Excerpt taken from 51 Reasons Why the King James", pages 111-114 and 118-120.
Copyright © 2018 by David W. Daniels. Reproduced by permission.
Publishers Plant Doubt to Make More Money
Why would a publisher, selling King James Bibles to King James Bible readers, write notes in it to make you doubt the King James Bible? Is there something in it for them? Or are they just afraid of the King James Bible? Or both?
Let's find out!
I'm going to give a few examples of the bible-doubting footnotes in just one of the KJV study Bibles. Amazingly, these are the same Bible-doubting footnotes you'll find in the NIV, ESV, NAS, NLT and any number of other versions and their study Bibles.
When Bible-believers requested more King James Bibles, publishers met the demand by making newer KJVs and more kinds of KJVs.
But why did they add those same, tired, Bible-doubting footnotes to the King James Bibles? Are they trying to get people to turn away from the King James? If so, why?
I bought a copy of The King James Study Bible, Second Edition, copyright 1988 and 2013 by Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. It was printed by Thomas Nelson, who'd rather have you buy a New King James or another one of their Bibles.
Let's take a look at some of the notes, shall we?
Mark 16:9-20. Here is just an excerpt. It says, "Ancient manuscripts contain two different endings for Mark." And then it says, "In light of the uncertainty attached to verses 9-20, it may be advised to take care in basing doctrine upon them (especially vv. 16-18)."
My Ryrie Bible says the same thing. In fact, most modern study Bibles pretty much have that same note in them.
Why? Are they afraid some false doctrine is in the verse? No, they'll never tell you that. They'll never put that warning in. But they want you to be …how did they put it? Uncertain. Isn't that the opposite of faith? How weird.
Philippians 2:7 has a big note in the section about Jesus, where He became a man. But in the middle of these voluminous footnotes is the statement: "He emptied Himself."
"Emptied Himself?" The scripture in the King James is perfectly clear: "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" "Emptied Himself" makes Him look like He stopped being God. Isn't that what some of those TV preachers have been saying? Hmm.
1 Thessalonians 5:22 is also clear in the King James Bible: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." But they put the inaccurate "every form of" in the margin.
"Every form of evil?" Every other place εἶδος (eidos, the Greek word for "appearance") appears it means "how you appear to others." Same here. So this verse is really about maintaining a good testimony, isn't it?
God isn't just saying to avoid every form of evil, or evil wherever it appears. It's saying to avoid you or me looking like we are doing evil! If the King James reading is so clear, why did they write the false reading in the margin?
One more: 1 John 5:7-8. Just a part of the notes here:
"…verse 8 should read simply: ‘The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.' The longer versions of these verses made their way into the traditional printed Greek Testament (TR) and thus into the King James Version due to influence of the Latin Bible and only four late Greek manuscripts."
So, if they don't believe it, why did they leave it in? Because it wouldn't be a King James Bible without it. —And you wouldn't buy it!
So, next question, why didn't they hire a person who believes the King James to write the King James notes in the King James study Bible? Doesn't that make sense?
It's not like there's any shortage of believers. I told you in another chapter that most people who actually read a Bible, read a King James, regardless of what version they buy, or why.
Surely, they could find a few believers in the nation, and have them write believing notes, to show why God's perfect words are translated into English in the King James Bible. It would inspire faith, not doubt.
But if they inspire faith in the very words of the King James, what do they need other Bibles for? Publishers have a huge inventory of multiple versions —especially this company: Thomas Nelson and Zondervan and World were all bought by HarperCollins, under Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and is now called "HarperCollins Christian" —although the owners are not Christian, not by a long shot.
That's over 55% of all the Bibles published, many versions. And they are scared to death of anyone or anything, including a King James with Bible-believing footnotes, interfering with their "bottom line," profits. You know, "gain," "filthy lucre," "money."
1 Timothy 6:10: "…the love of money is the root of all evil," And yes, they've got a note messing with that, too!
They love money. They love publishing KJVs, but KJVs with Bible-doubting footnotes, to get you to look at their catalog for their other Bibles and their newer versions, as well.
They're KJVs, but "Trojan Horse KJVs," with notes waiting to jump out at you and get you to doubt and question your faith, no longer believing God's holy and preserved words.
But as my old mentor said, "The scripture stops here. The rest are man's opinions."
Do believe the King James text. But just don't believe the notes and the introductions. Don't let a publisher's "Trojan Horse" King James spring its trap on you.
Doubt: The Fruit of Textual Criticism
If Textual Criticism really brought us God's words, we would expect an explosion of faith in God. What is its fruit?
Have you ever looked inside your Bible and seen those notes that say:
"The better manuscripts do not contain this,"
"The best manuscripts do not have these verses,"
"The better manuscripts say this and not that"?
That, brothers and sisters, is called Textual Criticism. I'd like to talk to you about the fruit of Textual Criticism.
Jesus talked a lot about fruit in Matthew 7:15-20. He said:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
You can't miss it from Jesus' words, can you? Fruit is what God wants, and it's good fruit.
What does God call "good fruit"? If you look in Romans 1:13, you would see that conversion of sinners is a good fruit. In 7:4, it's good works. In 15:28, it's giving to missions and to the aid of brothers and sisters in Christ who need something. Those are all good fruits that God likes.
Galatians 5:22-23, of course, is another list of good fruit: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."
That's the fruit God's looking for. Not one place in the entire Bible is doubt called a fruit. Check it for yourself. And yet this is exactly what I find in textual critics, textual criticism, and in the people strongly influenced by textual critics and textual criticism.
It's strange. If all this stuff about "getting back to the word of God" were really true, there would be fruit of faith, evangelism, giving to missions —there'd be something! The fruit of the Spirit!
But all I find are doubters! Like Bart Ehrman. Like Kirsopp Lake. For many years Lake followed the theories of Westcott and Hort, and Von Soden. He wrote, after years of paying attention and following their rules, "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of Von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall."
Then another major text scholar, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, wrote this before he died in 1924: "...the ultimate text (meaning New Testament), if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is forever irrecoverable."
Textual Criticism is not an act of faith. It is an act of doubt and leads only to despair.
When you see people who really believe Textual Criticism, do you see them as armed soul winners? or as armchair quarterbacks?
Do you see them fighting the enemy, or fighting the believers?
It is said that those who can, —do. Those who can't —teach. And those who can't do or teach, —are critics.
Brothers and sisters, there are only two options: faith or doubt.
I know so many people who've read the King James Bible and believe it, and the fruit is faith and acts of faith, and winning others to the faith.
Faith or doubt: it's your choice.
 Family 13 (the Ferrar Group): The Text According to Mark with a Collation of Codex 28 of the Gospels by Kirsopp Lake, Silva Tipple Lake and Silva Lake (Christophers, 1965), p. vii. He originally wrote those words in 1941. Emphasis mine.
 History of New Testament Criticism by F.C. Conybeare (NY: G.P. Putnam’s Son, the Knickerbocker Press, 1910), p. 168). Emphasis mine.