Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 1

MODERN VERSIONS AND

THE KING JAMES VERSION

Revelation 6:1-5 from

the original King James Version, 1611

Biblical Research Institute

1997
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 2

Modern Versions and the KJV

Biblical Research Institute

Introduction

M
any Seventh-day Adventist are aware of the on to be the conspirators.3 Outside our church the New Age (a
going debate in our church over which Bible union of Eastern mysticism and the occult) conspiracy is a
should be read, the Kind James Version (KJV) popular candidate.4 When the Greek text of the Textus Recep-
or one of the modern versions. Much of the tus is compared with the “New Greek” found in the Nestle’s
discussion has originated with those who believe the KJV is and the United Bible Society’s editions of the Greek NT, the
the only Bible that should be used by God’s remnant people. defenders of the KJV propose a conspiracy on the part of
But most Adventists are not aware that the “KJV Only” con- apostate church fathers in early Christianity.5
troversy has been going on for over a century within various A meeting of the minds between those who stand for “The
Protestant churches and is still a point of heated debate. KJV Only” and those who see no harm in reading a modern
In some quarters the debate has degenerated into version may be beyond ready possibility, especially if KJV
mean‑spirited, abusive, and insulting rhet­oric which does defenders continue to insist there is conspiracy behind every
not reflect the spirit of Christ. James R. White suggests that other version. This study is a modest attempt to accomplish
Dr. Peter Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute is the four things: (1) a brief review of the issues invovled in the
most vocal and abusive defender of the KJV. White quotes controversy, (2) a brief look at some variant readings that KJV
Ruckman as calling a gentleman who does not agree with Only defenders cite as evidence of an existing conspiracy (for
him a “deceived fool,” stupid, and “a miserable little liar” a more detailed treatment see James R. White, The King James
whose ideas are nothing but his own “conceited opinions.”1 Only Controversy), (3) a short history of the development of
In his Bible Believer’s Commentary on Acts 19:2, Ruckman the Textus Receptus and the KJV, and (4) Ellen White’s ap-
says, “If you can’t handle verse 6 as it is written, what is praisal of the revised versions that appeared in her day.
the point in changing verse 2, unless you are trying to play
`god’ for a bunch of idol‑worshipping suckers (`Christians’) Definition of Terms
who are too stupid to check their speedometers?”2 Although
other defenders of the KJV are not as abusive as Ruckman, The following terms will be used throughout this
his insulting rhetoric does little to commend his cause to a study:
serious thinker.
Seventh‑day Adventists who prefer the KJV must not TR = Textus Receptus, the edition of the Greek New
allow themselves to be dragged down to Ruckman’s level. Testament that reflects the largest number of the
In our discussion of Bible versions, a petty, mean spirit will NT Greek manuscripts (Byzantine texts) lying
not win the day for anyone and it will certainly misrepresent behind the KJV. In this study, references to the
Christ. The strong feeling and clear statements on the part of TR are based upon Stephanus’s third edition
KJV Only defenders that modern versions minimize and gloss of the Greek NT published in 1550 and Beza’s
over distinctive Adventist teachings and that the use of mod- fourth edition published in 1598.
ern versions will lead to a falling away from the three angels’
messages, must not turn us from a calm, cool‑headed approach MS = a single Greek manuscript.
to the issues that raise this controversy in our church.
Most defenders of the KJV, both within and outside MSS = two or more Greek manuscripts.
the Adventist faith, see some kind of conspiracy behind the
readings in modern versions that differ from the KJV. Among Byzantine text = the type of text found in the majority
Adventists the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church seem of NT manuscripts.

1 James R. White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 110-11.
2 Ibid., 240 (n.12).
3 Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish, Modern Bible Translations, (Rapidan, Virginia: Hartland Publications, 1993).
4 G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Munroe Falls, Ohio: AV Publications, 1993).
5 Ibid., 338-39.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 3

text is copied, the more likely it will be corrupted. Because

Alexandrian text = the type of text that is found in the Byzantine text lying behind the TR and the KJV has the
many of the oldest NT manuscripts, best rep- longest history of being copied, it is more likely to have
resented by Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century), been corrupted by additions. Bruce Metzger notes the fact
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph 4th century), and the that textual critics studying ancient non‑Christian religious
papyrus MS P75 (3rd century). This text‑type literature are convinced that these texts tended to grow over
has now become the accepted text among textual the centuries and that scribes did not deliberately omit por-
scholars and the basis for new Bible versions. tions of what they copied. What happened among copyists
in the history of the transmission of these ancient religious
Issues in the Controversy writings no doubt happened as Christian copyists reproduced
The proverbial glass of water best illustrates the core of the NT text.9
the controversy between the defenders of the TR and the Al- Those who defend the KJV argue that it reflects the
exandrian text. Is the glass half full or half empty? Whatever majority of Greek MSS, therefore it is the most accurate
the answer, it is a matter of perspective. This, in turn, becomes translation of the “autographs” (original documents) into
the core of the argument between those who defend the KJV, English. Those who defend modern versions note that the
which is based on the Byzantine text‑type that underlies the KJV follows readings in places where the TR itself does not
TR, and the majority of new versions based on the Alexandrian carry the majority Byzantine Greek text which the KJV Only
text‑type. advocates defend so passionately. Therefore modern versions
Those who defend the TR say that it contains the complete are closer to what the original authors wrote. This brings us
and accurate text of the Greek NT and is closest to what the full circle to the proverbial question, Is the glass half empty
authors originally wrote.6 God has preserved this text through or half full? The vexing problem is, we do not know. Not one
the centuries, they say, while the various “corrupt” types of of the original documents produced by Bible writers has ever
text ceased to be copied by scribes in the early centuries of been found.
church history. The “corruption” of the Alexandrian text‑type The fact that we do not have the autographs has created
can be seen in its omission of words, phrases, and whole a problem that White identifies as “the desire for absolute
verses, as well as its substitution of words and transposition certainty.” White goes on to say, “It is argued that unless we
of words and phrases. embrace the KJV as our ‘final authority,’ we have no final
The “corrupt” text of MSS Aleph and B originated with authority at all, and hence all is subjectivity and uncertainty.
such church fathers as Origen and Eusebius and grew out of People do not want subjectivity, but desire certainty and clar-
the Arian controversy of the third and fourth centuries—a ity, and so we must hold to the ‘traditional’ text.”10 But how do
debate that raged over the nature of Christ.7 Thus, some TR we know that Erasmus, or Stephanus, or Beza, whose works
defenders say that Aleph and B reflect a conspiracy to deprive lie behind the TR, chose the correct reading when the MSS
Jesus of His divinity. This, in turn, has laid the foundation for of the majority text disagree with each other? The answer is,
the New Age concept that Jesus was only one of many christs we don’t.
that have appeared through­out history and the belief that all But this does not mean that all is lost and we are swim-
humans have divinity within. This teaching of Eastern mysti- ming in a sea of uncertainty when we read our Bibles and
cism has its roots in the original deception, “And ye shall be try to discern the Word of the Lord. Some have estimated
as God” (Gen. 3:5, KJV, margin). that there are approximately 200,000 variant readings in the
Defenders of the Alexandrian text, on the other hand, say 5,300 plus MSS and fragments of the Greek NT. It has also
that the TR is “corrupt” because it is a conflated text. That is been noted that only about one‑ eighth of the variants have
to say, copyist scribes over the centuries have added words, any significance. This means that over 98 percent of the text
phrases, and even whole verses from notes written in the of the NT is pure whether a person reads the TR or another
margin of manuscripts and other sources out of fear of omit- edition of the Greek NT.11
ting something that the authors might have originally written. At those places where significant variants occur, the rules
Because the MSS representing the Alexandrian text are the of textual analysis can be applied and tentative conclusions
oldest, they best represent what the authors originally wrote.8 reached; tentative, because only the autographs could resolve
Defenders of the Alexandrian text argue that the more often a the question as to which variant reading is the correct reading.

6 Standish and Standish, 23.

7 Riplinger, 334-50.
8 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968),
133-34.
9 Ibid., 163.
10 White, 93.
11 Ibid., 93.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 4

Until they are found, if ever, an honest decision guided by the On some pages, White could not find the words that
Holy Spirit and based upon the experience of working with Riplinger is supposed to be quoting, and on others there is
ancient MSS is the best we have. nothing “remotely relevant to the quotation.”14 White says,
In the discussion over which Bible should be read, it is
important to remember that usually the differences between The fact that a number of pages cited by Rip-
modern English versions and the KJV simply reflect differ- linger in her note, in fact, contain nothing relevant
ences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian text‑types. to her excerpt, and the complete “cut and paste”
Many KJV Only defenders, however, present these differ- nature of her citation, makes it difficult to identify
ences as proof of conspiracy on the part of the editors of the the specific pages from which she is allegedly
English versions when these editors are merely reflecting the drawing her information.15
differences that already exist in the different types of Greek
texts. In bewilderment, White asks:
In fact, some KJV Only advocates see a conspiracy even
when a modern version gives a literal, word‑for‑word transla-
tion of the TR, but that translation differs from the KJV. For Is it possible, to be fair, that Riplinger is simply
example, where the KJV reads “deliver us from evil” in the not familiar enough with the subject to follow such
Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13), the NEB and NIV read “deliver a complex work as this by Westcott and Hort? And
[save] us from the evil one.” The readings found in the NEB how would we know? If a pattern of this kind of
and NIV are condemned as corrupt when, in fact, they are “cut and paste” citation is found, we can safely
actually literal translations of the TR. In addition, the KJV conclude that New Age Bible Versions presents an
edition with chain references has the following note on Matt unfair and unreliable view of modern scholarship.
6:13, “Or the evil (one).” Examples such as the above make Does such a pattern exist? An impartial review of
it clear that for many KJV defenders the KJV has become the the work proves that such a pattern does indeed
standard of how the Bible should read even if it disagrees with exist.16
the TR that lies behind it.
Such inconsistencies on the part of KJV Only defenders Controversial Passages
has led White to conclude:
Space limitation makes it impossible for us to examine
King James Onlyism is a human tradition. in depth all readings in modern versions that are criticized
It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in by KJV Only advocates. Only a sample from those that they
fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular give the greatest attention will be examined. For a more
reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more detailed presentation, The King James Only Controversy is
double standards than almost any system of thought a good source. We must emphasize once more that most of
I have ever encountered.12 the differences between the KJV and modern versions reflect
different readings in the two Greek text‑types behind them.
When a person has a fixation on conspiracies, he sees One of the most frequent criticisms of modern versions
evidence of them at every turn. If there is no evidence, it is the supposed omission of terms connected with the divin-
is created. Riplinger’s work, New Age Bible Versions, is a ity of Jesus. Many times charts like the following attempt to
good example. Anyone who has read this book will notice illustrate the point.17 By examining the two columns, “omis-
the repeated use of ellipses in her quotations, especially those sions” found in modern versions can clearly be seen as well
from the work of B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Because she as alternate readings.
believes there is a New Age conspiracy behind the Greek text
produced by these men, she sets out to prove it. White owns Reference KJV Modern Versions
the books written by Westcott and Hort that Riplinger quotes, Matthew 4:18 Jesus He
and when he checked her quotations, he wrote, “I was Matthew 12:25 Jesus He
Mark 2:15 Jesus He
simply shocked by the blatant editing of the words Mark 10:52 Jesus He
of these two men by Gail Riplinger.”13 Luke 24:36 Jesus He

12 Ibid., 249. White repeatedly points out examples of this double standard as he examines the position of KJV Only advocates.
13 Ibid., 100.
14 Ibid., 101.
15 Ibid., 101.
16 Ibid., 102.
17 Chart adapted from The King James Only Controversy, 45-46, 194-95.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 5

Acts 19:10 Lord Jesus Lord of piety,” as White calls it.19 Again, is the glass half empty
1 Corinthians 16:22 Lord Jesus Christ Lord or half full, and how does one know the Byzantine text was
Acts 19:4 Christ Jesus Jesus
1 Corinthians 9:1 Jesus Christ Jesus expanded by pious scribes and the text was not shortened by
2 Corinthians 4:10 Lord Jesus Jesus Alexandrian scribes? Mark 2:15 helps us again by showing
Hebrews 3:1 Christ Jesus Jesus that “expansion of piety” exists. Where the TR reads He,
1 John 1:7 Jesus Christ Jesus the KJV committee piously expanded the reading to Jesus.
Revelation 1:9 Jesus Christ Jesus
Revelation 12:17 Jesus Christ Jesus A careful comparison between the TR and the KJV would,
1 Thessalonians 3:11 our Lord Jesus Christ Jesus our Lord no doubt, show other differences in other passages that are
2 Corinthians 5:18 Jesus Christ Christ criticized by KJV Only defenders. We have already examined
Acts 15:11 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Jesus two in this paper, Matthew 6:13 and Mark 2:15.
Acts 16:31 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Jesus
1 Corinthians 5:4 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Jesus John 6:47 is another verse held up by KJV Only advocates
2 Corinthians 11:31 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Jesus as an example of minimizing the divinity of Jesus in modern
2 Thessalonians 1:8 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Jesus versions,20 but it is really another example of expansion of
2 Thessalonians 1:12 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Jesus piety. The KJV reads, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
2 John 1:3 the Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ
believeth on me hath everlasting life.” Almost all modern
Two observations are important regarding the differences versions leave out “on me,” thus simply saying that all who
appearing in the above chart. First, in the first five passages believe have everlasting life.
the KJV reads Jesus while modern versions read He. The Gar Baybrook’s comment on this verse is restrained
“substitution” of He for the name Jesus is supposed to be compared with those of D. A. Waite. Baybrook says, “`On
an example of attempts to minimize the deity of Jesus. But Me’ has been left out. Belief alone is not sufficient. The devil
if you read the Gospels as they appear in the KJV, you will believes. We must believe on Jesus implicitly.”21 Waite, on the
discover that He was considered to be a perfectly good word, other hand, labels the apparent omission of “on me” “one of
used repeatedly in reference to Jesus. The personal pronoun the CLEAREST theological errors.” It presents “ANOTHER
He is “substituted” for Jesus to minimize repetition. Pronouns GOSPEL” because a person is free to believe in anything he
were invented for this purpose. Where it is used, the context chooses and have everlasting life—”in Santa Claus, in the
always will let you know who the He is. Easter Bunny, in the Tooth Fairy, in Rudolph the Red‑nosed
Mark 2:15 from the above chart is one of several verses Reindeer. . . . This is SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PER-
that Riplinger lists in her chart that supposedly proves modern VERSION! This is certainly a matter of doctrine and
versions are “preparing mankind to receive the Antichrist and theology”22
‘worship the dragon.’”18 But when you look at the verses In fact, is the “omission” of “on me” in John 6:47 part
surrounding Mark 2:15 in the KJV, you will see He is used of a conspiracy on the part of the editors of modern versions
ever ywhere to refer to Jesus. If the use of He instead of Jesus to minimize the divinity of Jesus? If you consult a modern
in Mark 2:15 minimizes the deity of Jesus and prepares the version, you will find something very similar to the following
world to receive the antichrist, then what is to be made of quotes from the NASB:
all the other uses of He in reference to Jesus in the KJV? Is
there a conspiracy here as Riplinger wants all of her readers Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he
to believe? who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who
Among the first five passages in the chart above, Mark believes in Me shall never thirst (John 6:35).
2:15 provides a good illustration, because the TR actually
reads He and not Jesus. Modern versions have been severely For this is the will of My Father, that every
criticized for downgrading Jesus by replacing His name with one who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may
He when the truth is modern versions give a literal translation have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on
of the TR where the KJV does not. This leads us to the second the last day (John 6:40).
observation based on what is found in the above chart.
The rest of the chart illustrates a common characteristic If a conspiracy exists to minimize the divinity of Jesus by
of the Byzantine text‑type: names and titles for Jesus have omitting believing “on me” in John 6:47, why did the modern
been expanded. For example, pious scribes expanded Jesus editors not remove belief in Jesus from verses 35 and 40 of
into Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus into the Lord Jesus Christ, the same chapter? And why were the following verses in the
etc. The older Alexandrian MSS do not show this “expansion NASB not edited by this conspiracy?

18 Riplinger, 17.
19 White, 196.
20 See White, 170-73.
21 Gar Baybrook, The S.D.A. Bible (Payson, Arizona: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1990), 78.
22 D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible (Collingswood, New Jersey: The Bible For Today, 1992), 158.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 6

He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, How can the “omission” in John 6:47 be explained? It
“From his innermost being shall flow rivers of liv- is another example of copyists’ expansion of piety. Since in
ing water” (John 7:38). two verses (6:35, 40) just prior to John 6:47 read, “he who
believes in Me” and “believes in Him,” it would be very easy
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection, and for a pious scribe to bring verse 47 into harmony with verses
the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he 35 and 40. And if the scribe was well acquainted with the
dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me Gospel of John, he would probably remember that there are
shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25, other verses that read “believes in Me.” What we see here is
26). harmonization based on expansion of piety.
Riplinger sees a conspiracy on the part of modern versions
And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes to lead Christians into the errors of the New Age movement
in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent and finally the acceptance of antichrist. Among the many
Me” (John 12:44). evidences cited for such a conspiracy is the use of the word
“age(s)” by modern versions instead of “world.” She says:
I have come as light into the world, that every-
one who believes in Me may not remain in darkness The real religion of America is astrology, if
(John 12:46). the study of Northern Illinois University is cor-
rect, indicating that 70% of Americans read their
We noted earlier that White sees the KJV Only defenders horoscope. The children are following, as Gallop’s
as using a double standard. Believing on Jesus is an excel- [sic.] pole [sic.] showed 60% of them also believed
lent illustration of this. While Baybrook and Waite criticize in astrology. If ‘ages’ are standard in the religion of
modern versions for leaving “on me” out of John 6:47, leaving today’s internationals and Americans, be assured
people to wonder what they are to believe or who they are to that the New International Version, New American
believe in, they make no mention of the following verses in Standard and the New King James are attuned to
the KJV that do exactly what they accuse modern versions of the religion of the age. So dozens of times they
doing. Can you see a conspiracy in the following verses from substitute “ages” for “world”, reinforcing the ideas
the KJV? of the “New” age movement.23

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, The KJV is fairly consistent in translating the Greek
all thing are possible to him that believeth (Mark word aion (age) as “world” except where it is used for vast
9:23). expanses of time, i.e., “for ever,” or “for ever and ever.”
A leading authority in Greek, Joseph Henry Thayer, gives
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: “age” as the primary meaning of aion. Aion was thought of
for it is the power of God unto salvation to every by ancient Greeks as defining a container in which things are
one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the contained, “i.e., the aggregate of things contained in time.”24
Greek (Romans 1:16). Therefore “world” is a permissible translation of aion because
it is contained within time.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteous- Modern versions are not wrong in translating aion as
ness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4). ”age” nor is there a conspiracy behind such a translation. They
simply make a distinction between aion and two other Greek
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any words for world—kosmos, something that is orderly, i.e.,
brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be “world” or “universe,” and oikoumene, “inhabited earth.”
pleased to dwell with him let him not put her away Space does not permit further investigation of various
(1 Corinthians 7:12). passages that come under criticism by KJV Only defenders.
The reader is directed to White’s book, The King James Only
Believe what, or in whom? The KJV does not say. Is this Controversy, for further examples.
a conspiracy? Of course not. How, then, can the “omission” The charge that modern versions minimize the deity of
of “on me” in John 6:47 be a part of a conspiracy when state- Jesus re‑echoes throughout the writings of KJV Only defend-
ments all around this verse say that those who believe in Jesus ers. However, there are a number of places where modern
will have life? versions are stronger and clearer on the deity of Jesus than

23 Riplinger, 282-83.
24 Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and s Authors, Inc.,
n.d.).
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 7

the KJV. One example is John 1:18. The KJV reads, “No man Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of
hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Modern (RSV).
versions like the NASB read, “only begotten God,” and the
NIV, “but God the One and Only” instead of “only begotten The wording of the KJV presents two Gods: (1) “the great
Son.” God” and (2) “our Saviour Jesus Christ.” The RSV presents
The phrase, “only begotten Son,” appears in John 3:16, only one, “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The RSV
18 where the theological context is the gift of God’s Son to is following Sharp’s rule of Greek grammar and thus renders
the fallen human race. The theological context of the opening a clearer statement on the deity of Jesus.
to John’s gospel, of which 1:18 is the summary, is the deity This difference can be seen again in 2 Peter 1:1:
of Jesus, and “only begotten God” fits this context better than
“only begotten Son.” Without a doubt, the modern versions Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus
make a stronger statement about Jesus’ deity than the KJV, Christ, to them that have obtained like precious
especially the NIV where Jesus is called God. faith with us through the righteousness of God and
It appears that some KJV advocates criticize “only be- our Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV).
gotten God” because they do not understand what the phrase
“only begotten” conveys. For example, one critic of modern Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus
versions says, “How can anyone claim that one that is begot- Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal
ten is at the same time essential God, equal in every respect standing with ours in the righteousness of our God
to God the Father, and to God the Holy Spirit? This makes and Savior Jesus Christ (RSV).
Christ to be a created Being”25 This writer is thinking of “only
begotten” in terms of origin. What is not understood is that The RSV is clear that Jesus is both God and Saviour,
“only begotten” conveys the idea of uniqueness or priority. while this important truth is obscured in the KJV. Is there
This concept is clearly illustrated in Hebrews 11:17 where then a conspiracy on the part of the men who produced the
Isaac is called Abraham’s “only begotten son.” Actually Isaac KJV to minimize the divinity of Jesus? No. We have looked
was not Abraham’s only begotten son for he had several sons, at only three examples where modern versions are clearer on
one of whom was Ishmael. But Isaac had priority. He had the Jesus’ deity than the KJV. There are others as well.
birthright, and the covenant promises passed from Abraham
through him to Jacob, thus he was the “only begotten son.”
Two Problem Passages
Because “only begotten Son” is used to describe Jesus’
relationship with the human race in John 3:16, 18, it is easy to
Two lengthy passages present textual problems that are
see how a scribe could have harmonized John 1:18 with His
unique position as Son. In the introduction to John’s gospel, identified in various ways in modern versions. One is the
Jesus is proclaimed as God, as the Creator, and in summariz- closing verses of Mark (16:9‑20) and the other is the story of
ing his introductory comments in 1:18, John proclaims Jesus’ the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53‑8:11).
priority, His uniqueness, His divinity— “the only begotten There is a division of opinion among NT scholars as
God.” to how Mark ended his gospel. Five different endings are
In some passages, modern versions make a clearer state- suggested by various MSS sources. The uncertainty over the
ment about the divinity of Jesus than the KJV. This is espe- ending is reflected in modern versions. The NIV has a bold
cially true in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 where they adhere to black line after Mark 16:8 with a note, “The two most reli-
Granville Sharp’s rule. Sharp’s rule, simply stated is, When able early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9‑20.” The RSV
two common, singular nouns in the same case are connected separates verse 8 from verse 9 by a double space and has the
by “kai” (and) and there is an article in front of the first noun following note at the bottom of the page:
only, both nouns refer to the same person or thing.
Compare Titus 2:13 in the KJV and the RSV: Some of the most ancient authorities bring the
book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority
Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the fol-
appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus lowing: But they reported briefly to Peter and those
Christ (KJV). with him all that they had been told. And after this,

25 Jay P. Green, Sr. in The King James Only Controversy, 258.

 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 8

Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east Origin of the TR
to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation
of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the The first printed Greek NT did not come off the press
preceding passage and continue with verses 9‑20. until 1514. It was part of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible
In most authorities verse 9‑20 follow immediately which also had Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin texts. Although
after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional it was printed in January, 1514, it was not released until 1522.
material after verse 14. Learning that the Polyglot Bible had already been printed but
was not to be published until later, Johann Froben determined
Because the supposedly “corrupt” MSS Aleph (Sinaiti- to publish a Greek NT before the Polyglot was made available.
cus) and B (Vaticanus) are the primary “ancient authorities” Enlisting the help of Desiderius Erasmus, Erasmus went to
that omit verses 9‑20, KJV Only defenders are critical of Basle in July 1515 hoping to find quality Greek MSS to be
modern versions that either follow the Alexandrian text‑type used for the proposed Greek NT. His hopes were disappointed,
or indicate in a note that textual problems exist. Riplinger however. He could find only about a half dozen MSS, and
sees the omission in Aleph and B as part of a conspiracy to they needed correcting before being used by the printer.
remove the teaching of Jesus’ ascension.26 The Standish broth- Erasmus relied mainly on two twelfth century MSS,
ers say the omission resulted from carelessness in copying one for the Gospels and one for Acts and the Epistles. As he
and is further evidence that these two MSS are faulty.27 It is worked, he compared them with two or three others. He had
obvious that when there are so many possible readings for a only one twelfth‑century MS for Revelation with the last page
given passage that something is wrong. But because we do missing the last six verses. So he translated the Latin Vulgate
not have the autograph of Mark’s Gospel, we do not know back into Greek to supply the missing verses. The result was
which ending is correct, or if any of them are correct. some readings that have not been found in any other Greek
MS, but are now a part of the TR.
Metzger suggests three possibilities for the confusion: At other places Erasmus introduced material from the
Latin Vulgate into his Greek text, and this material has become
(a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at a part of the TR which lies behind the KJV. An example is
this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; Acts 9:6: “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what
or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel acci- wilt thou have me to do?” This question asked by Paul at the
dentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied time of his conversion appears at Acts 22:10, but no known
by transcription. Greek MS has it at 9:6. This addition from the Vulgate was
retained in the TR and now appears in the KJV.29
He concludes, “Thus, on the basis of good external evi- The most famous addition made by Erasmus is known
dence and strong internal considerations it appears that the as the Comma Johanneum and can be found in the KJV at 1
earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with John 5:7, 8 (added material is in italic type):
16:8.”28
John 7:53‑8:11 presents a problem similar to the ending of For there are three that bear record in heaven,
Mark. Again modern versions indicate in one way or another the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
that there is a textual problem following John 7:52. Besides these three are one. And there are three that bear
being located after John 7:52 in some MSS, the story of the witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the
woman taken in adultery is also found after 7:36 in one MS, blood: and these three agree in one.
after 7:44 in others, and after John 21:25 in still others. In
one family of MSS it is found after Luke 21:38. In addition Stunica, one of the editors of the Polyglot Bible, chal-
to this, John 7:52 and 8:12 fit together naturally. The story of lenged Erasmus because these words were missing in his
the adulteress breaks the natural flow of what John wrote. It is 1516 Greek NT. Although Erasmus had examined other MSS
recognized that this experience in the life of Jesus is historical, since his NT had been published, he could not find one that
but it originally existed as an oral report, as all of the Gospel supported the above addition. Therefore he told Stunica that
Story did before it was written down, and it was inserted into the addition would be made in his next edition if he could see
both the Gospels of John and Luke after they were written. even one MS with the words in it. Finally one was presented

26 Riplinger, 364-65.
27 Standish and Standish, 136.
28 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 126.
29 Metzger, The Text of the New Tatament, 99, 100.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 9

to Erasmus. Metzger says that there is a real possibility that tially a handful of late and haphazardly collected
the MS shown to Erasmus was written in Oxford around 1520 minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen passages
by a Franciscan monk named Froy who took the words from its reading is supported by no known Greek wit-
the Latin Vulgate. Good to his word, Erasmus included them ness.32
in his third edition of 1522. But he also included a long note
expressing his suspicions that the MS had been specially The following diagram of the development of the TR
prepared for his benefit. Since Erasmus’ time, three MSS have may be helpful:
been found to carry the disputed reading, a twelfth‑century
MS with it written in the margin in a sixteenth‑century hand, Erasmus’s 4th (1527) and 5th (1535) editions
a sixteenth‑century MS copy of the Polyglot Greek text, and
a fourteenth‑ (or as some argue a sixteenth­­­‑) century MS. The
oldest known use of these words is found in a fourth‑century
Latin treatise by a Spanish bishop entitled Liber apologeti- Stephanus’s 4th edition (1551)
cus.30 This then would be a truly variant reading that originated (The 3rd edition of 1550 became for many in England
the received or standard text of the Greek NT)
with Rome.
The next step in the development of the TR was the work
of Stephanus. Using Erasmus’s fourth (1527) and fifth (1535)
editions and combining them with the Polyglot Greek text,
Beza’s 1565 edition
he published two editions in 1546 and 1549. His third edition
(1550), which followed Erasmus’s fourth and fifth editions
more closely, became the standard Greek NT in England.
Stephanus’s fourth edition (1551) became the basis of
Elzevirs’ 2nd edition (1633)
Beza’s 1565 Greek NT, which in turn became the text followed “[the reader has] the text which in now received by all,
by the Elzevir brothers. In the preface of the Elzevir second in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.”
edition (1633), the following comment was made, “[the reader
has] the text which is now received by all, in which we give Origin of the KJV33
nothing changed or corrupted.” Metzger observes:
The earliest English Bibles were handwritten translations
Thus from what was a more or less casual of Latin MSS, mainly the Vulgate. The first complete English
phrase advertising the edition (what modern pub- Bible is identified with John Wycliffe, and was a stiff, literal
lishers might call a “blurb”), there arose the desig- translation from inferior Latin Vulgate texts. The first printed
nation “Textus Receptus”, or commonly received, English NT was produced by William Tyndale (1494‑1536,
standard text.31 martyred) and published in 1526. Tyndale’s NT was based on
Erasmus’s second and third editions. Tyndale also published
This second edition was published in 1633, 22 years after a translation of the Pentateuch (1530) and of Jonah (1531).
the KJV had been published in 1611. Obviously the Elzevirs’ Miles Coverdale (1488‑1569) published the first complete
NT which claims to contain “the text which is now received English Bible (1535). The NT was Tyndale’s first edition,
by all” could not be the basis for the KJV. If the Elzevirs’ text revised by his second edition plus Luther’s German NT.
of the NT was not used by the KJV committees, what was? Matthew’s Bible (1537) is historically important be-
The answer is the Greek editions that preceded the Elzevirs’ cause the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the KJV, and all
second edition—mainly Stephanus’s 1550 and Beza’s 1598 of its almost dozen revisions are essentially a revision of this
editions. These two Greek NTs represented the TR before the 1537 text. Matthew’s Bible was produced by John Rogers
editor’s `blurb’ in the Elzevirs’ second edition. (1500‑1550). The name Matthew was probably used by Rog-
Metzger’s closing comment on the TR is: ers to veil his association with Tyndale, who was executed
for producing the Bible in English. The veil did not help, for
So superstitious has been the reverence ac- at his trial he is referred to as “John Rogers, alias Matthew”
corded the Textus Receptus that in some cases at- and he too was martyred in 1550 by Bloody Mary. In this
tempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded Bible, the OT was made up of Tyndale’s Pentateuch, Joshua
as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essen- to 2 Chronicles was Tyndale’s unpublished work, and Ezra

30 Ibid., 101-02.
31 Ibid., 106.
32 Ibid., 106.
33 The following information on the development of the KJV is taken from A Concise History of the English Bible (New York: American Bible
Society, 1986).
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 10

to Malachi, plus the Apocrypha was Coverdale’s work. The Beza’s Latin text and the Geneva and Rheims NTs. The OT
NT section was Tyndale’s latest revision. In other words, 65 was compared with the Geneva OT. When poor wording or a
percent of Matthew’s Bible was the work of Tyndale. disagreement was found, the committees were to use Tyndale,
The Great Bible (1540) was the first revision of Mat- Matthew, Coverdale, Whetchurch, or the Geneva Bible to
thew’s Bible. Because Coverdale’s and Matthew’s Bibles make corrections. On the basis of these instructions, it is clear
had lengthy notes and prologues that offended some people, the KJV is not a fresh translation of the original languages,
Henry VIII commissioned Cromwell to provide a new Bible and in this sense it is not a version, it is a revision. Where
free of interpretations. Cromwell, in turn, asked Coverdale corrections were made, they were not made on the basis of a
to prepare a new text of the Bible by using the work of other fresh translation. The wording of existing versions, most of
men. Coverdale was told he was not to use his own work. them already revisions, were to be used.
Coverdale set to work using a new and excellent Latin version No human being is perfect, including the men who have
of the OT to revise Matthew’s OT. Then he used the Vulgate worked on Bible versions. Of this group, none have come
and Erasmus’s Latin version to revise Matthew’s NT. The under more severe criticism than Westcott and Hort.
resulting Great Bible got its name from its size. The title White says, “KJV Only advocates love to hate B. F.
page of 1540 says, “This is the Bible appointed to be read in Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort’s work on the
churches,” so the Great Bible became the first “authorized Greek New Testament is seen as a focal point of the attempt
version.” to `dethrone’ the KJV and its underlying Greek text.”34
When Henry VIII died, his Roman Catholic daughter, Westcott and Hort revised the TR by using MSS that were
“Bloody” Mary, ascended the throne of England and began much older than those used by previous editors of the Greek
persecuting Protestants. Many Bible scholars fled to Geneva, NT. Some of these ancient MSS had not yet been discovered
and there they produced the Geneva Bible (1560). The OT when Erasmus and Stephanus did their work. The Greek NT
was that of the Great Bible, and the NT was a careful cor- published by these men became the foundation for the English
rection of Tyndale based on Beza’s Latin NT. The work on Revised Version (1885) and the American Standard Version
the NT was done by William Whitingham, brother‑in‑law of (1901) which KJV Only advocates see as competition for the
John Calvin. This Bible quickly became the most widely read KJV.
English Bible by the common people. Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions, is a continu-
The Great Bible, the first “authorized version,” was be- ous attack on these two men and their work. Her aim is to tie
ing read and preached from the pulpit, but the people in the them to spiritualism. They figure prominently in a chapter
pews had the Geneva Bible. The Great Bible was just too entitled “Necromancers,” and are included in a subsection of
cumbersome to take to church. This presented a problem that this chapter called “Satan’s Apostles.”35 Because they helped
we are familiar with today. In addition to that, the Geneva establish a club called the “Ghostlie Guild,” they are seen as
Bible was not sponsored by the Church of England. So the Satan’s agents who have helped prepare the Christian world
Great Bible was revised by the bishops of the church. Known to receive the antichrist and last‑day deceptions.
as the Bishop’s Bible, there was to be one in every cathedral Standish and Standish say Westcott and Hort were Roman
and one in each church, if possible. But the Geneva Bible was Catholics at heart, and that Hort was a devoted evolutionist
still the version of choice used in the homes. and came as close to being a Jesuit as a person can without
When Elizabeth I died in 1603, her successor, James being one. In fact a Jesuit could not have done a better job
I, wanted to bring order out of the chaos over which Bible than Hort in destroying confidence in the KJV.36
should be read. From an appointed group of 54 men from Westcott and Hort were indeed members of the club
Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford, six companies were set known as the “Ghostlie Guild,” Westcott, it seems, more
up to prepare a new Bible, two from each location. Genesis active than Hort. After researching their involvement, White
to 2 Kings went to Westminster, 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes concludes that they were not occultists (spiritualists). He says,
went to Cambridge, Isaiah to Malachi went to Oxford, the “Westcott’s involvement in a club called the “Ghostlie Guild”
Apocrypha went to Cambridge, the Four Gospels, Acts, and has led to all sorts of such charges, but the club was formed
Revelation went to Oxford, and Romans to Jude went to to investigate strange occurrences, not engage in devilish
Westminster. activity.”37
The instructions were to revise the Bishop’s Bible. The As Anglicans they believed in the immortality of the
NT was to be modified by a comparison with the Greek soul (as did the members of the KJV committee in 1611). In
text, which, as we have seen, was primarily Stephanus’s fact, the committee’s belief in the immortal soul is reflected
1550 edition and Beza’s 1598 edition. They were also to use in that well‑known verse of the KJV, “And Jesus said unto

34 White, 99.
35 Riplinger, 397-428.
36 Standish and Standish, 29-31.
37 White, 245.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 11

The following diagram tracing the origin of the KJV may be helpful:

A Word About Westcott and Hort

Tyndale (1494-1536, martyred) Coverdale (148--1569)
NT ­– Erasmus’s 2nd and 3rd eds. NT ­– Tyndale’s 1st ed.
OT – Hebrew OT – Latin

Matthew’s Bible (1537)

(John Rogers, 1500-1555, martyred)
65% Tyndale

Great Bible (1540)

(Without Matthew’s Bible notes)

Geneva Bible (1560)

Bishop’s Bible (1568)
NT – Tyndale
OT – Great Bible

King James Version (1611)

American Standard Version (1901) English Revised Version (1881-85)

Revised Standard Version (1946-52)

New King James (1982)

him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in Some Thoughts From Ellen G. White
paradise” (Luke 23:43).
As Anglicans, Westcott and Hort felt sympathy toward At the end of 1953, Arthur L. White put together a
Rome, but the tie between the Church of England and Rome is document entitled, The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of
much stronger today than in Westcott and Hort’s day. Erasmus, the Bible. This document was revised in 1991 and can be
held in high esteem by KJV Only advocates because his Greek obtained from the E. G. White Estate. All who are interested
NT laid the foundation for the TR, defended the Catholic Mass in the KJV Only discussion are encouraged to examine this
and Transubstantiation.38 The fact that God used sinful, err- document carefully. Here is a summary.
ing men to write the Bible, and then used sinful, erring men Ellen White used the various versions of the Bible avail-
to transmit its content through the centuries, and used sinful, able to her, but she does not comment directly on their merits.
erring men to put it into the language of common, erring hu- Her practice shows, however, that she recognized the desir-
man beings is a miracle beyond description. In 1888, when ability of making use of the best of all versions. Her son, W.
Ellen White already had begun to read and use the English C. White, reports Ellen White’s attitude toward the English
Revised Version in her writings, she said, “But the Lord has Revised Version which was greatly influenced by the work of
preserved this Holy Book by His own miraculous power in Westcott and Hort:
its present shape—a chart or guidebook to the human family
to show them the way to heaven.”39 When she refers to this Before the revised version was published,
Holy Book, she makes no distinction between the KJV, or the there leaked out from the committee, statements
English Revised Version. regarding changes which they intended to make.

38 Ibid., 244-45.
39 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book 1 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 15.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 12

Some of these I brought to Mother’s attention, and W. C. White searched his memory to recall any statement
she gave me very surprising information regarding made by his mother that would indicate it is wrong to read
these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the the new versions:
revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter
of great service to us.40 I do not know of anything in the E.G. White
writings, nor can I remember of anything in Sister
Immediately after the appearance of the English Revised White’s conversations, that would intimate that she
Version and the American Standard Version (1901), Ellen felt that there was any evil in the use of the Revised
White quoted from them in her books. Version. . . .
Between 1880 and 1887, a series of articles appeared in
the Review written by various church leaders, and all made We cannot find in any of Sister White’s writ-
favorable comments on the revised Bible. During the decade ings, nor do I find in my memory, any condemna-
of the 1880s, Ellen White wrote most of her instruction about tion of the American Revised Version of the Holy
inspiration and the authority of the Bible, much of which can Scriptures.43
now be found in the “Introduction” to The Great Controversy
and in the first chapter of Selected Messages, Book 1. If there Arthur White concludes this interesting document with
is the danger that reading modern versions would cause the following:
Adventists to forsake the three angels’ messages, certainly
God would have alerted His messenger sometime during this The extracts quoted above reveal the position
decade when the first revisions began to appear. But Ellen of Ellen White on such questions as the transmis-
White shows no concern about apparent or hidden dangers. sion of the Sacred Text, the union of the divine and
Concerning the errors that have come into the biblical the human in the written record of God’s revelation
text through the course of transmission, she said: to man, and also as to her relation to the various
translations of the Holy Scriptures.44
Some look to us gravely and say, “Don’t you
think there might have been some mistake in the It interests us that Ellen White used the new revised ver-
copyist or in the translators?” This is all probable, sions more often when dealing with doctrine and the teachings
and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate of Christ than she did when dealing with pastoral material.
and stumble over this possibility or probability Some have observed that compared with the hundreds of
would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries quotations from the KJV in any given volume, the revised
of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds versions were used very little. This is true, but the fact must
cannot see through the purposes of God. . . . All the be recognized that she did use them. If these versions based
mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause on the work of Westcott and Hort will lead people away
any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture from truth, why did she use them more frequently in dealing
difficulties from the plainest revealed truth.41 with doctrine and Jesus’ teachings than in any other context?
Indeed, why did she use them at all?
Ellen White used the revised versions in the Conflict Ellen White used the KJV in the pulpit, and W. C. White
series: explains why:

In the five volumes of the Conflict of the Ages There are many persons in the congregation
Series, we find the revised versions quoted. As who remember the words of the texts we might
might be expected, those volumes that enter into use as they are presented in the Authorized Ver-
an exposition of Bible truth dealing with points of sion, and to read from the Revised Version would
doctrine or the teachings of Christ, contain more introduce perplexing questions in their minds as
texts quoted from the revised versions than do vol- to why the wording of the text had been changed
umes of counsel to the church and those presenting by the revisers and as to why it was being used by
largely historical description.42 the speaker.45

40 Arthur L. White, “The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of the Bible” (Takoma Park, Maryland: The E. G. White Estate, 1991), 1, 2.
41 See Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book 1, 16.
42 White, “The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of the Bible,” 7.
43 Ibid., 8.
44 Ibid., 9
45 Ibid., 8.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 13

She used the KJV in public to keep the minds of her Greek text developed by the work and influence of Westcott
hearers focused upon what she was saying. She did not want and Hort and based on the Alexandrian text‑type. Wescott
their minds distracted from her message and problem solving and Hort’s Greek text, though modified today, essentially lies
while she was speaking. It was not because she considered behind the more recent versions. Neither was she shown by
the new revisions dangerous for the people or that their use God that the new revisions of the KJV posed a danger for
would introduce error. the people.
Although the KJV is an expanded text, as has been shown
Conclusion above, there is nothing in the extra material that contains
doctrinal error. Those who prefer the KJV should understand
Ellen White saw the English Revised Version and the that they are reading a conflated text and they should not take
American Standard Version as useful to Seventh‑day Ad- a hostile attitude toward those who prefer to read one of the
ventists. Versions have multiplied since her day, but the modern versions. Those who read modern versions should
interesting point is that she saw no danger lurking in the choose carefully, however, for the editors of some paraphrases
Greek text that lies behind the first two revisions, i.e., the take too much liberty in rendering the biblical text.

Scriptures quoted from NASB are from the New American Standard Bible © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971,
1972, 1973, 1975, 1977.
Scriptures quoted from NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible
Society. Used by Permission.
Scriptures quoted from RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of
Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 14

Additional Notes on Ellen White’s Use

of Contemporary Versions
of the Bible
An Addendum of Modern Versions
and the King James Version

Mention has already been made, in the fourth and fi- An excellent example may be cited in Philippians 2:7
nal division of the preceding document, concerning Ellen where the apostle Paul employs the Greek verb kenoun—the
White’s appraisal of the revised versions of the Scriptures doctrine of “the emptying of the preexistent Christ,” in which
that were extant in her day. But since Seventh‑day Adventists Christ set aside His divine attributes at the incarnation, in
hold, as an article of faith, that Mrs. White was an authen- order to become fully human.3
tic, genuinely‑inspired prophet of the Lord,1 the fact of her In A.D. 1611 the translators of the King James Version
frequent and generous use of such versions has the potential chose to emphasize only one particular aspect of this “emp-
for creating a crisis in faith for some of the “KJV‑Only” tying,” by translating this verse, “But made himself of no
persuasion. reputation.” They thus focused solely upon the fact that Jesus
It may, therefore, be appropriate here to consider in willingly took upon Himself the stigma of illegitimate birth
greater detail indisputable facts concerning: as a consequence of the manner in which the incarnation was
consummated.
1. Why Ellen White made such a generous, Other translations from Mrs. White’s time through ours,
liberal use of non‑KJV translations available in her however, have tended to treat the subject in a more generalized
day. manner: The Amplified Bible offers, “but stripped himself [of
2. How she employed such in her writings. all privileges and rightful dignity]”—a verb also employed by
3. The widespread extent of such usage. W. J. Coneybeare, Richmond Lattirmore, J. B. Phillips, and
Richard Francis Weymouth.
1. Why she used modern translations. Although El- Three others versions—the New International Version,
len White did not complete more than three or four years of the New English Bible, and the Revised New English Bible—
elementary schooling, in the broadest sense of the word she translate the passage, “He made Himself nothing.”
yet cannot be thus viewed as uneducated. The four sources of But a survey of 30 different modern versions reveal
her real education are generally held to be: (a) wide reading; an overwhelmingly strong preference by translators for the
(b) extensive travel on three continents; (c) close association simple declaration found in 12 of the 30—a full 40 percent
with highly‑educated ministers and educators, with whom she of them: “He emptied Himself.”4
frequently consulted; and (d) some 2,000 prophetic visions Only the New King James Version, among all of 30
and divine dreams during the 70‑year course of her unique translations examined, stands with the old KJV in declaring
ministry, in which she regularly held direct converse with that Christ “made Himself of no reputation.”
either Jesus or the angel Gabriel.2 The more important fact that should be noted, however,
Though not seminary‑trained, Ellen White was, none- is that all of these versions are correct, despite their different
theless, a very well informed and astute theologian. And phraseology! The KJV/NKJV focus upon only one aspect
from her theological study she understood fully (as do of this emptying of the preexistent Christ, while the others
well‑informed theologians today) that a Hebrew or Aramaic present a much broader picture of the kenosis. And all are
word in the original Old Testament text—as, also, a Greek true!
word in the original New Testament text—may frequently And Ellen White, inspired by the Holy Spirit, used differ-
have more than one legitimate translation into the English ent translations, in different places, to serve her own various
language. purposes as an author, as we shall now note!

1 “Seventh-day Adventist Doctrinal Statements,” NO. 17. The Gift of Prophecy, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, 1 (1996): 469.
2 See Roger W. Coon. “Ellen G. White’s Use of Literary Assistants: The Prophet As Writer,” Lecture Outline, GSEM 534, SDA Theological
Seminary, p. 4 (rev. April 13, 1995).
3 Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd. ed.
4 (1) The American Standard Version, (2) William Barclay’s The Letters to the Phillippians, Colossians, and Thessalonias, (3) The Berkeley
Version in Modern English, (4) The Confraternity Revision of the New Testament, (5) The “Douay” Version, (6) The Jerusalem Bible, (7) the
King James Version-II, (8) The New American Bible, (9) The New American Standard Bible, (10) the Revised Standard Version, (11) the
New Revised Standard Version, and (12) Richard Francis Weymouth’s The New Testament in Modern Speech.
 Modern Versions and the KJV — Page 15

2. How she used modern translations. The theme of She reportedly cited scriptures from the following transla-
the emptying of the preexistent Christ was a favorite one upon tions in her writings:
which Ellen White loved to dwell. And a survey of her writ-  Leeser
ings reveals that she treated this doctrine at length, applying  Noyes
it in at least nine different categories.5  Rotherham
In The Desire of Ages, her most extensive writing upon  Basic
the life and experience of Jesus, Mrs. White quotes both the  Boothroyd
rendering of the KJV and also that of the Revised Version, in  Bernard
different sections of the book, the better to serve her particular  Westminister
purpose in each instance! She thus uses two different transla-  Lamsa
tions of the same text in the same book!  ARV
First, in dealing with the “bastardy” issue—Christ’s al-  RV7
leged illegitimate birth (Jesus’ possessing a human mother, In summary, during the last three decades of Ellen White’s
but not a human father)—she dwells upon His humiliating life a number of new translations and versions of the Scriptures
sacrifice in “[making] himself of no reputation.” And she began to appear. The evidence is clear that she welcomed their
points out that Jesus had to meet the insinuations of doubtful advent, and instructed her helpers to purchase copies for her
parentage at least on five different occasions in His life: (1) as perusal as soon as such became available in bookstores. And
a child in Nazareth, (2) during His early ministry in Galilee, she quoted their variant readings repeatedly, when and where
(3) during His ministry at Jerusalem, (4) at His trial, and it served her purposes as a writer.
(5) while hanging upon the cross. He, truly, “made himself Seventh‑day Adventists today who allege that the King
of no r eputation!” James Version is the only safe and acceptable version for a
But, second, in treating the emptying of the preexistent Christian to use, and at the same time who also accept El-
Christ, in the very first chapter of The Desire of Ages she len G. White as an authentic, divinely‑inspired prophet, find
ignores the KJV rendering, pointedly preferring instead the themselves in a position as conflict‑ridden as it is illogical.
reading of the RV, “but emptied Himself.”6 For surely, if there were dangerous theological error and
Both the renderings of the KJV and of the RV are true and eternal disaster in the use of non‑KJV versions, God would
correct—and Mrs. White used both, in different portions of not only have quickly warned her from the ground when she
the same book, to serve her different purposes as an author. was about to quote from the first one, but would He not have
3.  The extent of her usage of modern translations. also instructed her to sound the warning to her readers, as
Examination of Ellen White’s use of then‑available new transla- well?
tions shows widespread reference to them. During the last three Yet this He clearly did not do.
decades of her life (1885‑1915), when the first of these—the The indisputable facts are that the “KJV‑Only” position
RV, and a dozen of its successors, began to find their way into is not only unsupported by the teaching of Ellen White (who
general circulation, she began a series of citations from them. was herself instructed directly by both Jesus and the angel
According to a White Estate tabulation, Mrs. White Gabriel for a period of some 70 years), but in literary practice
quoted from at least ten different versions in her various writ- she frequently employed the expressions of other more recent
ings during this period, in addition to citing updated marginal translations.
references in both the RV and the KJV—the vast majority And these are facts with which proponents of the
of all of the modern translations that were available in her “KJV‑Only” school of thought must not only contend, but
day! also explain.

5 He gave up His (1) “reputation,” (2) heavenly home, (3) union and fellowship with the Father, (4) eternal glory, (5) eternal wealth, (6) omnipo
tence—His eternal power and will, (7) omniscience—His eternal knowledge, (8) omnipresence—the “form” of God, in which He is every
where present at all times, and (9) royal prerogatives: (a) His robe, scepter, crown, throne, and mansion; (b) His position as Commander
(“high command”) of the heavenly angels; and (c) His honor and homage of heavenly beings, in contradistinction with His subsequent
“humiliation.”
6 Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Assoc., 1940), 22
7 From a White Estate tabulation, cited in Roger W. Coon, “Ellen G. White and Modern Versions of the Bible,” Lecture Outline, GSEM 534, SDA’s
Theological Seminary, Appendix A., p. 10 (rev. March 5, 1992).

Scriptures quoted from NASB are from the New American Standard Bible © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968,
1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977.
Scriptures quoted from NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible
Society. Used by Permission.
Scriptures quoted from RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of
Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.

Printed in U.S.A.