Now that we have examined some of the core doctrines at play in the Bible version issue, we can begin to address some of the textual issues that underlie this discussion. When studying the Bible version issue, predominantly you will find discussion surrounding the New Testament text, and the Old Testament text is usually left mostly untouched, except for maybe a few vague references to the KJV having some kind of better textual basis. However, this ought not to be. While the New Testament text is vitally important, and admittedly the key issue when it comes to Bible versions, the Old Testament text is still a topic that needs desperately to be discussed. Modern versions have made many changes to the traditional biblical text that went unnoticed, and that’s partly because those of us defending the King James Bible haven’t always done the best job of showing these Old Testament textual changes. In this article, I hope to reveal some of these changes and exactly what misguided basis modern translators and editors used to determine these changes to be necessary.

Now, just what is the Masoretic text? Well, it is a Hebrew Old Testament text that was preserved by a group known as the Masoretes (literally meaning “tradition”). These Hebrews followed stringent copying rules to ensure that the text of the Old Testament would be preserved. One such rule was that they would count the number of words and the number of letters in the manuscript, and if even a single letter was missing or added, they would condemn the manuscript and start over. These Masoretes were very careful with God’s Word. The Masoretic text we have today is the same text these Masoretes preserved for us, down to the letter and word. Not just because these Jews were so careful in their copying, but also because God promised to preserve His Word, and it is undeniable that the Masoretic text, which was the only widely used Hebrew text for hundreds of years, is this Word.

The King James Bible is based on this Masoretic text, this Hebrew text that was carefully passed down for centuries and has been verified to be accurate time and again by such discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Modern versions, on the other hand, aren’t as careful with the Old Testament text.  As demonstrated by Dr D.A. Waite, to whom I am greatly indebted for the information in this article. In his book Defending the King James Bible, Dr Waite lists 19 other documents that the translators of modern versions use to “correct” The Inspired, Preserved, Inerrant Hebrew text that Christianity had always accepted. In this article, we will only examine 3 of these documents, but if you would like a more thorough examination of the Old Testament textual battle, then I would recommend you purchase my book, The Sharpest Sword.

The first erroneous document we will look at that modern versions use is what is called the Septuagint. Essentially it is a Greek translation of the Old testament, which is puported to have been read by Jesus and the dsiciples (This claim however is most likely false, which is a subject we will examine more fully in another article) However, regardless of its origins, there is a few reasons why I think it should be clear to Bible believing Christians that this document should not be used to supercede or “correct” the Masoretic text. For one, it is itself a translation of another Hebrew text. If you wanted an accurate English translation of the book War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (which was written in Russian), you wouldn’t choose a version that has been translated from German, because that’s not the original language; that would be a translation of a translation. You would instead seek out and find a copy translated from the Russian. So, if you wouldn’t accept it for classic literature, then why would you be willing to accept it for the very Word of God? Also, Romans 3:1-2 states, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” The “oracles of God” are the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, is communicating that the Old Testament was given to the Jews, and God entrusted them with its preservation. So, why would we abandon that now? If God gave the Jews the Old Testament and tasked them with taking care of it, then that is where we should be getting our Old Testament from, not from some questionable Greek translation.

The second erroneous document we will look at is known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are a collection of manuscripts which were preserved by a group known as the Essenes, which was a heretical offshoot of Judaism. These Essenes fled Jerusalem and took their books and scrolls with them, essentially abandoning Orthodox Judaism. Now, I mentioned earlier that they prove the reliability of the Masoretic text, because when compared, you will find that they agree almost entirely. A common example of this is the fact that the Isaiah scroll (a large scroll containing only the book of Isaiah) agrees with the Masoretic text roughly 95% of the time! However, despite this agreement, there are still areas where they do disagree, sometimes very seriously. These are the places where modern versions prefer the Dead Sea Scrolls over the Masoretic, which should not be the case for at least two reasons. You see, we actually know almost nothing about these manuscripts. Firstly, we don’t know what they based their manuscripts on. It is highly possible that the Essenes copied their manuscripts from a corrupted text, because while the Masoretic text was preserved, there were plenty of false manuscripts being distributed all throughout history. Secondly, we don’t know how careful they were in copying their manuscripts. The thing about manuscripts is that they wear out and need to be replaced. So, groups like the Masoretes created rules to follow while they would copy their manuscripts to ensure the new one was identical to the first. However, with the Essenes, we have no clue how they went about copying their manuscripts. Both of these are excellent reasons that we should not use it to “correct” the KJV.

The third thing they use to correct the Hebrew Masoretic text is conjecture, often with no acknowledgment or reason given. This is by far the most disturbing thing they use to “correct” the Masoretic text. Basically, as they translate the Old Testament, modern version translators will come to parts and sections that they think are wrong or unoriginal. Then, if they look and can’t find a reading they prefer in a different text, like the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls, they’ll just add in what they think should go there. Now, if you believe the Bible and you believe it is our final authority, then please answer this question: Do you honestly think that it is acceptable for God’s very Word to be altered by the translators? Personally, when I read the Bible, I want to see exactly what the text that God preserved for us says. I don’t want to see what some translators think may have originally been there.

So, clearly, modern versions are greatly inferior when it comes to the Old Testament textual basis. The King James Bible is based on a Hebrew text that God providentially preserved, while modern versions are based on a wide array of different documents and even pure conjecture. So, instead of saying what we should believe, I will simply ask a question.

Should we trust the Hebrew text that has been passed down for centuries from the Jews- the poeple God entrusted the Old Testament? Or the translators who create modern versions, and decide from their own knowledge which source can be trusted for a given passage.

Stay in God’s Word and always walk after the cross.

-Sawyer Barnes