But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  To him be glory both now and forever.  Amen.

2 Peter 3:18

A Rebuttal of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy


A Book Report

(with an extended evaluation and rebuttal)


By George R. Theiss


Copyright © 2005 by George R. Theiss




“Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened” (i)  Irenaeus (2nd Century) on Marcion the Gnostic


“The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” (ii)  Origen of Alexandria (3rd Century) Gnostic and Father of Arianism


“I say ‘pure’ because all the ancient exemplars, which formerly were found among the Papists, were full of falsifications, which caused Beza to say in his book on Illustrious Men, in the chapter on the Vaudois of the Valleys that France today has the Bible in her own language.


“This godly man, Olivetan, in the preface of his Bible, recognizes with thanks to God, that since the time of the apostles, or their immediate successors, the torch of the gospel has been lit among the Vaudois (or dwellers in the Valleys of the Alps, two terms which mean the same), and has never since been extinguished.” (iii)  Leger (17th Century) on Olivetan’s French Bible of 1537


“So the present controversy between the King James Version in English and the modern versions is the same old contest fought out between the early church and rival sects; and later, between the Waldenses, and the Papists from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries; and later still, between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century.” (iv) Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D (20th Century)


(i) Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Scribner’s, 1953) Vol. 1, pp. 434-435 quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, WHICH BIBLE? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) pp. 2 and 187.


(ii) “Origen,” McClintock and Strong, Encyclopedia quoted by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) as it appears in David Otis Fuller, et al, WHICH BIBLE? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 192.


(iii) Leger, General History of the Evangelical Churches of the Piedmontese Valleys (France: 1669) p. 165 quoted by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) as it appears in David Otis Fuller, et al, WHICH BIBLE? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 205.


(iv) Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, WHICH BIBLE? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 188.




The King James Only Controversy by James R. White seeks to answer the question, “Can you trust the modern translations". The author states in his Introduction, "I oppose KJV Onlyism, not the King James Version itself".


White encourages Christians to purchase and use multiple translations of the Bible so that comparisons can be made between translations.[1]  He suggests Cross reference between such fine translations as the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version . . . .[2]




The book begins with Part One, which includes a description of different types of King James Only advocates and their arguments. He then discusses how we got our Bible.


White goes on to look at translational and textual differences in some depth. He devotes an entire chapter to charges by KJV Only advocates that the new Bible versions water down the Deity of Christ. White then draws our attention to problems in the KJV.


Finally, the author concludes his book with some basic questions and answers and an exhortation for the reader to understand. In Part Two, White give us the textual data, a bibliography and indices.




The author, James White, has obviously read A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix. He is better versed in the mechanics and terminology of Bible manuscript translation and transmission than many KJV Only proponents.


His explanation of honest copyist errors in the transmission of the Bible is altogether reasonable and probable in many cases. His explanation of how we got the KJV through Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza is thorough and interesting.


His allegations of misrepresentations on the part of some KJV Only advocates such as Riplinger and Ruckman deserve further investigation. Some appear to be true. If so, they should give our KJV Only camp some pause for thought.


We agree with White’s Sixth Chapter (Translational Differences). The exact same Hebrew or Greek word or phrase can often be translated accurately into English in more than one way.


Therefore, there are some cases where a different rendering (from the KJV) of the same Hebrew or Greek word or phrase may be legitimate in a modern Bible version. White gives some good examples of this in his Sixth Chapter.


We have no problem with comparing the KJV to modern translations to get a better idea of the meaning, if the word or phrase is translated from the identical Hebrew or Greek word or phrase in both the KJV and the modern translations.


We admit that some English words have changed meaning over the nearly 400 years since the KJV was first written. Some KJV words are now archaic.


White points out that, "Many of the exact same arguments that are used today by KJV Only advocates were used against Erasmus nearly 500 years ago!"[3]  His point is well taken. In fact, many of his arguments against the King James Only position seem unanswerable, in our present state of knowledge.




But it does not necessarily follow that all James White’s conclusions are valid. In our extended evaluation, we question several (not all) of White’s assumptions.


We believe we can prove White to be in error in these particular assumptions and conclusions. We will show that these are fatal errors in White’s arguments against the KJV Only position.




James White states, "You should never have to wonder if you are going to be accepted by others if you use an NIV rather than a KJV (or vice versa!). Fellowship should never be base upon the English translation one carries and studies."[4] Is White correct?


The startling news that NIV will become a unisex version was published in the March 29, 1997 edition of World Magazine. This change of the gender of God is not based on an accurate translation of the original Greek manuscripts.


Rather it is a theological change, a complete capitulation to feminism and the mother goddess worship of witchcraft and Mariolatry.  Should we not break fellowship with those who call this latest NIV perversion of God’s gender (from he to he-she) the Bible?




White claims that Psalm12:6-7 may not even refer to preservation of the words of the LORD.[5]  He points to the NIV translation of Psalm 12:6-7 that appears to support his point. Is White correct? Are we to believe that God has NOT promised to preserve His words from generation to generation?


Christ taught preservation of God’s word, right down to the smallest Hebrew letter (jot) and smallest decorative spur (tittle) till Heaven and earth pass away in Matthew 5:17-18. In Matthew 24:35, our Lord Jesus states, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.


On the basis of Christ’s teachings, we may safely assume that Psalm 12:6-7 does teach preservation of God’s Word, as the KJV reading of that passage clearly indicates! We appeal to the providence of God and the logic of faith.


White says, "Dr. Edward F. Hills represents the best of the KJV Only position. . . Hills does not ignore such things as the insertion of passages from the Vulgate into the text of Erasmus and hence into the KJV; instead he argues that since God preserved the rest of the TR, He must have preserved those readings, too."


White accuses Hills of circular reasoning.[6]  But White also begins with the conclusion of his argument that we can trust the modern translations[7] and then uses his conclusion in the course of his arguments.


White also charges Hills with a desire for absolute certainty.[8]  But our God promises absolute certainty in the preservation of God’s Word (Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35; Psalm 12:6-7; compare also John 14:26 and 16:13).


Christ teaches us that his words will be preserved forever. Where will they be preserved? His words are, and will be, preserved in the Holy Bible. Thus it is important for us to determine which Bible version is the preserved Word of God.


Logic tells us that two opposite statements cannot both be true. For example, two contradicting Bible versions cannot both be the preserved Word of God. Therefore, if one version is true, the other is false.


Such is the case with the KJV male gender (he) for God versus the new NIV unisex gender (he-she) for God. They cannot both be true. If the KJV is true, then the NIV is false.




In his Question and Answers chapter White writes, "The idea that there is some ulterior motive, some conspiracy, involved in trying to twist and change the teaching of Scripture is a common element of KJV Only writing." [9]


White apparently assumes that there is no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God.[10]  Is White correct? Are we to believe that Satan has no plan to question, misquote and contradict the pure Word of God (Genesis 3:1-5)?


The Bible clearly warns us of Satan’s method of CORRUPTING the Word of God. We read about it in the Third Chapter of Genesis: Satan questioned God's Word (“Yea, hath God said?) misquoted God's Word (“ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the garden?) then flatly contradicted God's Word (“ye shall NOT surely die”).


Can Satan control unsaved men who dabble with demonic spirit-guides? The Bible states that they . . . are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:26).




Westcott and Hort were two such men, upon whose work the Critical Text is largely based. Westcott and Hort form the basis for both the ever evolving Nestle-Aland text and the constantly changing United Bible Societies text.


White asks, "Were they occultists? Westcott’s involvement in a club called the ‘Ghostlie Guild’ has led to all sorts of such charges, but the club was formed to investigate strange occurrences, not engage in devilish activity."[11]


Perhaps White should re-read Riplinger’s NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion exposé of the Men (pages 391-464) and her Appendix A (Summary: Westcott and Hort) a little more closely. What follows is my summary of what Riplinger says, with my own editorial comments:


Westcott and Hort were Anglican priests and closet Catholics who lived in England in the 19th century (1800s). It was the same time in which there was a movement within the Anglican clergy to reunite with the Pope, led notably by Cardinal Newman, an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic prelate.


The beliefs and agenda of Westcott and Hort can be gleaned by reading their personal correspondence preserved in their biographies. While they were deciding what does (and does not) belong in their revision of the Greek New Testament, they were involved in:


Worship of the Virgin (Mariolatry).


Necromancy (spiritualism – calling up the dead in séances).


Speaking with ghosts (devils).


The Bible forbids all three activities. Worship of the Virgin violates both the First and Second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Necromancy, witchcraft, and consulting with familiar spirits are forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10-12.




In 1845, as a Cambridge undergraduate, Westcott organized the Hermes Club. Hermes is the Greek god of magic, the Lord of death, cunning and trickery. According to Greek mythology, Hermes was a gifted speaker and a scribe.


Westcott’s friend, Madame Blavatsky, a key founder of the New Age Movement, wrote, Satan and Hermes are all one, in her book, THE SECRET DOCTRINE. She didn’t even pretend to be a Christian, she was a Luciferian.


In the 1850s Westcott, Hort and Benson (a future Archbishop of Canterbury) founded the Ghost Club (also known as the Ghostly Guild). It promoted channeling by which spirits speak through a medium.


As Gail Riplinger so aptly points out in her book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, "The bitter fountain which springs forth from the new bible versions flows from the devils who seduced the scribes".


Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1)


The modern translations (RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NEV and even the NKJV) have one thing in common. They tend to agree against the KJV in omitting hundreds of words, phrases and entire verses.


These omitted words are not always archaic (old) words no longer used in Modern English. The omitted words are words like God (omitted 66 times in the New King James Version alone, and even more in other modern versions).


God is not an archaic word. Neither is Christ, blood, virgin or other frequently omitted words. As Gail Riplinger points out in her book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion, these changes are theological in nature.


Many of the basic doctrines of our faith are being attacked in the new versions. The deity of Christ, the virgin birth, our blood bought redemption, salvation by grace through faith are all omitted (or badly watered down) in the modern versions.


When you read a modern Bible version, you may be reading (in some places) exactly what the devils would like you to read, straight from their willing mediums, Westcott and Hort. Let’s look at some statements made by Westcott and Hort.




In 1842, Westcott wrote, "In the evening I go with Tom to the wizard…." (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 9)


On a trip to view a New Testament manuscript, Westcott made a pilgrimage to a shrine of the Virgin. He commented about this, "God appears in many forms."


In 1855 he wrote, "How certainly I should have been proclaimed a heretic." (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 233)


In 1871 Westcott stated, "I shall aim at what is transcendental in many peoples eyes…I suppose I am a communist by nature." (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 309)


In 1881 he admitted, "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament: A General Survey, p. vii)




Hort referred to evangelical Christians at various times as dangerous, perverted, unsound and confused. He called America a standing menace to the whole civilization.


In 1848 Hort wrote, "The pure Romish view seems to me nearer and more likely to lead to truth than the evangelical." (Hort, Vol. 1, pp. 76-77.) "Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary." (Hort, Vol. II, p. 31).


In 1856 he stated, "Campbell’s book on the Atonement . . . unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Vol. 1, p. 322.)




Westcott and Hort had a friend named Philip Schaff. He was the President of the Old and New Testament committees that formed the American Standard Version of 1901. He was a rank heretic and he advocated one world religion.


The University of Berlin calls him "The theological mediator between East and West." Schaff mocked Christians, saying, "They vainly imagine that they possess the monopoly on truth."


He further stated, "The church must adjust…her doctrinal statements…to natural science." Churchman brought Schaff before the Pennsylvania Synod for heresy. The Living Bible and NASB used Schaff’s 30,000 alterations to the Bible.


Schaff’s Parliament of World Religions, called itself Babel. It first met in Chicago in 1893. Schaff called it the sum of my life and theological activity. It set the New Age movement in motion.


From Schaff, we can get a clearer view of the agenda of Westcott and Hort. Schaff used their corrupt text to give us the ASV of 1901. He followed their interpretation of theology and their view of one world religion.




The Westcott and Hort text unbelievably came into acceptance through the efforts of two Bible believing Calvinist Presbyterians who had studied in Germany. Both men rejected the higher criticism of the German liberals.


But both men came to accept “textual criticism” as scholarly and good. Both men later taught at Princeton Theological Seminary. Their names were B.B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen. Their knowledge of Greek was impeccable.


Another professor, teaching at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky also accepted the idea of textual criticism. His name was A.T. Robertson. He, too, was a master scholar of Greek.


Did these men have any sinister intent? Only God knows. They most probably had no idea of the personal beliefs and agenda of Westcott and Hort.


Warfield, Machen and Robertson seemed to sincerely believe that the New Testament needed to be updated in the light of modern historical research. Their ideas soon gained acceptance in a number of evangelical seminaries.


Many pastors are seminary trained. This eventually resulted in new versions of the Bible being accepted and used widely in evangelical and fundamental churches and Bible colleges.


Though Warfield, Machen and Robertson may have been sincere, we believe they were sincerely wrong. We need a return to the King James Bible.




Norman Geisler’s endorsement of The King James Only Controversy is found on the front cover of White’s book. Geisler writes, "This is the best book in print on a topic often riddled with emotion and ignorance."


Norman Geisler co-authored the classic General Introduction to the Bible with William Nix. It is used as a standard work on the subject in many evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges.


Geisler, writing about the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), states, "This fourth century Greek manuscript is generally considered to be the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy and lack of omissions."[12] (Emphasis mine)


In writing about the Codex Vaticanus (B), Geisler says, "The Codex Vaticanus is perhaps the oldest uncial on parchment or vellum (c. 325-350) and one of the most important witnesses to the text of the New Testament"[13]


These two texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) form much of the backbone for the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, form the basis for both the ever evolving Nestle-Aland text and the constantly changing United Bible Societies text.


Based on a reading of LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pages 57-69, I offer my summary of Burton’s arguments against the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, with my own editorial comments.




The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was in excellent condition. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation!!!


In other words, it omits much that was used by ancient believers to condemn Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions. For example, Paul’s Pastoral Epistles twice declare that a bishop should be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6).


Paul also warns of devil doctrines like forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:3). This contradicts Catholic demands that its bishops and priests be unmarried (celibate). It is therefore omitted in the Vaticanus.


Hebrews 10:10-14 condemns (by implication) the re-sacrificing of Christ done at the Sacrifice of the Mass as taught in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This passage is omitted in the Vaticanus.


The book of Revelation, chapter 17 clearly describes a religious whore headquartered in Rome (the city of seven hills that rules over the kings of the earth). Revelation 13 warns of the Mark, Name and Number of the Beast.


Both chapters are missing in the Vaticanus. Besides the above listed omissions, the Vaticanus, in the Gospels alone (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences.




The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone!!! The Sinaiticus was found on a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery, near Mt. Sinai, in 1844.


It contains nearly all of the New Testament, but it adds the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas (contrary to Revelation 22:18). On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by ten different people.


Even worse, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas include commands to do things God has forbidden in His Word[14], including:


Take the name of the beast.


Give up to the beast.


Form a One-World Government.


Kill those not receiving his name.


Worship female virgins.


Receive another spirit.


Seek power.


Avoid marriage and permit fornication.


Abstain from fasting.


Here we see Satan going beyond questioning and misquoting God’s Word. Here he is advancing to his third tactic. He is flatly contradicting God’s Word.


No wonder U.S. News and World Report magazine, in its 11-8-93 issue reveals plans by Canon Seminar scholars for a radical revision of the New Testament that will replace the Book of Revelation with other writings …[previously] dismissed by church leaders as unauthentic or heretical.




Dave Hunt wrote the book A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (based almost entirely on Catholic sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Council of Trent, Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, etc.) In this excellent exposé of the many anti-Christian doctrines (such as salvation by works) and bloody history of the Roman Catholic Church, Hunt writes:


"One of the most highly regarded evangelical apologists, Norman L. Geisler, stated recently that Catholics believe in justification by grace and that differences between Catholics and evangelical are not as great as generally perceived and they are not crucial . . . [nor do they] involve heresy . . . the whole the theological core of historic Christianity is held in common."[15]


What a coincidence, that Geisler, who wrote the standard textbook (used in many theological seminaries and Bible colleges) on how we got our Bible, and who sees no problem with new translations of the Bible, also sees no problem with:


Salvation by works[16] (contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5).


Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass (contrary to Hebrews 10:10-14).


Worship of Mary as Queen of Heaven (contrary to Jeremiah, chapter 44).


Banning and burning of Bibles and those who translated or read them (the Albigenses & Waldenses, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and numerous others).


The Vicar of Christ (Anti-Christ in Greek) being called the Holy Father (contrary to Matthew 23:1-9).


Sale of indulgences (bogus tickets to heaven and paid licenses to sin).


Murder of Protestants (Bloody Mary’s Reign of Terror in England, the Anabaptists of Holland and Switzerland, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in France, the Irish Massacre on the Feast of St. Ignatius Loyola in 1641, etc.)[17]


Deleting from Bible manuscripts (such as the Vaticanus deletion of the Pastoral Epistles and the entire Book of Revelation) contrary to Revelation 22:19.


The tortures of the Inquisition (northern Italy, southern France and all of Spain).


The stated purpose of the Jesuits to destroy Protestantism.[18]


Purgatory and prayers for the dead (found nowhere in the Bible).


What a coincidence, that Geisler (who sees no problem with the Catholic manuscripts that support such Bible versions as the NIV and the NASB) now sees no problem with the Roman Catholic Whore of Revelation 17.


Is it not interesting that Norman Geisler, who openly supports White’s book, The King James Only Controversy also supports the Roman Catholic Church? One of White’s main arguments is that there is no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God. Yet Geisler’s endorsement of White’s work casts doubt on that argument.




Would the Vatican want to cast doubt on the KJV Bible?  Did not a Jesuit priest, Henry Garnet, direct an assassination attempt (by Roman Catholic Guy Fawkes) on the staunch Protestant, King James I in 1605?[19]


Did not God bless the KJV in the language of the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession of 1689, the modern missionary movement started by William Carey and the preaching of men such as C.H. Spurgeon and D. Martin Lloyd Jones? Didn’t these creeds and men identify the Pope as Anti-Christ?


Did not God bless the King James Version in the founding of America by Calvinist Presbyterians such as James Madison (Father of the U.S. Constitution) and the Lee family of Virginia? Were not 2/3 of the population and more than half of all the American soldiers in the Revolutionary War Calvinists?[20]


Did not the Vatican officially denounce democracy and the American concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of the press?[21]  Have not the Popes always fought liberty, equality and separation of church and state?[22]


Hear the supposedly infallible Pope Martin V (1427-31) command the King of Poland to exterminate the Hussites (and his reasons why):


"Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of the ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery; they call the people to liberty . . . ."[23]


By what logic can White (or Geisler) argue that there is no plan, no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God? In the light of Genesis 3:1-5 we may safely conclude that Satan and his minions have such a plan.


By the open animosity of the Vatican to King James and his Bible (and to the pure Gospel preaching and liberty it brought to early Protestant America) we can conclude that the Vatican has every reason to question, misquote and contradict the KJV by the making of new versions based on corrupt manuscripts.


Westcott and Hort changed the Majority text until it mirrored the Vaticanus (B) text.[24] Pope Pius XII then declared, Translations could be produced in cooperation with separated brethren.[25]


The four wheels driving the current United Bible Societies (U.B.S.) Greek New Testament, Aland, Black, Metzger and Wikgren, were being steered by a fifth wheel, in the driver’s seat, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini.[26]


Cardinal Martini’s editorship appears only on the frontispiece of the edition for translators, lest Protestants panic.[27] Martini is a liberal Jesuit.[28]  His committee’s book, The Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, admits that Westcott & Hort formed the basis for the present U.B.S. edition.[29]


Now both Protestant and Catholic versions are based on the same Vaticanus (B) minority Greek text.[30] The Nestle-Aland and U.B.S. texts are now identical.[31]


Bruce Metzger was an expert in Greek.  He worked closely with the Jesuit, Carlo Martini.  Metzger personally taught both John Piper (a Reformed Baptist Pastor in Minnesota) and James White (author of The King James Only Controversy) when they were in seminary training.




White argues that King James may have been a homosexual, but that did not make the KJV soft on homosexuality.[32] White’s argument is that a translator’s beliefs and moral conduct do not affect his translation of the Bible.[33]


Although that might be the case sometimes, White can in no way prove that it was the case all the time. The truth is that we are all swayed by our beliefs and moral conduct.


For example, homosexuals often seek jobs that put them near vulnerable children, jobs such as Public School Teachers and Boy Scout-Masters. They often do it with the secret intent of seducing the children under their influence.


King James was raised a Calvinist Presbyterian. As King, he sought an accurate English translation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. He hand-picked the translators, and had the committees of translators periodically check each other’s work. He supported the translation from start to finish (A.D. 1604-11).


It is unlikely that such a man as King James was a homosexual. The charge never came up during his lifetime. A known enemy, Anthony Weldon, first brought up the charge in 1650 (25 years after the death of King James).[34]


White observes that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, yet that did not affect his manuscript upon which the KJV is based. But Erasmus was hardly a traditional Catholic and in many ways he agreed with Luther.[35]  The writings of Erasmus were later banned by the Pope.[36]


We believe that the hatred of evangelical Christianity, stated by Westcott and Hort in their own writings (see above) had an effect on their manuscript. We believe the same to be true of heretics like Origen (c. 250 A.D.) of Alexandria.


Origen sought a blend between paganism and Christianity.[37] He did not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and he felt free to change the Word if he did not like what it said.[38] His Alexandrian school later provided us with the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrian and other texts uses by Westcott and Hort.




Paul and Barnabas taught the Church in Antioch of Syria and the disciples were first called Christians there (Acts 11:26). There soon arose a school of learned Christians in Antioch who taught the Literal-Historical approach to interpreting the Holy Scriptures.[39]  They avoided the allegorism of the Alexandrians.[40]


The Jews of Alexandria in Egypt gave us the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. They lived in a thoroughly Greek culture brought to Egypt by Ptolemy (a top general of Alexander the Great).


Many Jews were so impressed with the Greek culture of Alexandria that they accepted the teachings of Greek philosophy.[41]  The outstanding Jewish allegorist was Philo (c. 20 B.C. to 54 A.D.) who mixed Scripture with Greek philosophy.[42]


Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm is a standard textbook on the subject of Hermeneutics in many theological seminaries and Bible colleges. This book gives us some valuable insight into the schools of Alexandria and Antioch.


Ramm states, "The allegorical system that arose among the pagan Greeks, copied by the Alexandrian Jews, was next adopted by the Christian church . . . with such notable exceptions as the Syrian school of Antioch . . . ."[43]


The school of Antioch in Syria avoided both the letterism of the Jews and the allegorism of the Alexandrians.[44]  They held to both figures of speech and plain speech. They fought Origen of Alexandria in particular as the inventor of the allegorical method.[45]




White writes, Most scholars today (in opposition to KJV Only advocates) would see the Alexandrian text-type as representing an earlier, and hence more accurate, form of text then the Byzantine text-type.[46]


White goes on to observe, "KJV Only advocates disagree with this summary . . . The Textus Receptus, the Greek text form with the KJV New Testament was translated, is ‘Byzantine’ in character . . .


"They explain the lack of ancient examples of the Byzantine text by theorizing that those manuscripts ‘wore out’ from excessive use over the years, while the ‘Alexandrian’ texts were quickly seen as corrupt . . . Such a theory, of course, defies proof by its very nature."[47]


There were extremely ancient (2nd Century) translations of the Bible into Syriac (the Aramaic Peshitto) and Old Latin (the Italic Bible of the Vaudois, later called Waldenses). Both tend to agree with the Byzantine text and not with the Alexandrian text.[48] White denies this[49] but many other scholars confirm it.[50]


This would give some credence to the KJV Only advocates’ position that the Byzantine text is indeed ancient and copies wore out with use. For if the oldest translations agree with the Byzantine text, then there were earlier copies which we no longer have. They probably wore out with use, persecution and climate.


Zane C. Hodges, who served as a Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, in an article entitled The Geek Text of the King James Version, points out:


" . . . all of our most ancient manuscripts derive basically from Egypt. This is due mainly to the circumstance that the climate of Egypt favors the preservation of ancient texts in a way that the climate of the rest of the Mediterranean world does not . . .


"There is no good reason to suppose that the text found in Egypt give us an adequate sampling of texts of the same period found in other parts of the world. One might just as well affirm that to sample the flora and fauna of the Nile valley is to know the flora and fauna of Greece, or Turkey or Italy."[51]


Hodges goes on to observe, "The manuscript tradition of an ancient book will . . . multiply in a reasonably regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants. . .


"Hence, in a large tradition where a pronounced unity is observed between, let us say eighty per cent of the evidence, a very strong presumption is raised that this numerical preponderance is due to direct derivation from the very oldest sources . . .


"Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text."[52]


Indeed, Helvidius, a northern Italian Bible scholar of the late 4th Century accused Jerome of using corrupt manuscripts to translate from Greek into a new version of Latin (the Latin Vulgate).[53]


Other 2nd Century Latin translations of the Bible (or portions thereof) used by the Christians of southern Gaul and (pre-Catholic, pre-Anglo-Saxon) Celtic Britain, also tend to agree with the Byzantine text against the Alexandrian.[54]


All these groups (Syrian Church, Greek Church, Waldenses, Albigenses, Welsh, Irish and Scottish Christians) were later in conflict with the Vatican over Scripture readings, dates, customs and the alleged authority of the Roman Bishop (later called the Pope).


All used Scriptures that tend to agree with the Byzantine text upon which the KJV is generally based. The Roman Catholics used the Latin Vulgate which is based mostly on Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine text may descend from the school of Antioch of Syria which opposed the Alexandrian school from earliest times.


White also claims that the earliest Church Fathers when quoting Scripture, tend to agree with the Alexandrian manuscripts. But we believe that a careful reading of men like Irenaeus and John Chrysostom will prove White wrong.


Furthermore, why would God hide his Greek text in a Vatican library or in a monastery trash heap near Mt. Sinai to be discovered only in the 19th Century?  Would he not rather preserve it in the Greek-speaking churches of the Byzantine era (312-1454 A.D.)?


At the fall of Constantinople, would not God send refugees bearing precious Greek manuscripts to Western Europe where the Byzantine text soon became the text of the Protestant Reformation? Scripture, history and logic compel us to see the Byzantine text as pure.




White, in referring to some omitted phrases in the modern Bible versions, argues, ". . . since the material in the verse appears elsewhere in all the Greek manuscripts, it is impossible to say that someone was purposefully trying to ‘hide’ or ‘change’ anything."[55]  Is White correct?


Burton points out, "Satan can’t change everything in the Bible . . . He’s too smart for that. Have you ever heard of a counterfeit dollar bill that is ORANGE?"[56]


Satan is a master of deceit. For example, in some places, the new Bible versions will affirm the Deity of Christ, but in others they will deny it. Origen of Alexandria denied the Deity of Christ in his writings.[57]  He also deleted verses.[58]




As fellow Calvinistic Baptists, we applaud James White’s scholarship and desire to educate others in Bible translation and transmission facts. We appreciate his desire to avoid invective. Some of his arguments against the KJV Only position are very good.


But we strongly disagree with several of White’s assumptions and conclusions. We believe that some changes in the new Bible versions reflect theological changes not justified by the original languages. Therefore, we believe that the use of a certain Bible perversion (with no justifiable translational reason) can (and should) be a test of fellowship.


We believe that the words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35 support the KJV reading of Psalm 12:6-7 (and not the NIV reading that White uses to cast doubt on the KJV reading). God does preserve His Words in every generation.


We also disagree with White that a translator’s beliefs and moral conduct do not influence his translating of Scripture. We believe that Satan has a plan to corrupt the Word of God (Genesis 3:1-5) and that his minions are taken captive by him at his will (2 Timothy 2:26).


We believe that the enmity the Vatican has displayed toward the Bible (especially the Byzantine text) in its long history of banning and burning translations (and those who read them) gives further evidence of this conspiracy.


We have documented from history why the Vatican would have every reason to want to cast doubt on the KJV today. We have also documented that White grossly understates and minimizes Westcott and Hort’s involvement in the occult.


We have shown that the Byzantine text readings are older than the Alexandrian texts. We have given many reasons why the Alexandrian texts are corrupt (a charge that White denies).


We have shown that God blessed the use of the Byzantine text readings in various Christian groups who opposed the Vatican (from the earliest times through the Protestant Reformation to the founding of Protestant America).


We disagree with White when he says that God also blessed the Latin Vulgate.[59]  It was almost exclusively the property of the Catholic clergy, the same ones who burned both Bibles and Bible believers down through the centuries.


Based on our extended evaluation of some of White’s arguments and God’s promise to preserve His Words (Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35) we believe that the King James Version is still the overall best translation available in the English language. We trust it as God's preserved Word in English.


[1] James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,1995) page 7.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid, page 53.

[4] Ibid, page 5.

[5] Ibid, pp. 243-244.

[6] Ibid, page 92.

[7] Ibid, page 7.

[8] Ibid, page 93.

[9] Ibid, page 116.

[10] Ibid, page 146.

[11] Ibid, page 245.


[12] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968) page 273.[13] Ibid, page 271.


[14] G.A. Riplinger, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion (Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications Corporation, 1993) pp. 556-557.


[15] The Southern Cross, January 13, 1994. p. 11 quoted by Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994) page 406.


[16] Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994) pp. 346- 366.

[17] Ibid, pp. 243-307.


and Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, rev. ed. 1967) pp. 248-250; 275-278; 331-334.


and Jack Chick, Smokescreens (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pp.7-32.


[18] Jack Chick, Smokescreens (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pp. 75-90.


and Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, rev. ed. 1967) pp. 376-377.


[19] Samuel C. Gipp, The Answer Book: A Helpful Book for Christians (Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989) Chapter 3 (Was King James a Homosexual?) Online Version at www.chick.com


[20] Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1981) pp. 382-384.


[21] Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days pp. 127-131.

[22] Ibid, pp. 54-56.

[23] Ibid, page 247.


[24] Riplinger, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion , page 141.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.


[28] Profile: Cardinal Carlo Martini, Article on Internet by Peter Gould, BBC News, Rome http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4459805.stm


[29] Riplinger, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion , page 142.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.


[32] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? , page 246.

[33] Ibid, pp. 244-245.


[34] Gipp, The Answer Book: A Helpful Book for Christians, Question 3 (Was King James a Homosexual?) Online Version at www.chick.com

[35] Ibid, Question 57 (Was Erasmus a good Catholic?).

[36] Ibid.


[37] Riplinger, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion, page 535.


[38] Barry Burton, LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pages 64-65.


[39] Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A textbook of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 3rd ed., 1970) pp. 48-50.

[40] Ibid, p. 48.

[41] Ibid, p. 25-26.

[42] Ibid., p. 27..

[43] Ibid, p. 28.

[44] Ibid, p. 48.

[45] Ibid, p. 49.


[46] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 43.

[47] Ibid, page 44.


[48] Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) pp. 194-215.


[49] James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 153.


[50] Helvidius (4th Century) Tyndale, Olivetan and Beza (16th Century) Diodati and Leger (17th Century) Burgon and Bishop (19th Century) Fuller, Green, Hill, Hodges, Hoskier, Martin and Wilkinson (20th Century).


[51] Zane C. Hodges, The Greek Text of the King James Version, Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas Theological Seminary) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 28.

[52] Ibid, page 37.


[53] Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 206.

[54] Ibid, pp. 196-197.


[55] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 155.


[56] Burton, LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE , page 27.


[57] Ibid, pp. 64-65.


[58] Edward F. Hills, The Magnificent Burgon quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 95.


[59] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 247.


Preserved Word of God in English


Preserved Word of God in English (Part 2)


Preserved Word of God in English (Part 3)


KJV or New King James Version



George Theiss is a combat veteran of Vietnam who now follows the Lamb of God.  He and his wife, Christy, have been married 42 years (in 2019).  They have 8 grown children.  You can contact George at support@tulipgems.com

Copyright © 2002 through 2019 by George Theiss