us look at the same phenomena concerning the Apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul, as did other New Testament writers, often quoted from the Old Testament in his writings. In doing so, he quoted as did the others directly from the Hebrew text. We have several of Paul’s quotes which contain words not found in the Hebrew original.

In Romans 10:20 Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1.

Romans 10:20: “But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.”

Isaiah 65:1: “I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.”

Yet we see that the words “them that” which Paul quoted as though they were in Isaiah 65:1 exist only in the italics of the King James Bible.

The same is true of I Corinthians 3:20, “And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain,” which is a quote of Psalm 94:11, “The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man that they are vanity,” where we find the word “are” supplied by the translators.

But the most unexplainable is Paul’s quote of Deuteronomy 25:4 in I Corinthians 9:9. “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?”

Deut. 25:4, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.”

Here we find Paul quoting the words “the corn” just as if they had been in the Hebrew original even though they are only found in the italics of our Authorized Version!

If one were to argue that Paul was quoting a supposed Greek Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew, our dilemma only worsens. For now, two perplexing questions present themselves to us. First, if such a Greek translation ever existed (which is not documented in history), by what authority did the translators insert these words? Secondly, if they were added by the translators, does Paul’s quoting of them confirm them as inspired?

While you ponder these important questions, we will note that Jesus also quoted from what appears to have been a King James Bible.

We find Him quoting a word that wasn’t in the “originals.” In fact, a word that only exists in the italics found in the pages of the King James Bible.

Read below, please, Deuteronomy 8:3.

“And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did they fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”

You will note that the word “word” is in italics, meaning, of course, that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of Deuteronomy 8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word “dabar” which is Hebrew for “word” is not found anywhere in the verse.

Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 as follows in Matthew 4:4.

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

While quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 Jesus quotes the entire verse including the King James italicized word! Even an amateur “scholar” can locate “ramati,” a form of “rama,” which is Greek for “word,” in any Greek New Testament.

So, just as critics of the Bible like to joke and say, “Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul so it’s good enough for me,” a true Bible-believer can truly say, “Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus Christ, so it’s good enough for me.”

So we see we have three options on what to do with the italicized words in the Bible:

(1) Remove all of them.

(2) Exalt one of our fundamental Bible critics to the office of “Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector” and then give his decrees all the weight and allegiance that we would give to Jesus Christ.

(3) Leave all the words in our divinely inspired Bible alone, and trust that just maybe Jesus Christ is correct.

As though we had a choice!

QUESTION:  Shouldn’t we value the  autographs above any mere translation?

ANSWER: We should put as much value on the “originals” as God does.

EXPLANATION: It is impossible to be true to the originals because the originals have long been lost. This well established fact should be enough to make the sincere student of Scripture realize that an affirmative answer to the question is an impossibility.

But it does not explain the above answer. Just how much value does God put on the originals?

To get the answer we must explore seveal chapters in the book of Jeremiah beginning with the famous passage in chapter 36 concerning the roll that Jeremiah had written.

In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by his servant Jehudi.

According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the hearth until it was destroyed.   Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!

Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some words to it. (Jeremiah 36:32)

Thus ORIGINAL #2 is born.

We are shown the text of this second original in Jeremiah 45- 51 where it reproduced for our benefit.

Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after he finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63)!       Thus ends ORIGINAL #2!

But wait! We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters 45-51. Where did it come from? It came from a copy of original #2 which we can only call ORIGINAL #3!

So there are two very big problems for those who overemphasize the “originals.”

(1) Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the “second” original, or ORIGINAL #3.

(2) Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn’t have the least bit of interest in preserving the “original” once it had been copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more of an emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly unscriptural.

Thus, since we have the text of the “originals” preserved in the King James Bible we have no need of the originals, even if they were available.

BIBLE VERSE:  ” Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” —Proverbs 30:5-6

Over the next few weeks I intend to address some “frequently asked questions” regarding the King James Bible and the other versions.

QUESTION:  Are modern translations based on better manuscripts?

ANSWER: No. The best manuscripts support the Bible, the Authorized Version.

EXPLANATION: The new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text. Critics of the Bible claim that these manuscripts are better than those used by the translators of the Authorized Version. This is not so.

The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.

Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.

The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the quality of the materials used on them. They have good bindings and fine animal skin pages. Their physical appearance, contrary to their worthless texts, are really rather attractive. But then we have all heard the saying, “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” The covers are beautiful but their texts are reprehensible.

And yet in spite of these well-known corruptions, they are the basis for many new versions such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version rendering these versions critically flawed and unreliable.

The manuscripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of the highest quality. So we see that the best manuscripts are those used by the King James translators.