King James Bible, Dispensationally

"The King James Bible is based upon Koine Greek manuscripts that contain fewer 'atticisms' than those used by most 'modern' bibles. This means that the King James Bible is based upon more accurate manuscripts. So this site holds the King James Bible to be the final authority concerning discrepancies between bible translations, being the inerrant word of God, from a Dispensational point of view."

Please Note: Even though I believe the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God for English-speaking people today, I do not agree with the teaching that the translators themselves were inspired. Rather, just as the Lord directs our own way (1 Thess.3:10-11); and we are led by the Spirit of God (Ro. 8:14); I also believe the Lord led the translators of the King James Bible to choose the correct family of manuscripts (the Byzantine Text).

In addition, I also believe the Lord led the King James translators to apply the proper method of translation, which was the "formal equivalence", or word-for-word method. This method of translation is far different from the "dynamic equivalence", or thought-for-thought method used by the N.I.V. translators, who translated passages based upon what they thought the passage "meant". The problem with this "dynamic equivalence" method is obvious. If the translators have an incorrect understanding of the passage, it will not be translated correctly.

For example, from my own mid-Acts Dispensational viewpoint, one of the most glaring errors in the N.I.V. is found in Ephesians 3:6, which states that the Gentiles are heirs "together with Israel", when the words "with Israel" are not found in any Greek manuscript. These words were added by the N.I.V. translators, based upon their own understanding of what the passage meant. However, from a mid-Acts Dispensational viewpoint, the Gentiles are NOT heirs "together with Israel", because the very foundation of Dispensationalism is based upon a separation between Israel and the church. Because scriptures which apply to Israel cannot be applied to the church today, Gentiles are not heirs "together with Israel", no matter what the N.I.V. states.

So, from my own mid-Acts viewpoint, the N.I.V. contains a serious error in Ephesians 3:6. And if it contains even one error, it cannot be the word of God.

It is therefore my belief that because the King James translators were LED by the Spirit of God, I believe He naturally guided them to inerrantly translate His word. This is why I make a distinction between Paul being inspired to write down the Lord's words, and the King James translators being led (not inspired) to properly translate them (I am also amazed at the number of Christians who believe the Lord led some modern writer to write a particular book, while denying the possibility that He could have also led the King James translators).

I was recently asked to write a review of an article entitled "Deceiving and Being Deceived", in which Dave MacPherson not only gives erroneous information concerning the beliefs of Dispensationalists, but also makes some very serious accusations concerning the integrity and honesty of those who have chronicled the history of the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Mr. MacPherson is among certain opponents of Dispensationalism who claim that the pre-trib rapture doctrine was simply "dreamed up" by John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the 1830s. These opponents of Dispensationalism claim that John Darby "borrowed" this doctrine from a "prophecy" given by a young charismatic lady named Margaret MacDonald. These opponents also claim that nobody had ever even heard of the pre-trib gathering of the saints, prior to Darby and MacDonald. Meanwhile, Dispensational advocates of the pre-trib rapture believe that there is indeed evidence that the pre-trib rapture was taught long before either MacDonald or Darby mentioned it. At the web site Morgan Edwards: A Pre-Darby Rapturist, these supporters of the pre-trib rapture have documented the fact that the Rev. Morgan Edwards published his pre-trib rapture beliefs roughly 40 years prior to either John Darby or Margaret MacDonald; and that well over a thousand years earlier, a man who is called Pseudo-Ephraem also wrote that God would gather His elect prior to the tribulation. These facts prove that the pre-trib gathering of the saints was indeed a doctrine that was being taught prior to Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. But in an attempt to deny these facts, Dave MacPherson claims that the writings of Morgan Edwards and Pseudo-Ephraim have been misquoted and taken out of context. While I cannot attest to the accuracy of these charges, I do know that Dave MacPherson is providing erroneous information concerning what most Dispensationalists actually believe. And since I can prove that these charges concerning our beliefs are incorrect, I strongly suspect that Dave MacPherson's charges concerning the history of the pre-trib rapture are also incorrect. From what I have read, Morgan Edwards and Pseudo-Ephraem could still have believed in the pre-trib rapture, even if they held other beliefs that are not normally endorsed by most Dispensationalists. The only thing Mr. MacPherson proves is that neither Morgan Edwards nor Pseudo-Ephraem belonged to the "Darby camp" or the "Scofield camp" of Dispensationalism. Click Here to read the review.

Those interested in more information on this subject may also click here to read "A Review and Defense of the Pre-Tribulation Resurrection of the Church", by Jan Moser, who exposes the misrepresentations contained in Mr. MacPherson's book entitled "The Rapture Plot".

Plus, this brief article from biblefacts.org shows that pre-Tribulation Rapture views were also held by Victorinus (240AD), Cyprian (250 AD), and Ephraim the Syrian (373 AD).


CLICK HERE to see (based upon the faith OF Christ) why I reject the New King James Bible.

Greetings to my fellow Dispensationalists!

In a continuing effort to promote the understanding of Dispensationalism, and to refute the mis-information surrounding Dispensational Theology, your host has also become editor of the Dispensationalism category for the Open Directory Project, which is a human-driven directory that feeds search engines such as Google, AltaVista, HotBot, Yahoo, Lycos, etc. Since this Directory depends upon human input, the sites that are listed in ODP stand a much better chance of obtaining higher ratings in the search engines.

So far, this editor has added over 205 sites and articles to the Dispensational category, including sites under the sub-categories of :

General Dispensationalism (sites that simply describe Dispensationalism in general, along with sites that chronicle the history of Dispensationalism);
Traditional, or Acts 2 Dispensationalism (consists of Dispensational sites that critique other Theological viewpoints from the Traditional [Acts 2] viewpoint; sites that defend the Traditional viewpoint from Covenant Theology, Reformed Theology, and Preterism; and sites that point out the various misconceptions concerning Dispensationalism that are being propagated by misinformed Covnenant and Reformed Theologians.);
Pauline (both Mid-Acts and Acts 28, also listed under "Hyper-Dispensationalism);
Opposing Views (for sites that focus upon the debate among dispensationalists from the various "camps");
and even a sub-category for Progressive Dispensationalism (which most Dispensationalists do not consider to be Dispensational at all, but is still listed in an attempt to present the full spectrum of sites pertaining to all Dispensational categories). And there will be even more Dispensational sites added to the ODP, as time allows.

To view "thumbnails" of the different sites, click on the red button at the bottom of the page. Or, click on the following "Thumbnail" version of the ODP:

General Dispensationalism Category
Traditional Dispensationalism Category
Mid-Acts
Acts 28
Opposing Views
And Progressive Dispensationalism

Please be aware that your computer may not display the latest updates, unless you press "Shift-Refresh" on your keyboard.

However, many of the sites that we link to from King James Dispensational will not appear in the ODP, because those sites and articles must focus mainly upon Dispensationalism - and that is not necessarily the case with all of our King James Dispensational links. While many of the sites in ODP also contain information concerning "secondary" issues such as baptism, the rapture, etc., these topics cannot be the main theme. In fact, the ODP has actually rejected several sites this editor has submitted, simply because their main focus was upon the "secondary" issues of baptism and the Rapture, instead of Dispensationalism.

So, those who would like to submit a Dispensational site that is not yet listed in the ODP, or simply view the current sites, may do so at:

http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Theology/Dispensationalism/

And the above link is indeed another great place to perform an in-depth study of the various Dispensational views, because many of the sites listed there do not yet appear in our King James Dispensational links.

If you are submitting a Dispensational site through the above link, you should first click on "add URL" in the top right-hand corner of the screen. If the site you are submitting would fit better in one of the sub-categories (Traditional, Pauline@ Mid-Acts, Opposing Views, etc.), you should first go to that sub-category and click on "add URL". But please be patient; the ODP is sometimes rather slow. If it doesn't respond in a timely manner, just check back at a later time. Remember, though: If you are submitting a site, the main theme must be Dispensationalism.



Manuscript Evidence Supporting the King James Bible

Part 1

Many thanks to Pastor Richard Jordan and Dr. Peter Ruckman, who supplied much of the information contained in the following study:

Based on the following study on manuscript evidence, I hold the King James Bible to be God's inerrant word for English-speaking people today. Since He promised to preserve His words in Psalms 12:6-7; and there is no scriptural record that any man of God ever questioned His ability to preserve His words inerrantly down through the ages, I simply cannot believe the Creator of the Universe would be too weak to do as He promised!

It should be noted, though, that as long as the King James Bible is the final authority, and the Textual discrepancies are duly recognized, I don't see anything wrong with someone using another version in order to better understand a passage. After all, I have heard numerous "KJV-Only" preachers refer to the Greek text itself, in order to clarify the meaning of a difficult passage. By doing so, and re-translating the Greek into their own "modern" English, these preachers are actually creating yet another "version" (albeit a temporary version), whether they realize it or not. And in my book, there is really no difference between re-translating from Greek into English and referring to another version, as long as the Textual discrepancies are carefully noted, and the authority of the King James Bible is recognized.

But WHY am I so adamant about the final authority of the King James Bible? After all, certain critics will argue that every basic, fundamental belief of Christianity can be found in the modern translations, as well.

I would, however, respectfully disagree with these critics. If one is allowed to question the validity of ANY passage in the Bible, there can be no end to the number of disputed passages that may arise. For example, concerning the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, I have found that those who reject this scriptural doctrine will either delete, re-translate, or "personify" each passage that upholds this teaching. These people (who actually call themselves "Christians") will flatly deny that the author of the book of Hebrews addresses the Lord Jesus Christ as "God" (Heb.1:8, compare Psalms 45:6); they deny that Peter refers to "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1); they deny that the Word was God (John 1:1); they deny that the Father, the Word (Who is Jesus, according to John 1:1), and the Holy Ghost "bear record in heaven" (1 John 5:7); they deny that the Jesus Who created "all things" (Col.1:16 and Eph.3:9) is the same GOD Who created "all things" (Rev.4:11); they deny Paul's reference to the Lord Jesus Christ as "the great God and our Saviour" (Titus 2:13); they deny that God was manifest in the flesh (1Tim.3:16); they deny that God purchased the church with HIS Own blood (Acts 20:28); and they deny that Christ is "God blessed forever" (Ro.9:5). Instead, these people will either re-translate some of the above passages, or question the manuscript "authority" of the others. And they can find SOME modern version of the Bible that changes or deletes every one of these passages, by quoting from the N.I.V., N.A.S., R.S.V., A.S.V., Confraternity; New World Translation; New American Bible; etc.

This, then, is one reason I am adamant that the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God, for English-speaking people today. Since God Almighty promised in Psalms 12:6-7 to preserve His Own words, it is my understanding - based upon the manuscript evidence - that He has done so, in the King James Bible. He even warned against adding to His word, or diminishing from it, in Deuteronomy 4:2 -

2: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Likewise, Almighty God warned against adding to His words, lest we become LIARS, in Proverbs 30:5-6 -

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

Consequently, as the manuscript evidence in the following study will show, I believe the Lord has indeed preserved His word (as well as His words) for English-speaking people today, in the King James Bible.


As far as the manuscript evidence itself is concerned, the Encarta Encyclopedia 96 CD states (emphasis is mine):

For a time, some Christian scholars treated the Greek of the New Testament as a special kind of religious language, providentially given as a proper vehicle for the Christian faith. It is now clear from extrabiblical writings of the period that the language of the New Testament is koine, or common Greek, that which was used in homes and marketplaces.1

As confirmed by the above excerpt from the Encarta Encyclopedia, the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament were written in the "common" KOINE GREEK, which was the dialect used by the common Greek speaking citizens of New Testament times.

The fact that the New Testament was written in KOINE GREEK is also confirmed by Mindscape Reference Library for PCs, copyright 1995:

New Testament, the distinctively Christian portion of the BIBLE, 27 books dating from the earliest Christian period, transmitted in koiné, a popular form of Greek spoken in the biblical regions from the 4th cent. B.C.2

There is no question, then, concerning the fact that the New Testament scriptures were originally written in the Koine Greek dialect. Nor is there any doubt that in earlier days, a dialect known as ATTIC Greek had been in use. However, by the time the Apostles walked this earth, Attic Greek had evolved into the Koine Greek dialect, in which the New Testament manuscripts were written.

Nevertheless, some "Atticisms" were still retained by Koine Greek; and these "Atticisms" are helpful in determining the extent to which certain Greek manuscripts were altered by the scribes that copied them.

It should also be noted that most Greek manuscripts of the New Testament belong to a family of manuscripts known as the BYZANTINE TEXT, because these manuscripts were circulated in the region of Byzantium, where the apostles lived and traveled. The Byzantine Text is commonly known as the MAJORITY TEXT, since the vast majority of all New Testament Manuscripts are Byzantine in origin. Even with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, still 90% - 95 % of all New Testament manuscripts belong to the Byzantine family.

However, there is also a small number of Greek Manuscripts (5% - 10%), which is commonly known as the CRITICAL TEXT; and it is upon this Text that most modern Bibles are based. The manuscripts that belong to this family are known as the Alexandrian manuscripts, because they were copied in the area surrounding Alexandria, Egypt. But compared to the Majority (Byzantine) Text, these Alexandrian manuscripts contain a larger number of "Atticisms", and generally have shorter readings.

In the Second Century A.D., some scribes developed a tendency to add these "Atticisms" to the Koine Greek manuscripts they were copying. At that time, many Koine Greek manuscripts were therefore altered from the Koine Greek in which they had originally been written, with the addition of these "Atticisms".

In fact, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger (no friend of the King James Bible) actually describes a possible scenario, in which Second Century scribes could have added these "Atticisms" to the Koine Greek manuscripts. In his book, THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Third, Enlarged Edition, Copyright 1992 by Oxford University Press, Inc.), Dr. Metzger makes a reference to research that was published by George D. Kilpatrick. On pages 177-178, Dr. Metzger makes the following statement (emphasis is mine) -

"In matters on which no firm decision can be made
concerning the author's style, he (Dr. Kilpatrick) often
appeals to the criterion of Atticism, which became one of the
dominant tendencies in literary circles during the first and
second Christian centuries. He argues that scribes in the
second century introduced many Atticisms into the text of the
New Testament. Of two readings, therefore, one of which
conforms to Attic canons and the other does not, he (Dr.
Kilpatrick) is inclined to accept the non-Attic reading, even
though no early manuscript evidence may support it. In order
to justify his general disregard for the age and quality of
external evidence, Kilpatrick declares that BY ABOUT A. D.
200 THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE DELIBERATE
CHANGES HAD BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE
TEXTUAL STREAM, and that thereafter scribes transmitted
the several forms of text with great fidelity. Thus, though a
variant reading may happen to be preserved only in a late
miniscule manuscript, if it is in harmony with what is taken to
be the author's style or reflects a non-Atticistic tendency,
Kilpatrick is disposed to regard it as original."

So again, there is no question that certain "Atticisms" were not in the "original autographs", but were added to the Koine Greek manuscripts at a later date. And since these "Atticisms" are more prevalent in the Alexandrian manuscripts of the Critical Text (upon which most modern Bibles are based), this evidence points to the probability that the Byzantine Text manuscripts (the Majority Text, upon which the King James Bible is based) could actually be closer to the "original autographs".

It is therefore important to realize that a Christian's preference for the King James Bible is not based upon superstition, as alleged by some critics. Instead, our decision is based upon the fact that some New Testament manuscripts were actually altered from the Koine Greek, in which they were written, with the addition of these "Atticisms". If one fails to understand this fact, he will also miss the reason why the modern Bibles which are based upon these manuscripts that contain more "Atticisms" so often disagree with the King James Bible.


So the goal of this brief study is to show that, since the King James Bible is based upon the Byzantine Majority Text, which contains fewer "Atticisms", it is actually based upon more accurate Greek Manuscripts. By contrast, though, the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, Berkeley, New World Translation, Douay, and all other modern Bibles are based to some extent upon the Critical Text Manuscripts, which contain a larger amount of "Atticisms".

These Minority Critical Text Manuscripts, upon which the modern Bibles are based, are also characterized by the fact that they are all missing certain verses which are found in the Byzantine Manuscripts (and therefore are present only in the King James Bible), while other verses have been severely modified. Before we adopt the attitude that the missing verses in these modern Bibles are of little importance, though, we must first ask - Who is to determine which verses are important, and which ones are not? Since "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), EVERY verse is important. If man is allowed to judge which verses should be retained and which ones should be cut, there will be no end to the mischief he can achieve.

There is therefore no doubt among scholars that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Koine Greek. The debate now concerns the vast number of differences between the Minority Critical Text and the Majority Byzantine Text. These differences arose early, as attempts were made to "reconstruct" the original Greek text in the 2nd through the 5th Centuries. The method adopted by those involved in this early reconstruction, however, was completely different from the method of the Textual Critics today. Whereas today's critics, for the most part, assume that "the older manuscripts are closer to the originals, and therefore more accurate", the earliest reconstructers of the Greek Text would regularly DISCARD older translations in favor of the NEWER, MORE POPULAR translations. As a result, the older, more accurate readings were gradually replaced by newer readings that, although "more popular", were much less accurate. The OLDEST readings, though, have actually been PRESERVED in the earliest translations of the Greek manuscripts into other languages (such as the Syriac, the Old Latin, etc). This is confirmed by another excerpt from the Encarta Encyclopedia (again, emphasis is mine):

Early Versions
Because the New Testament was written in Greek, the story of the transmission of the text and the establishing of the canon sometimes neglects the early versions, some of which are older than the oldest extant Greek text. The rapid spread of Christianity beyond the regions where Greek prevailed necessitated translations into Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and Arabic. Syriac and Latin versions existed as early as the 2nd century, and Coptic translations began to appear in the 3rd century. These early versions were in no sense official translations but arose to meet regional needs in worship, preaching, and teaching. The translations were, therefore, trapped in local dialects and often included only selected portions of the New Testament. During the 4th and 5th centuries efforts were made to replace these regional versions with more standardized and widely accepted translations.3

As a result, since many older translations were "replaced" with more recent translations at an early stage, the current approach taken by most of the Textual Critics does not necessarily hold true. The older Greek Manuscripts of the 4th and 5th Centuries are NOT always more accurate than later manuscripts. Instead, there is much proof that certain Byzantine-type manuscripts which were written at a later date - since they preserve a more ancient reading in the text - match the "original autographs" of the New Testament writers more closely than the older Minority Text manuscripts which have been "corrected".

Listed below are 3 of the oldest Greek manuscripts, which contain a larger number of "Atticisms" than most Byzantine text manuscripts:

1. VATICANUS (Manuscript "B") - Discovered in the Vatican library in 1481; written probably about the fourth century.4 Contains the Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, which are included as part of the inspired Old Testament text (instead of being placed separately). Also contains much of the New Testament; however, Vaticanus leaves out Paul's Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:15 through the end of Hebrews, and the entire book of Revelation. Vaticanus also includes the Epistle of Barnabas, a Pseudepigraphical book (or probable false writing), in which it is stated that the hyena changes sex yearly from male to female5. Kept in the Vatican library in Rome.

2. SINAITICUS (Manuscript "ALEPH") - Fourth Century manuscript found by Tischendorf in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai. Tischendorf firmly believed that the same hand that wrote Vaticanus also wrote Sinaiticus. This manuscript also contains the New Testament Apocryphal book, The Shepherd of Hermas. Currently in the British Museum.

3. ALEXANDRINAS (Manuscript "A") - Written in the 5th Century, in many places this manuscript resembles the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible is taken. For instance, Alexandrinas contains the last 10 words of Ro. 8:1, which are missing in Aleph and B. Currently in the British Museum.

In addition, most early translations of the New Testament, some of which also contain the Old Testament, are from the Byzantine Majority Text. Only a few are from the Minority Critical text:
1. PESHITTA (or PESHITTO) - means "simple; easy to be understood". The Peshitta originated early in the 2nd Century (some even believe it originated in the 1st Century), as a BYZANTINE TEXT, the family from which the King James Bible comes. Later, however, efforts were undertaken to "revise" the Peshitta; therefore, there are actually TWO Peshittas. The older 2nd Century Peshitta matches the Textus Receptus (or, the RECEIVED Text of the King James Bible), since it was translated from Byzantine manuscripts. This 2nd Century Peshitta, also known as THE OLD SYRIAC, is older than the Diatesseron (mentioned below), and was a translation of the entire Bible. However, the later, "revised" version of the Peshitta matches the Minority Critical Text Manuscripts. The fact that there were TWO Peshittas, one in the 2nd Century, and one in the 5th Century, is also confirmed by the following two articles (emphasis is mine), again taken from the Encarta Encyclopedia:

Peshitta, Old Latin, Vulgate, and Targums
Other versions include, the Peshitta, or Syriac, begun perhaps as early as the 1st century AD; the Old Latin, translated not from the Hebrew but from the Septuagint in the 2nd century; and the Vulgate, translated from the Hebrew into Latin by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century AD.6

Pope Damasus I in 382 commissioned St. Jerome to produce a Latin Bible; known as the Vulgate, it replaces various Old Latin texts. In the 5th century, the Syriac Peshitta replaced the Syriac versions that had been in popular use up to that time. As is usually the case, the old versions slowly and painfully gave way to the new.7
Concerning the Peshitta (or Peshitto), THE COMPANION BIBLE also states (again emphasis is mine):

"Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), i.e. the Peshitto, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170.8
Peshitto means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses.9

2. TATIAN'S DIATESSERON - means "before" . This is not a literal translation, but rather a Harmony of the Gospels, written by Tatian of Assyria - around 160 - 175 A. D. Tatian was a heretic, according to the Catholic Church. This Diatesseron was one of the "extrabiblical writings" mentioned on Page 1 of this study, which was written in Koine Greek, and which points to the fact that "the language of the New Testament is Koine, or common Greek, that which was used in homes and marketplaces".1

3. THE OLD LATIN (the ITALA) - This is a 2nd Century Byzantine Text translation by Tertullian; later this Latin translation was "corrected" by Jerome, as described below:

4. JEROME'S LATIN VULGATE - In 382, Pope Damasus 1 instructed Jerome to "revise" the Old Latin. Jerome therefore "corrected" the Gospels so that they differed noticeably from their earlier form in the Old Latin, and translated the entire Bible into Latin; thus was born the Latin Vulgate. "For a thousand years this was the standard Bible in the Catholic Church."10 Concerning the Vulgate, the ENCARTA ENCYCLOPEDIA again confirms much of this information (emphasis is mine):

Vulgate (Latin vulgata editio, "popular edition"), edition of the Latin Bible that was pronounced "authentic" by the Council of Trent. The name originally was given to the "common edition" of the Greek Septuagint used by the early Fathers of the Church. It was then transferred to the Old Latin version (the Itala) of both the Old Testament and the New Testament that was used extensively during the first centuries in the Western church. The present composite Vulgate is basically the work of St. Jerome, a Doctor of the Church.
At first St. Jerome used the Greek Septuagint for his Old Testament translation, including parts of the Apocrypha; later he consulted the original Hebrew texts. He produced three versions of the Psalms, called the Roman, the Gallican, and the Hebrew. The Gallican Psalter, based on a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew text, is now read in the Vulgate. At the request of Pope Damasus I in 382, Jerome had previously undertaken a revision of the New Testament. He corrected the Gospels thoroughly; it is disputed whether the slight revisions made in the remainder of the New Testament are his work.11
As confirmed by the above article, Jerome "corrected the Gospels thoroughly", and possibly other books as well, in his Latin Vulgate. In addition, the International Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 1841, also has Jerome "correcting" the "unskillful scribes" who had written the earlier manuscripts. Thus we have two DIFFERENT early Latin translations - the OLD Latin (or the ITALA) of the 2nd Century, and the VULGATE of the 4th Century, which was Jerome's attempt to "correct" the Old Latin.

Later, in the 16th Century, several Greek Texts were compiled by various editors. The editors of these Greek texts had access to the Minority Critical Text, and to Jerome's Vulgate as a reference. However, these editors all rejected the Minority Text manuscripts, and unanimously based their Greek texts instead upon the Majority Text Byzantine Manuscripts, also known as the RECEIVED TEXT:

1. ERASMUS, using BYZANTINE manuscripts, edited 5 editions of the Greek New Testament (in addition to his translation of Greek into Latin in 1505): 1516, 1519, 1522 (he began including 1 John 5:7 in this edition), 1527, and 1535. Erasmus had access to Manuscripts unavailable to scholars today.

2. STEPHANUS, also using BYZANTINE Manuscripts, edited 4 editions of the Greek New Testaments in 1546, 1549, 1550, & 1551 (His last text began the practice of dividing chapters into verses). This text is the one that is usually referred to as the Textus Receptus.

3. BEZA published several Greek texts beginning in 1565; these basically followed Stephanus' Greek texts. Beza's 1589 text was the text generally referred to by the King James translators.

4. ELZEVIR - Yet another Greek Text based upon Byzantine Manuscripts; completed in 1624.

The editors of the above Greek texts all based their work upon Byzantine Text Greek Manuscripts, because the Critical Text Manuscripts were regarded as being inferior to the earliest translations of the Greek Manuscripts into other languages, as well as to the Byzantine Text itself. As previously covered, the earliest translations, in which the oldest readings are preserved, are "more valuable" than the oldest Greek Texts themselves, as THE COMPANION BIBLE states in an Appendix (emphasis mine):

...in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.12

Subsequent ENGLISH translations of the New Testament, based upon the above compiled Greek Texts, were then made prior to the King James Bible in 1611. Again, many of these translations also contained the Old Testament. The editors of these Bibles also had access to various Minority Text Manuscripts, as well as to the Majority Byzantine Greek texts compiled by the above authors, yet - when determining which Greek Manuscripts to use for their work - the Minority Text was again soundly rejected each time. In addition to the Greek Texts of Erasmus and Stephanus, the COMPANION BIBLE states:

Beza (No. 3 above) and the Elzevir (No. 4 above) may be considered as being the so-called "Received Text" which the translators of the Authorized Version used in 161113

Although two of the English translations - Wycliffe's English translation, and the Douay Version - were translations of Jerome's Latin Vulgate into English (instead of being translated from Greek), the New Testament translators who translated from Greek unanimously chose the Majority Byzantine Greek Text:

1380 - John Wycliffe translated Jerome's Latin Vulgate into English.

1525 - 1534 - Tyndale's English Translation: Based upon Erasmus' Greek text, this was the first complete English translation taken directly from the Greek New Testament scriptures. Before William Tyndale's translation, the available copies had been those written by hand in Greek and Latin, which the common people could not read. Although the Catholic Church had been demanding strict observance of certain unscriptural practices for years, the faithful common people had no way of knowing that they were being deceived. Tyndale, an Anabaptist and a Greek scholar, had been studying in England, when he became angered by another student's assertion that an understanding of the scriptures was not necessary for the common people. When the student claimed that the pope's laws were more important than God's Laws, Tyndale vowed to "one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" From Germany, Tyndale printed the first English Bible to be translated directly from the Greek Manuscripts, a deed for which he was ultimately hung. Afterwards, his body was publicly burned as a warning to others. "Tyndale was a ripe Greek scholar and had access to the Greek text of Erasmus and other helps which Wycliffe did not possess."14

1535 - Coverdale's Bible: Translated from a Latin version of Martin Luther's Bible, this version was mainly a revision of Tyndale's Bible.

1537 - Matthew's Bible: Printed by John Rogers, an associate of Tyndale's. Knowing his name would immediately be associated with Tyndale's, and unwilling to invite a similar fate, Rogers chose to call his translation Matthew's Bible.

1539 - Great Bible: Also printed by Miles Coverdale, who had been widely criticized (and still is) for translating from Latin which had in turn been translated from Greek. In answer to his critics, Coverdale then translated the Great Bible from Erasmus' Greek text, using Matthew's Bible as a guide.

1557 - William Wittingham's translation used Beza's Greek text, and Matthew's Bible. He also divided the text into verses, following the pattern set by Stephens 1551 text, and introduced the use of italics. This Bible was the first to use Roman-style print.

1560 - Geneva Bible: John Calvin wrote the prologue; he and Beza both oversaw the translation of this Bible. Translated in Geneva, John Bunyan quoted from it, Shakespeare read it; this was the Bible used by the Puritans. Also called The Breeches Bible, because it stated that Adam and Eve made themselves breeches from fig leaves.

1568 - Bishop's Bible - Commissioned by Queen Elizabeth, this Bible was a revision of the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible.

1582 - Douay Bible (from the Critical Minority Text) - A Roman Catholic Version, translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, this is the generally accepted English version of the Roman Church.15

1604 - Dr. John Reynolds suggests to King James that a new translation be made to create ONE version with authority, combining the best of all the above. King James therefore appointed 54 scholars to undertake the task; 7 of these 54 died before its completion in 1611. These scholars based their work upon the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, since it had been firmly established as being the correct text for the Old Testament (that proof, however, is beyond the scope of this study). The King James scholars based their translation of the New Testament upon Beza's Greek Text for the New Testament. These translators never claimed to be inspired, as some supporters of the modern versions have charged. Their first and most important step was to identify which Greek text to use, since the entire outcome of their work would be based upon this. A wrong choice here would invalidate their entire work; therefore, they chose Beza's Greek text, which was based upon Byzantine Manuscripts.

Johann Griesbach (1745 - 1812) was the first critic of any note to reject the Byzantine Text, which contains 85 - 95 % of the Greek Manuscripts, and instead based his work upon the rarely used Minority Critical Text. He gave more "weight" to the smaller count of the Minority Text, and justified his decision to reject the larger count of the Majority Text, by arguing that the evidence should be "weighed, not counted". He therefore decided upon an ARBITRARY classification of the Greek manuscripts into 4 separate "families" that share common characteristics, in order to give more "weight" to the Minority Text.

Several other Greek Texts have since been compiled, all based largely upon the Minority Critical Text manuscripts. In addition to the previously mentioned Greek text by Griesbach, we now have other Greek texts compiled by Lachmann in 1842-1850, Tischendorf in 1865-1872, Tregelles in 1857-1872, Alford in 1862-1871, and Wordsworth in 1870. In order to justify the use of the Minority Critical Text manuscripts in these Greek Texts, Wescott & Hort developed their Geneological Theory, based upon Griesbach's earlier classification of manuscripts into 4 families. Wescott & Hort next developed the CONFLATE THEORY, based upon only eight verses, in order to apply their genealogies. This Conflate Theory makes the assumption that copies of the "originals" were split into two "families" of manuscripts in two separate geographical regions, with the Eastern family residing around Alexandria, Egypt, and the Western family in Rome, Italy. According to this theory, copies were then made and handed down, and "scribal errors" soon crept in at each location, thereby uniquely marking each "family" with its own shared set of errors. Later, some scribe supposedly sat down with manuscripts from each "family" and combined both into the Byzantine Majority Text, which was a "conflation" of the two.

The Conflate Theory is based upon only 8 verses, found in 2 New Testament books: Mk. 6:33, 8:26, 9:38, 9:49, Luke 9:10, 11:54, 12:18, & 24:53. The Eastern (Alexandrinan) texts all have similar characteristics; all have the shorter reading. The Western texts also commonly add to the text. The Conflate Theory has since been proven false by Dean Burgon (1882), Bousset (1894), Burkitt (1904), Voobus (1947), Dr. Edward Hills (1950), and others. Of these, Dean John Burgon lists 7 "notes of truth" for his rejection of the Conflate Theory, and his subsequent endorsement of the Majority Byzantine Text:

1. Antiquity
2. The Number (or the COUNT) of the witnesses (the vast majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts are of the Byzantine type) is more important than the WEIGHT.
3. Variety of the evidence (called Catholicity)
4. Continuity
5. Respectability (the WEIGHT of the evidence)
6. Context
7. Internal considerations (internal evidence)

Consider John 7:53 - 8:11, for example, which is omitted by many of the older (Critical Text) manuscripts. Beginning in John 7:45, after Jesus' appearance at the Feast of Tabernacles, the officers are talking alone with the chief priests and Pharisees, including Nicodemus. Jesus is nowhere in the picture. If we follow the "older" manuscripts and jump from John 7:52 to 8:11, suddenly Jesus is there in the midst of them in the Treasury, teaching in the Temple (verse 20). The context of the passage changes too abruptly in the Critical text manuscripts; therefore, the INTERNAL evidence is that John 7:53 - 8:11 should be retained in order to give a smooth transition. In addition, these "missing" verses (or portions of them) were cited by Papius 1n 150 A. D., and also by Didache in the 2nd Century.

However, the question then arises: How can verses that are not supposed to be in the Bible (since they are not contained in the "best" Greek Manuscripts) be quoted before these Manuscripts were written?

Another example is the "long ending" of Mark 16:9-20, which is missing from ONLY two Greek Manuscripts - Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. These verses are, however, contained in 216 Greek Manuscripts, as well as in the earliest translations called the Syriac (the Peshitta), the Old Latin, and Jerome's Vulgate. In addition, Papias referred to verse 18 around 100 A.D.; Justyn Martyr quotes verse 20 in 150 A.D.; Ireneas quotes and remarks on verse 19 in 180 A.D.; Hippolytus (190 - 227 A. D.) quotes verses 17-19; Vincentius (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the Seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian; the Acta Pilati quotes verses 15 - 18 in the 2nd Century; they are contained in the Apostolotical Constitutions (3rd or 4th Century); Eusebius (325 A. D.) discusses these verses; Chrystosom (A. D. 400) refers to verse 9, and states that verses 19 & 20 are "the end of the Gospel"; Jerome includes them in his Latin translation (the Vulgate); and finally, Augustine (in A. D. 395 - 430) discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist Mark, and asserts that they were publicly read in the churches.16 However, because ONLY Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not contain this long ending, it is placed separately from the rest of the book of Mark in most modern Bibles, thus casting doubt upon the authenticity of these verses. Those who would refer to these verses in support of some particular doctrine are therefore doubted, since these verses are not contained in the "better" manuscripts.

Again, though, the question must be raised - How could these verses be quoted or referred to by so many historical witnesses, if they were never contained in Mark's Gospel in the first place?

In fact, those who ascribe to the Conflate Theory fail to follow their own logic in many cases. For example, although Manuscript "B" (Vaticanus) is SUPPOSED to be the "best" manuscript, certain modern Bible translators fail to accept its reading of verses which actually match the Byzantine Text Manuscripts in passages such as Mt. 22:30, 27:46, 27:49-50, Ro. 13:9-10, or Rev. 11:11 & 12:5. Although Vaticanus and Sinaiticus BOTH match the Byzantine Text (and therefore the King James rendering) in such passages, these modern translators chose instead to base their translation of these verses upon an Eighth Century Manuscript ( "D"). Although Manuscripts A, B, and Aleph are supposed to be superior, Nestles' Greek Text also rejects these manuscripts in their rendering of Mk. 3:8; John 4:51, 8:38, 10:22, 12:12, 14:7; Ro. 15:15, 1 Cor. 4:17, and Eph. 4:32 & 5:32.

In Luke 24:12, Manuscripts A, B, Aleph, and P45 (supposedly the "best" Greek Manuscripts), as well as the Syriac, all agree with the Byzantine Text; yet these are rejected in favor of D, a 5th Century manuscript.

Finally, there is also much controversy over the authenticity of the "Johannine Comma" of 1 John 5:7 -

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I hope to address the evidence for the above passage in a future study. In the meantime, though, English Roman Catholic Bible scholar Monsignor Knox had it exactly right in the footnote in his 1944 translation, when he stated:

"This verse does not occur in any good Greek manuscript. But the Latin versions may have preserved the true text".

Remember, the Old Latin, being a 2nd Century Byzantine Manuscript, is much closer to the "originals" than any of the Greek manuscripts, for the simple fact that it was not "corrected" as were the later Manuscripts. As stated on page 2 of this study, "During the 4th and 5th centuries efforts were made to replace these regional versions with more standardized and widely accepted translations."3 In addition, on page 4 of this study, it is noted that THE COMPANION BIBLE states in an Appendix (emphasis mine): "...in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions."12

The oldest translations, then, could very well preserve older readings, in addition to preserving verses that have been deleted at a later date (such as the Johannine Comma). In fact, F. F. Bruce, in The Books and the Parchments, on page 210, actually confirms this likelihood. After stating that there SHOULD be no Greek Manuscript evidence for the Johannine Comma (based upon the Conflate Theory), Bruce then admits that Greek Manuscripts do indeed exist which contain this verse.

In fact, the full text of 1 John 5:6-8, as it appears in the King James Bible, was actually preserved in the "Old Latin" (also known as the "Itala"), which was the 2nd Century Byzantine manuscript translated from Greek into Latin by Tertullian (who lived from about 160 A.D. to about 220 A.D.). Tertullian was actually the first known Latin writer to distinctly express the concept of a Trinity. Although some may claim that Tertullian did not actually believe in the Trinity as it is taught today (this can be debated), he did include the complete text of 1 John 5:6-8, as it now appears in the King James Bible, in his translation of the Old Latin (as witnessed by the manuscript which is designated "r", which was written approximately 550 A.D.). At about the same time, Saint Cyprian, the leader of the Christian church in Africa (Cyprian lived from about 200 A.D. until 258 A.D. when he was beheaded), also made a direct reference to 1 John 5:7, as it now appears in the King James Bible.

When the Greek text of the New Testament was beginning to be assembled in the so-called Middle Ages, there was enough evidence for the authenticity of 1 John 5:6-8 that Desiderius Erasmus included the entire passage in his 1522 edition of the Greek New Testament. Again, Erasmus actually had access to certain manuscripts and other material in his time to which today's scholars no longer have access.

Several years later, Stephanus produced his own Greek New Testament, and the edition he produced in the year 1550 again included the entire text of 1 John 5:6-8 (this Greek text is the same Stephens 1550 Greek Text referred to in this study). Later, Theodore Beza (who succeeded John Calvin to become the head of the Protestant Reformation) refined Stephens Greek text to some extent. As a result, while the full text of 1 John 5:5-8, as it appears in the King James Bible, may not be contained in the majority of Greek manuscripts, there is compelling evidence for its authenticity.

The above information is readily verifiable, and offers ample evidence that the full text of 1 John 5:6-8 was not simply added by the men who translated the King James Bible itself. Instead, the full text is actually contained in the Received Text from which this Bible was translated (including certain Greek manuscripts), and there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the words were actually penned by the apostle John himself.

In addition to the above mentioned references, here are some additional footnoted references:

^{1 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD
2 Mindscape Reference Library for PCs}, copyright 1995:
^{3 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD
4 THE THOMPSON CHAIN-REFERENCE BIBLE}, Fourth Improved Edition, 1982, Topics & Texts, Pages 180 -181
5 DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY by Charles Baker, Grace Bible College Publications, Fourth Printing, 1986, Page 87
^{6 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia} CD
^{7 IBID
8 THE COMPANION BIBLE}, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Michigan, First Printing, 1990
^{9 IBID
10 THE THOMPSON CHAIN-REFERENCE BIBLE}, Fourth Improved Edition, 1982, Topics & Texts, Pages 180 -181
^{11 Encarta 96 Encyclopedia} CD, "Vulgate"
^{12 THE COMPANION BIBLE}, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Michigan, First Printing, 1990, Appendix 168, Page 190
^{13 IBID, Appendix 94, Page 137
14 THE THOMPSON CHAIN-REFERENCE BIBLE}, Fourth Improved Edition, 1982, Topics & Texts, Pages 180 -181
^{15 IBID
16 THE COMPANION BIBLE}, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids Michigan, First Printing, 1990, Appendix 168, Page 190



CLICK HERE to read Part 2 of this study, entitled "Missing, Incomplete, and Problem Verses in the NIV (and most other Bibles)"

CLICK HERE to see (based upon the faith OF Christ) why I reject the New King James Bible.


Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and the Dispensation of the Grace of God (Eph. 3:2)


Click Here to learn more about Dispensationalism, in general.

Click Here to learn more about MID-Acts Hyperdispensationalism (Please note: As the editor of this site, I do want to acknowledge that I am indeed a HYPER-Dispensationalist of the mid-Acts persuasion, because the church is not operating as it did in Acts chapter 2. Even Traditional [Acts 2] Dispensationalists agree that things have changed since then; and we no longer have "all things common", nor do we sell our possessions and goods, and distribute them to all men, as every man has need [Acts 2:44-45; compare Luke 12:32-33 and 14:33]. This study explains the fundamentals of mid-Acts hyperdispensationalism, and why I believe the church started later than Acts 2.)


Dispensational Links Section

MID-Acts, KJV-Only Dispensationalists who do not practice water baptism today Absolute Truth: Grace Bible Church of Montgomery, AL, with Pastor Barry Hampton absolutetruthkjv.com Time Line: This mid-Acts Dispensational time line shows the relationship between the gospel of God, the gospel of the Kingdom, and the gospel of the Grace of God. Ambassadors for Christ Bible Studies, with Pastor Don Cote' (e-mail only) Christ's Body Bible Church Kenosha Wisc 262-279-0275 christsbodybiblechurch@charter.net Amarillo Grace Bible Study, by Steve and Sharon Henry Ambassadors for Christ Home Page (Nancy Paulson) av-1611.com: A non-denominational, self governing body of Bible believers in Thomasville, NC Berean Bible Church in New Braunfels, TX: More new articles have been added; even more to come - Audio, then Video, then 3-D, then Interactive, then the Lord comes!!! (Study materials from pastors Jerry Lockhart, Scott Mitchell, Mike Schroeder, Mike Arnold, Jeremy Woodruff, and Bob Raborn.) Berean Bible Ministries of San Juan Capistrano, CA: Helpers of Your Joy, with Pastor John Verstegen Berean Dispensational Berean Workman (Excellent site for teens, and those who are new to Dispensationalism) bibleambassadors.org Study Group of Erie, PA (with Rita Bauschard, who writes, 'Bible Ambassadors is now a "church" but we don't use the word church in the name. Just Bible Ambassadors. We are located at 2810 West 21st Street, (in EBCO Park), Erie, Pennsylvania 16506-2980 Pastor Dan Porath.' e-mail: bible.ambassadors@verizon.net. Visitors may also wish to check out a website that Bible Ambassadors supports, promoting a new book on the "Origin of the Races" (with another to follow "soon"), written by a missionary to China, at http://www.seedsowerpublications.com/ Bible Reference Page: Family Site for Jim and Dayna Zile Bible Trivia: A nightly worldwide Bible trivia game and fellowship chat room, using the chat software developed by www.paltalk.com . The Bible: Fundamentals in Common, and Fundamental Differences, by Duke P. Ganote The Bible as a Timeline (By Pastor Jerry Lockhart of New Braunfels, TX) Biblical Proportions Blog, by Pastor C. Douglas Dodd Busch's Bookshop by David W. Busch, who writes in part: "...the nice is you can get everything at Amazon prices. Unfortunately, most 'Grace' authors are not available through the main lines of distribution-or only on a limited basis-so I will be directing folks to other outlets through the Ambassador's Lounge for any material they are unable to get through my bookstore." Charity Bible Church of Harmony, N.C. (Brian Sipes) Crossroads Grace Fellowship: "Crossroads Grace Fellowship was started for the purpose of teaching Faithful Men to Rightly Divide the Word of Truth, and to teach them how to study the word of God for themselves. We hold to the final authority of the King James Bible. Those who choose to study here are free to come and go as they may, for we are not here to please man, but God." Discerning the Times Publishing, with Pastor Terence D. McLean Dictionary of the Gospel, by Grace Home Bible Ministries Enjoy The Bible Ministries (Keith Blades) First Grace Church of Plantation, FL with Pastor Glen Caneel floridagrace.com (NEW site for Berean Bible Church of Edgewater, Florida!) Grace Alive! (Tracy Plessinger) gracebeacon.net (Formerly known as midacts.net) Grace Believers Bible Fellowship (Doug Sawyer) Grace Bible Church of Atlanta Grace Bible Church of Chattanooga, Tennessee (Steve Atwood, Pastor) Grace Bible Church of Warren, MI Grace Bible Ministries of Mesa, AZ Grace Bible Study Lessons, by Pastor Jerry Pourcy. Presenting Dispensational Bible studies in two sections, the Beginners series and the Advanced series, with free videos also avaiable on DVD. Grace Family Bible Church of Seguin, Texas, with Pastor Scott Mitchell Grace Harbor Church: With a special emphasis on children's materials, called "Miners". As many readers may know, there is very little Dispensational Children's materials available. "Miners can be used in a club setting, for Sunday school or home schooling. Thanks for your help in getting the word out. Thanks to Calvary, Gary and Lynda Miller". Grace Impact, with Richard Jordan (Here, you can hear Richard's daily Broadcast, "Daily Bible Time", as well as his weekly program, "The Riches of Grace", over this web site) GraceOnline: Worldwide Directory of Grace Churches Heaven's Embassy, Inc, by David W. Busch, the author of the newly released book, "APPOINTED: The Biblical Fall Feasts and the Return of the Lord Jesus Christ, King of Yisrael, King of All the Earth" ; and the Founder and President of Heaven's Embassy, Inc. King James Bible, Dispensationally LisaLeland.com: Weekly journalistic musings, from a Grace perspective. Magnifiedword.com, with Pastor David Dowell. Jan. 7, 2007 Update! Click Here for information on the 2007 Great Smoky Mountains GRACE Bible Conference in Pigeon Forge, TN beginning Friday, March 23rd 2007 thru checkout on Friday, March 30th. Pastor David Dowell and his wife Vicki, and their six children Sarah (19), Jessica (18), Hannah (14), Christian (12), Titus (10), and Lydia (8), invite you to attend! MidActs Essays and Tracts, By Frank LeDoux MidActs Tracts: An independent gospel tract organization. Ortho-tomeo.com: Bible Study resource with an emphasis on the mystery revealed to Paul for the Gentiles, which is the gospel of the grace of God. Pauline Truth - II Timothy 2:8: NEW site of Steve and Sharon Henry! Pilkington & Sons Riches of His Grace: Thomas Heijtink's mid-acts dispensational site, where believers can study the "word of truth" rightly divided (2 Tim. 2:15), and join a discussion forum for further questions, edification and fellowship. Rightdivider.org/: Presenting Bible studies in Real Audio format; recorded in the Berean Bible study room, on Paltalk. Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, by D.J. Root Satan and his Plan of Evil, by Keith Blades Shorewood Bible Church, Pastored by Richard Jordan (here, you can also read the Grace Journal online!) Sound Words Ministry, by Obed Kirkpatrick Southwest Bible Fellowship of Tempe, AZ with Pastor Rick Jordan, Jr. SUNCOAST Bible Fellowship Studying the Bible Tampa Bible Fellowship, with Pastor Keith Baxter Trusting The Lord: In addition to featuring over 50 audio messages by Pastor E.C. Moore, and focusing on the mystery revealed to the apostle Paul, this site also features live Bible study on Paltalk. Twonotes Ministries (Acts 20:24) http://www.bijbel.nl A Dispensational Site in the Netherlands, that uses a Bible which is based upon the Textus Receptus (as is the King James)! Welcome To Grace, with Pastor Curt Crist: "Study with us the distinctiveness of Paul's Apostleship and the marching orders that we have in this age of Grace." Westside Grace Church, of Muskegon Heights, MI Westside Grace Ministries, with Pastor Michael A. McDaniel

Mid-Acts, KJV-Only Dispensationalists who still believe in water baptism: www.McCowenMills.com, Publishers of ONE BOOK Rightly Divided, by Dr. Doug Stauffer of Millbrook, AL Web Site of ONE BOOK Rightly Divided Open Door Baptist Church (Dr. Ken Blue)

Traditional (Acts 2), KJV-Only Dispensational Links Another Gospel A People For His Name Baptist Church, with Dr. Robert E. Patenaude, Th. D. http://photos.yahoo.com/apssa1 (Photos of the Bob Patenaude family and ministry. If that URL doesn't work, try http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/apssa1. You may view, download to your computer, or even order prints from that Yahoo site. Please let Brother Bob know if this is a help to you, by e-mailing him at apssa1@yahoo.com.) Biblebelievers.com Bible Believers.Net Bible Believers' Resource Page The Bible For Today (Also, be sure to check out this site's series of audio messages that explain and defend Dispensationalism, by Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.) Christiansunite.com (NOTE: I am placing Ray in this column, because he personally uses only the King James Bible; but on his site he also has other versions available.) Endtime Ministries Christian Resource Centre of Burpengary, Quebec (or maybe Landsborough, Quebec) False Prophets...Pseudo Apostles, And a New Gospel: As a dispensationalist, this writer believes the Charismatic movement is deceiving more and more Christians within evangelical and fundamental churches. How Does the Dispensationalist Interpret the Sermon on the Mount?, by Dr. Ken Bowles (Please Note: Dr. Bowles is a supporter of the New Testament "Majority Text", but doesn't necessarily believe the King James Bible itself is inerrant.) Introduction to Dispensations: This nine-part series on Dispensationalism contains a separate study for each of eight distinct dispensations, with the eighth being the new heaven and earth. Little Billy's Reality Our Bible Heritage Web Site: A local church ministry of Adrian Baptist Church in Canisteo, New York Pastor Al Hughes' Home Page (Bible Baptist Church, Port Orchard, WA) The Midweek Rapture: The Pretribulation Gathering ON the Day of Christ, by Carl Denson Rings of Benzene: Laura Keslar, a pre-pharmacy major at the University of Arizona, explains why she is a dispensationalist, and believes the King James Bible is the word of God. The Heresy of The Sinner's Prayer (by Michael D. O'Neal) Sound Doctrine By the Open Door Baptist Church; Bismarck, N. D. Timothy Morton's Dispensational Chart Through the Bible in Twelve Lessons, by Rev. Claude Purser Where is the Promise of His Coming?, by Jan Moser: "A Review and Defense of the Pre-Tribulation Resurrection of the Church"

Acts 28 sites that hold to the inerrancy of the King James Bible: The Word Understood Presents audio messages on the book of Acts, along with both audio and written studies on Rightly Dividing, using the literal interpretive method of Bible study. Rafael Wolf, Website Administrator for The Word Understood, writes: " ...I wanted to let you know that currently, our view on the KJV is that it is the inerrant word of God for English Speaking people today. That yes, there may be other possible translations, and yes, there may be various interpretations, and debate about what passages should be translated as or words that could be translated many different ways, etc. We recognize that had you only the KJV today with no 'Greek' texts to consult you could be a 100% complete individual with what we consider to be an accurate copy / translation of the word of God in English. "That the KJV is indeed an ACCURATE translation to English and it's the only translation we study out of. I guess you could say we are a Textus Receptus shop :) Again, not that words can't be translated differently or that there is no other word that could be used, or that 'Greek', our little understanding of it can’t be of use or shed light on matters...sure...but that the KJV is ACCURATE!!! The KJV is worthy of defense as many great men have done. We haven’t found the time nor energy yet being a young website to put that content up on our site." Rafael also writes, "We have also just added a message board and chat features so we're 100% now!!!"

Dispensational Writings (many, but not all, King James-Only), and Other General Links: http://www.oocities.org/hyperdispensationalism/Writings.html

King James Bible Advocates (not necessarily dispensational)


Another King James Believer
The Battle of the Bibles
Bible Believers' Resource Page
Bible Versions Compared
Bible Version Comparison Chart, comparing the NIV, New King James, New Revised Standard Version, New Century Version, NASV, RSV, and Living Bible
The Bible Version Debate Resolved
A Creationist's Defense of the King James Bible (Dr. Henry Morris)
The Dean Burgon Society, "In Defense of Traditional Bible Texts"
Did God Preserve a Book?: A series of lessons on the Preservation of God's Word, as taught by Dr. James Modlish
DividingWord.com
HOW TO DEFEND THE KING JAMES BIBLE
In Defense of the King James Bible
In Defense of Erasmus
Easter and the Reformation Bibles, by Tim and Barb Aho
Easter is Correct, by Will Kinney
Easter or Passover?, by Jack Moorman
European Institute of Protestant Studies (Dr. Ian Paisley)
Glossary of Biblical English of the Authorised Version of the HOLY BIBLE A Glossary of XVIIth Century Biblical English Words & Expressions (For those who have problems understanding the "Old" English contained in the King James Bible, this glossary gives the modern meaning, and specific passages wherein these "Old" English words are used.)
Hark Ministries, by Harold Arkell (New URL!)
The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), © 1997 by T.L. Hubeart Jr.
The King James Bible Only: A Rejection of the Modern Versions (Two-Page article; be sure and read through the second page!)
The King James Bible Page
The King James Version Defended, by Edward F. Hills, Th.D. (Free download; click "TEXTUS RECEPTUS", on left side of screen)
The King James Version Controversy
The KJV Preservation Page
Learn The King James Bible, from Antioch Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Logos 1611's Page (Dr. Thomas and Amy Holland)
The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the Biblical Text (Trinitarian Bible Society)
Modern Bibles - The Dark Secret (Part 2)
New Age Bible Versions, by Gail Riplinger ("Many people have tried to refute the arguments contained in New Age Bible Versions. James White is one of those who tried in vain to discredit Ms. Riplinger and her work. Here is a link to his attacks and the response of Ms. Riplinger." )
The NEW King James Bible should be rejected, because it changes the faith "of" Christ to our faith "in" Christ
Occam's Razor and Acts 12:4: Even as late as the year 1535, "Easter" was considered to be the correct name for the Passover (the word "Passover" was coined by William Tyndale, for his translation of the Penteteuch in 1530); therefore, the principle of Occam's Razor ("the simplest proof is the best proof") shows why the Greek word "pascha" is properly translated as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
The Perfect Word Page
Proof the NEW King James Bible is Corrupted, By Will Kinney
The Roots of the KJV: Tyndale and the "Geneva Bible"
Scholastic Skullduggery: 'This pamphlet is written for those who like to tell you about the changes that must be made in our King James Bible dictated by manuscript evidence. They love to say "it is found in the oldest manuscripts"and "most manuscripts say."; But whenever they wish, they will violate their own rules to change a reading anyway, even if the oldest and most manuscripts agree with the KJV.'
The Seven Seals: How to Understand the King James Bible It is impossible to understand the Bible unless God's criteria are met.
Watch Unto Prayer
Which Bible?
WhichVersion?
Why we use only the King James Bible, from Chegoggin Baptist Church
Why the Word "Easter" is NOT a Mistranslation of the Word "Pascha", by Dr. Samuel Gipp
Word of Truth Ministries
www.Jesus-is-Lord.com
READ THE KING JAMES BIBLE, ONLINE!
COMPARE THE NIV ONLINE, which deletes (or casts doubt upon the authenticity of) Mt. 17:21, Mt. 18:11, Mt. 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:27, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, and 1 John 5:7; as well as portions of Mt. 27:35, Luke 9:55-56, John 3:13, Acts 15:18, Romans 8:1, Romans 11:6, 1 Cor. 10:28, Colossians 1:14, 1 John 4:3, Rev. 1:8, Rev. 1:11, Rev. 5:14, Rev. 11:17, and Rev. 21:24.
Compare also the New American Standard, which (in addition to having most of the same Textual variations as the NIV) also calls our Lord and Saviour the only begotten "God", in John 1:18! Click Here to read that passage for yourself.





You may also contact me by e-mail, if you wish