Response #8


Here in this part of my response to John Wolf’s “article” I will answer 5 more of his 67 Questions. These have been randomly selected.


16. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome was translated into English - a translation of a translation?


Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding this subject. You may want to revise this ‘question’. The last 6 verses of Revelation is NOT absent from the Textus Receptus. They are found in all editions of the TR. They were absent from Codex 1r, which was used by Erasmus when compiling his first Greek text. This is what they were absent from and not the TR as you have erroneously stated.


Following is the last 6 verses of Revelation as found in the NASV:


16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

17The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.


Now, here are these same verses from our AV:


16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.


Your ‘question’ is always thrown out as though there are massive differences in the TR (because it supposedly followed “the Catholic Latin Vulgate”) and the modern critical Greek texts. However, the differences in these 6 verses are actually very small when compared to other ‘differences’. There are certainly other more significant differences due to following various Greek mss. than what we encounter here in Rev. 22. There is, in reality, only 2 differences in the underlying Greek texts in these verses; viz. ‘book of life’ instead of ‘tree of life’ and ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ instead of ‘Lord Jesus’. I will deal with the latter variant first.


The Vulgate reads, “Domini nostri Iesu Christi” in v. 21. The Greek text that underlies our KJB reads, “kuriou hemon Iesou Xristou” (our Lord Jesus Christ). This reading can be found in Greek mss. 205, 254, 2067. Bruce Metzger, well known textual scholar, comments that this reading can be found in, “about 15 minuscules”. A similar reading (Lord Jesus Christ) can be found in the following mss. 046, 051, 94, 1006, 1854, 2020, 2042, 2065, 2073, 2138, and 2433. Again, Metzger notes that this reading can be found in “most minuscules” and is very similar to that reading of our KJB as opposed to the reading of the Westcott-Hort type versions. Also, the reading “our Lord Jesus Christ” can be found in the Old Latin, ancient Armenian and Syriac versions. Finally, we see that Erasmus’ reading has substantial Greek attestation.


The other ‘difference’ is found in v. 19, viz. book of life. This verse has certainly been discussed ad nauseam so I will only briefly comment here. This variant is claimed by many to be ‘without Greek ms. support’ but his is not correct. Herman Hoskier (see Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse) has proven that Ms. 57 and 141 read “book” and not “tree”. Edward F. Hills noted, “According to Hoskier, all the Greek manuscripts, except possibly one or two, read, tree of life. The Textus Receptus reads, book of life, with the Latin Vulgate (including the very old Vulgate manuscript F), the Bohairic version, Ambrose (d. 397), and the commentaries of Primasius (6th century) and Haymo (9th century).”


Question: You seem to object that a “translation of a translation” can be inspired or the preserved words of God. Can you explain how this affects your view of “the Hebrew” regarding the conversations between Joseph and his brothers? You regard “the Hebrew” as the inspired words of God yet these conversations were not carried out in Hebrew. “The Hebrew” is in fact a “translation of a translation”. Are these words “inspired scripture” as written in “the Hebrew”?


22. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mat 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI); and "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is a place of torment in the grave and a distinct hell which is the lake of fire into which sinners are thrown after the judgement: Rev 20:14).


Here is a classic case of ‘blind’ plagiarism. Of course John denies doing such but if he had taken 1 minute to document this ridiculous claim he would’ve never used this question. Again, this is proof that John didn’t come up with these questions himself but merely stole them from another site. I know exactly where he got them from and he has included EVERY one of their errors on his site. I will document even more of these errors in my rebuttal.


John claims he did a bunch of ‘research’ in order to write his paper. Well, one has to wonder just how much actual ‘research’ he did considering the vast errors throughout his “article”.


If John would’ve checked he would’ve easily seen that the Greek word in Matt. 4:1 is the same word as found in John 13:2. His claim here is absolutely false.


John, would you like to comment regarding your false accusation on Matt. 4:1 and Jn. 13:2????


Next we have the accusation regarding “hades and hell”. One has to wonder what kind of weird theology John is espousing by this question. What is this “Hades” anyway? Well, my Webster’s New World Dictionary defines Hades as: 1. in Greek mythology the resting place of the dead. “Resting place”?? I thought John said it was “a place of torment”. Clearly “Hades” is not always seen as “a place of torment”. Terry Watkins states, "The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!" (The New King James Version: Counterfeit by Terry Watkins) One could very easily use the modern version “Hades” to promote a false New Age doctrine.


What is a bit ironic is that John here gives as references Lk. 16:23 and Matt. 5:22. Had he bothered to do any ‘research’ he most likely wouldn’t have included this example either. You see, the version John claims is “the most powerful” and “my personnel (sic) favorite” and “the translation that I was raised on” does the EXACT same thing in these verses. Just have a look at the NIV! I suppose it is ‘okay’ for John’s NIV to do this but when it comes to our KJB it is a gross “error” (cf. #22). John’s NIV reads, “In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.” (Lk. 16:23) The NIV variously translates “Hades” – hades, grave, depths, and hell. The NIV is not the only modern translation to render ‘hades as hell. Many modern translations agree with our KJB and translate ‘hades as “hell”.


Question: In 1 Cor. 15:55 many modern versions read “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” (NASV); whereas, our KJB reads, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”. Can you explain to me why the modern versions read so differently?


26. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript written in Oxford about 1520 by a Catholic Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate and inserted the trinity again into the KJV. Once again, a text that did not come from the Greek TR at all. Was this interpolation inspired by God?


Once again, you may want to correct your site. It is not “1 Jn 5:8” but rather 1 Jn. 5:7. You are also incorrect in stating that the verse is “found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript written in Oxford about 1520…” Additionally, you are quite mistaken when you say, “a text that did not come from the Greek TR at all”. The Textus Receptus contains 1 Jn. 5:7 just as it is found in our King James Bible. You don’t know what you are talking about. I’m also very curious as to how “a Catholic Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy)” living in 1520 could have “inserted the trinity again into the KJV” considering the fact that our KJB wasn’t produced until 1611. An amazing feat this would’ve been for sure!


At any rate, you are completely wrong in the information contained in your question. 1 Jn. 5:7 can be found (whether in the margin or in the text itself) in these Greek mss.: 61 (16 century) which, by the way, was the first manuscript found that contained the verse, 88 (12th century), 221 (10th century), 429 (14th century), 629 (14th century), 635 (11th century), 636 (15th century), 918 (16th century), 2318 (18th century). The passage also receives strong support from the Old Latin MSS. There are over 8,000 Latin manuscripts, of those that contain the Catholic Epistle of 1 John the vast majority contain 1 John 5:7. For example, it is in m (427 AD), r (5th/6th century), t (8th century).


The passage also has very ancient and widespread testimony from the Early Church Writers. I John 5:7 is cited in the Speculum (427 AD) and the Varimadum (380 AD). It is also cited by Priscillian (385 AD), Idacius Clarus (4th century), Cassian (435 AD), Ps-Vigilius (date unknown), Ps-Athanasius (6th century), Fulgentius (533 AD), Ansbert (8th century) and Cyprian (250 AD).


Question: How do explain all the evidence for 1 Jn. 5:7 that predates your stated 1520? In particular, if 1 Jn. 5:7 is of such a late date (as you assert) how do you explain the fact that Cyprian quoted this verse prior to 250 AD?


31. Are you aware that the Hebrew and Greek texts themselves are not pure and errors have been found in both the Hebrew texts and the Septuagint Greek version? How then can underlying the KJV with the errors in these texts be considered inspired by God?


What an interesting ‘question’! If you’ve found “errors” in the Hebrew texts you should have plainly stated what you have found and we could’ve discussed the particular “errors”. I find these types of generalizations common among would-be Bible critics – always speaking in vague terms (e.g. ‘errors have been found’) but never offering specific examples. I am aware of some of the ‘errors’ in the Greek LXX but it must be emphasized that our KJB was not based upon the supposed LXX as you erroneously state.


Would you admit that the only reason for your ‘Questions’ is to try to create doubt and unbelief in the Bible Believer? If this isn’t your motive why do you contradict yourself over and over in your article and questions? An example of this can be seen when we compare this question and question #36, where you try to make it appear that you actually believe that the Hebrew is the “inspired Word of God”. However, in this question we see you claiming that there are “errors” in the Hebrew text and, further, you claim that the Hebrew is “not pure”. What benefit is there to the body of Christ by you lying this way? If the Hebrew is inspired then it cannot contain ‘errors’. If the Hebrew has ‘errors’ and is “not pure” then it cannot be considered as “the inspired Word of God”. You are seeking only to deceive!


Question: Can you document ONE passage from the OT where our KJB followed the LXX and not the Hebrew?


64. Is it a sin to use different translations to try and understand all that could be translated from the manuscripts?


No doubt this question was written for shock value only. No one I know of believes it is a ‘sin’ to use different translations. If you wish to use various translations, by all means, go ahead and use them. You may ‘use them’ but you will never “believe” them. You will say that they all have errors and are not the words of God but of men.


As for you trying to “understand all that could be translated from the manuscripts” by consulting various ‘different’ translations perhaps you would be willing to help me with a few examples. Please tell me how consulting ‘different’ translations help you in your understanding of what God is saying.


Gen. 20:16


NKJV- Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this vindicates you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked.


NASV- To Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; behold, it is your vindication before all who are with you, and before all men you are cleared.”


NIV- To Sarah he said, "I am giving your brother a thousand shekels of silver. This is to cover the offense against you before all who are with you; you are completely vindicated."


So, was she vindicated, or was the offense covered, was she reproved or cleared?


Deut. 33:2


NIV- He said: "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.


NASV- He said, "The LORD came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones; At His right hand there was flashing lightning for them.


ESV- He said,

“The Lord came from Sinai
and dawned from Seir upon us;
he shone forth from Mount Paran;
he came from the ten thousands of holy ones,
with flaming fire at his right hand.


NKJV- And he said: "The LORD came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came with ten thousands of saints; From His right hand Came a fiery law for them.


Does consulting these 4 translations make this passage ‘clearer’? Did He come WITH “myriads/ten thousands” or did He come FROM the midst of “ten thousands”? With or From? Did he have “flashing lightning”, “flaming fire” or “a fiery law for them” in His right hand??? And, where in the word did “from his mountain slopes” come from??? Is that ‘clear’ enough for you?


Dan. 3:25


NKJV- “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”


NIV- He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."


Was it “the Son of God” or “a son of the gods”? Big difference here!


1 Sam. 6:19


NASV- And He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked

into the ark of the LORD. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men, and the people

mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great slaughter.


NIV- But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them

to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because

of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them,


Young’s Translation- And He smiteth among the men of Beth-Shemesh, for they looked

into the ark of Jehovah, yea, He smiteth among the people seventy men -- fifty chief

men; and the people mourn, because Jehovah smote among the people -- a great smiting.


How many men did God kill?


Heb. 11:11


NIV- By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.


NASV- By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.


NRSV- By faith he received power of procreation, even though he was too old--and Sarah herself was barren--because he considered him faithful who had promised.


NKJV- By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.


Who is the person being spoken about here – Abraham or Sarah?


I can easily multiple these examples by hundreds, even thousands, and they only get more confusing. Leland Ryken said (of this method of consulting ‘different’ translations in hopes of better understanding what God was saying), “Furthermore, when I consult half a dozen dynamic equivalent translations, I more often than not find that they vary so widely that I end up confused and with a new sense of the unreliability of them as translations.” Anyone with any honesty at all will agree with Mr. Ryken’s words.