Old Testament Text.

The NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION records the basis of its translation. On Pages viii ix of the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION of 1978, the editors wrote:

(Page.viii) ‘For the Old Testament, the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic text, as published in the latest editions of:

[1] BIBLIA HEBRAICA (which is the same Kittel mentioned previously) was used throughout.

[2] THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS contain material bearing on an earlier stage of the Hebrew text (So they’ are going to use the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are going to change it when the Dead Sea Scrolls say change it in various places.) They were consulted as were the

[3] SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH (that is another text that is different from the Hebrew) and the

[4] ANCIENT SCRIBAL TRADITIONS relating to [p. ix] textual changes (that is a tradition, maybe, in some places, and they are going to use that perhaps over the Masoretic Hebrew text for textual changes). Sometimes a

[5] VARIANT HEBREW READING IN THE MARGIN of the (Now they are going to use marginal readings instead of the actual text) In rare cases

[6] WORDS IN THE CONSONANTAL TEXTS WERE DIVIDED DIFFERENTLY from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text…The translators also consulted the more important

[7] EARLY VERSIONS (that is ) the

[8] SEPTUAGINT: (So here is the Old Testament TRANSLATED into Greek and they are going to use that as their basis and foundation).


[10] THEPODOTION (they had a translation from the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek): the

[11] VULGATE (That is the Latin translation.): the


[13] TARGUMS and for the Psalms the

[14] JUXTA HEBRAICA of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed…some words read with a

[15] DIFFERENT SET OF VOWELS. These instance are usually NOT indicated by footnotes

NIV pages 8- 9
Comments in brackets (italics):
D.A Waite, Th.D.,PhD Defending The King James Version Page 22.

The NIV editors have altered the foundation of the Old Testament Text in 15 different ways!!

The NEW KING JAMES version

Old Testament Text.

On page 4 reads

“…. The text used was the [1] 1967/77 STUTTGART EDITION OF BIBLIA HEBRAICA,”

(It is called “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia”) abbbreviated BHS
(Waite claims there are 20,000 t0 30,000 suggested changes throughout the Hebrew basis of the NKJV. Ibid page 23)

We repeat (Page 4):

“…. The text used was the [1] 1967/77 STUTTGART EDITION OF BIBLIA HEBRAICA,… with frequent [2] comparisons being made with the BOMBERG EDITION of 1525 (The basis of the King James translation— Our comment. Editor), the SEPTUAGINT version of the Old Testament and the [4] LATIN VULGATE, in addition referring to a variety of [5] Ancient versions of the Hebrew Scripture and manuscripts from the [6] Dead Sea Scrolls”


Whilst it is recognised that the Authorised King James Version (KJV) has its faults, these are well known and documented.

There are some excellent works available which allow the English reader to get back to the original Hebrew and Greek.

As an example Strongs concordance and Englishman’s Greek and Hebrew concordance and Lexicon numbered to Strongs.

The King James version is THE version which is based on the Jewish Hebrew Text (Ben Chayyim Masoretic) and “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Romans 3:1-2

No modern versions since except the NKJV (the footnotes are from the Wescott and Hort based Greek Texts) are based on the same Greek text as the King James Version.


Every true Disciple of Christ will want to get an English version which is as close to the original as is humanly possible – it is a matter of life and death:

“ the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63

Some advocate the value of comparing versions, but if these are spurious as we believe many are then they will lead away from the truth. The guide of the spirit is: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” 1Cor 2:13

John Thomas wrote: “We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the authority of his new translation based on such readings which are utterly at variance with the first principles of the oracles of God… even if written in the days of John, affirming the contrary, could be anything else but spurious.”

Since all New English translations since are based on these Manuscripts will you have the same wisdom and have no hesitation in rejecting them and choosing the King James Version as your Bible?