Now I already know what some of you are thinking: "This guy is off his rocker! The Westcott and Hort text is much older than the Textus Receptus, and therefore must be a much better witness to the original writings of the Apostles. The Critical Texts will never be overthrown as the bedrock of modern Bibles, because every almost major Christian University in America and most Bible Colleges in the world use and support only the Critical Texts (Aleph and B, the United Bible Societies Greek text, etc). How on earth are you ever going to overcome that??!"
Well, I'll tell you exactly how, and it's very simple. The "UCCOO" format of the Kingdom Bible works very much like the two sides of a zipper: on the one side is the "UCCOO" format; on the other is the Biblical text, composed of paragraphs, sections, chapters, parts, books, volumes, and divisions. The "UCCOO" format has its own special application for each part of the format, so that the divisions, volumes, books, parts, chapters, sections, and paragraphs of the Bible are molded into the Kingdom Bible format as you see on the Main Page of this website and in the published documents that I have completed, and there is no other way to arrange the Bible text and books except according to this arrangement. I've spent almost eight years trying every arrangement under the sun, and what I'm telling you is that the UCCOO format, which I discuss in detail elsewhere, is clearly from God and is clearly all over the Bible text and format. It truly is the key to understanding the Bible.
What I have hinted at in the past, but not elaborated on very much is this: the Critical Texts have two very big holes in their texts: Mark 16:9-20 (the resurrection account of Mark) and John 8:1-11 (the woman caught in adultery). Both of these accounts do not exist in the Critical texts, but do exist in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James Version and the Kingdom Bible Version, and a very few other modern translations (some such as the New King James Version claim to be supported only by the Textus Receptus, but cite the Critical text in their margins without noting the flawed nature of the source; thereby making their claim suspect in my view).
Now here is the proof that the Critical Texts are fatally flawed: here is a picture taken of the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 2-5 Table of Contents in its entirety. Here you can see the UCCOO pattern in the text Sections and Paragraphs.
Now the portion of the text that is in dispute is Mark 16:9-20, which is paragraphs 3-5 (plus the Conclusion) above, as you can clearly see for yourself. The paragraphs are clearly marked by "Now when Jesus had risen early..he appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...", "After that he appeared...", "Afterward he appeared to the eleven`..", with the Conclusion at the end.
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts do not have the portion of the Bible text from paragraphs 3-5 and the Conclusion, but you can clearly see that the UCCOO format requires that there be three more paragraphs plus a Conclusion in this section in the format that follows the same pattern as Sections 1 and 2, which is OOCCU, and the Received Text clearly has the correct format, therefore it is the True Text of the Word of God, and the Critical texts are clearly in error. There is no doubt whatsoever that "someone" with an anti-Biblical agenda removed verses 9-20 from the Gospel of Mark in the Critical texts. How can anyone in their right minds believe that Aleph and B are worthy of any trust at all?
Again, this Section is patterned as OOCCU, following Sections 1 and 3 of Chapter 1.4 of John. If the Introduction and paragraphs 1 and 2 are removed from the Bible following the Critical Text's omission, then you have a huge hole in the text, because the UCCOO format requires that there be 5 paragraphs in this section of the OO pattern (including an Introduction and a Conclusion), which the Introduction and paragraphs 1 and 2 beautifully provide (The Scribes and Pharisees accuse the woman, Jesus forgives the woman).
Do you see now how that Christianity has been sold a lie in the Critical Texts of Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)? These texts are completely unreliable and clearly have been tampered with by ungodly hands. No one in their right mind should ever again consider any Greek text or Bible version that is based on these texts to be a true representation of the original texts.
I am convinced that once the Kingdom Bible is well known and understood by God's people (especially the pastors and teachers), then they will understand that the devil has pulled the wool over their eyes on the issue of the Critical Texts and that the Received Text was the right one all along after all. When that occurs, the Critical Texts will become more objects of museum interest than objects of worship as they currently are by nearly all of professing Christendom. They truly belong in a museum rather than in the pastor's study, because they are corrupted and unreliable witnesses of the Word of God.
Many Fundamental Christians have held onto the old King James Version for a long time in spite of the mass migration of most Evangelicals to Bible versions supported by the Critical texts like the NIV (New International Version) or the NASB (New American Standard Version), because they rightly suspect the Critical texts of having been tampered with and therefore are unreliable witnesses of the original Greek texts written by the Apostles. But the problem has been that they can only criticize the Critical texts for the thousands of discrepancies (words, phrases, and even whole paragraphs such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11) between the Textus Receptus (a.k.a. the Received Text) and the Critical Texts of Aleph and B. Some scholars have said that as much as 5% of the Bible text found in the Received Text is missing from the Critical texts. That is an astounding number to me, but amazingly, I have read some Fundamental scholars who claimed that it was miniscule and unworthy of concern. In fact, most scholars who support the Critical texts over the Received Text claim that the Received Text is "inflated"; that is to say, they believe that Bible-believing Christians in the past have added more words to the Greek text than were there originally in their zeal to "defend the Faith" against heretics. They point to passages such as I John 5:7-8 which apparently was written into the Received Text by the Greek Scholar Erasmus under pressure from others as evidence that the Received Text is "inflated" and therefore has far more words than the Critical texts because of many "corruptions" such as this.
What is truly astounding to me is that anyone would give credence to the idea that Bible-believing Christians would actually change the original Greek texts to support their favorite beliefs (such as the Trinity); that is something that I just cannot swallow, because Bible-believing Christians by definition hold to a very "High View" of Scripture and would never think of doing such a wicked thing. On the other hand, it is very easy for me to believe that people who FALSELY CLAIM to be Christians would try and change the Greek text to support their favorite beliefs (such as Arians like the so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses" with their "New World Translation" that changes John 1:1 to say that Jesus is "a god", but not "God") since they, by definition, hold to a very "Low View" of Scripture and do not believe that the Bible text is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. So, in my view, this assertion by some who defend the Critical texts is completely baseless.
Even more amazing to me is the statements by many Evangelicals that the 5% difference between the Received and the Critical texts is unimportant, and both texts say the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth, friends. Do not believe these statements, no matter who says them. The Received Text is the true Word of God in Greek, and the Critical texts "contain" the Word of God, but cannot be considered THE Word of God, because of the many deliberate changes, omissions, and gaping holes in their texts.
Now, one thing I will say here just to be clear: I do believe that the reference to the Trinity in I John 5:7-8 is genuine Scripture. I will leave it up to others to defend this passage to save space, and you may follow those links at the bottom of the page to see what they say. I will focus on the larger issue here, and that is the veracity and the credibility of the Critical Texts in general.
The point I am getting at is this: the UCCOO format of the Kingdom Bible version will conclusively prove and demonstrate once and for all that the Critical texts have been tampered with by hands that are unfriendly to the Word of God.
Now that the entire Kingdom Bible has been published and completed to a very high degree, the evidence for my assertion that the Critical Texts are badly flawed is clear and available for anyone with eyes to see to view for themselves. In short, the Kingdom Bible Version format has put a permanent stake in the heart of this "Dracula" called the Critical Text once and for all time. Never again will the Critical text be deemed credible or reliable by those who truly believe the Bible is the Word of God.
Of course, there will always be those who will close their eyes to the truth and hope that the Kingdom Bible will just go away. But it will not work. There is an old saying that goes like this, "Facts are stubborn things." Facts will simply not "go away"; they have this annoying characteristic of remaining in place regardless of whether anyone recognizes them or not. It reminds me of the old fable of the boy and the Emperor's new clothes. The story goes that one day two swindlers convinced him to wear an new suit of invisible clothes that was made of the finest cloth, and only those who were stupid could not see them. The Emperor, not wanting to appear stupid, went along with the charade and "put on" his invisible new clothes. Then he goes on a procession through the city to show off his new "clothes". The crowd, not wanting to offend their Emperor, pretended that he really was wearing what he claimed to be wearing and shouted their praise. Unfortunately for the Emperor, a little boy speaks up and says the obvious, "But he has nothing on!" Suddenly everyone feels foolish and embarrassed, not least the buck-naked Emperor standing in the street in front of hundreds of people.
Folks, sometimes I feel like I'm seeing the very same thing happening with so many of God's people who support the Critical text. The world praises it; the Liberals praise it; Evangelicals praise it, and now even many professing Fundamentalists praise it as the greatest thing since sliced bread; notwithstanding the heaps of evidence that speak loudly against taking these two manuscripts seriously.
Here is a very short list of the reasons why I reject the Critical Texts as reliable witnesses of the original manuscripts:
1) There are literally thousands of words, sentences, and even whole paragraphs (such as the two I've already mentioned) that are missing as compared with the Traditional Byzantine text (aka Received Text). As I've already noted, the percentage of text that is missing from the Critical text Greek manuscripts has been estimated by some to be as high as 5%! If it were a matter of only a few dozen random words or conflicts in word spelling and such between the various manuscripts, that would be understandable and even excusable, since it is clear that copying a text by hand is an exceedingly difficult task, and it is always possible to misspell a word or even leave out a word here or there by mistake. Collating the many copies of the Greek texts helps to overcome these type of errors in transcription, so that the Word of God is never lost in spite of these difficulties. But the Critical texts have horrendous gaps and holes in their texts, and it seems clearly impossible to reconcile the huge gap of Mark 16:9-20 with a simple transcription error. Either it is true Biblical text or someone attempted to remove it from the Bible permanently. The same goes for John 8:1-11. The Critical text apologists claim that the Received Text is "inflated" as a result of zealots adding words to the Bible to support their Trinitarian beliefs etc. Well, is that true or not? The Kingdom Bible format has revealed the truth of their claims and made them look like the foolish people who yelled their approval of the "new clothes" of the naked Emperor strutting down the street. I've already seen it is why I can say it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so check it out for yourself.
2) The words that are left out of the Critical texts are not mere random missing words; they are clearly words that are aimed right at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ.
For example, Ephesians 3:14 in the Received Text reads, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (KJV, NKJV, Young's Literal Translation, and Kingdom Bible).
But versions that use the Critical texts read, "For this reason I bow before the Father,.." (omitting "of our Lord Jesus Christ") [New American Standard, NIV, and almost all other modern Bible versions; check yours to see how it reads]
The number of examples such as Ephesians 3:14 could be multiplied many hundreds of times.
Dr. Donald Waite states in his book "Defending the King James Bible":
“Do you know how many changes they made? My own personal count, as of August 2, 1984, using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these 5,604 alterations, I found 1,952 to be OMISSIONS (35%), 467 to be ADDITIONS (8%), and 3,185 to be CHANGES (57%). In these 5,604 places that were involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words included, making a total of 9,970 Greek words that were involved. This means that in a Greek Text of 647 pages (such as Scrivener's text), this would average 15.4 words per page that were CHANGED from the Received Text. Pastor Jack Moorman counted 140,521 words in the Textus Receptus. These changes would amount to 7% of the words; and 45.9 pages of the Greek New Testament if placed together in one place."
While I disagree strongly with the need to use Old English in translating the Word of God, I think that Dr. Waite's findings are quite striking, and speak loudly that the Critical text manuscripts should not be taken seriously as a valid witness of the original Greek texts of the Bible. In short, if you took a shotgun loaded with a skeet round, tacked up a copy of the Received Text on a wall about fifty feet away, and blasted the copy with the shotgun, you would probably have something that would be just as reliable and good as the Critical texts.
3) The final reason I reject the Critical Texts is as I have already stated: the UCCOO format of the Kingdom Bible (really just the Bible, since it isn't my outline; it came from God Himself, not from me) categorically disproves the validity of the Critical texts because it reveals the two huge holes in the Biblical text that were created by the editors of the Critical text. But those two holes do not exist in the Received Text!!! The Received Text works beautifully and fits right in with no problem whatsoever. Praise the Lord!
For those with training to access the original languages, I highly recommend "The Holy Bible in the Original Languages", published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. This edition contains the Bomberg Hebrew text and the Scrivener Received text in Greek, which are the same texts which underlie both the KJV and the Kingdom Bible.
Links for I John 5:7-8
http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm
Thank you in advance for your prayers for this ministry.