At first glance it appears that Mrs. Barbara Aho adheres to
the KJV 1611 [See
Watch.pair Warning] but a thesis
(1) posted to
her site that lends credence to modern bible versions suggests otherwise. This thesis was written by the late Edgar J. Goodspeed,
liberal theologian and linguist who authored and co-authored his own modern bible versions based on the
Westcott-Hort corrupt Greek text. Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of the
Lord Jesus Christ:
"Edgar Goodspeed was on the Revised
Standard committee. Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.
He looked at Jesus as a social reformer who gave his life as a martyr for a
'cause…' Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an 'Oriental story teller
at his best.' " (An Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel Gipp pages
Edgar J. Goodspeed used "The Translators to the Reader
Preface to the King James Version 1611" as a platform to advance his modernist
viewpoints. Below are my observations regarding the modernist
bible version paradigm shift
thesis accomplished in his time...and that is continuing to be accomplished in our time.
indented text, unless otherwise indicated, are excerpts from Goodspeed's thesis.]
Modernism: Bibles in All Forms
Greatly Serve Religion
Edgar J. Goodspeed began
his modern version paradigm shift by stating that bibles in all its forms have greatly served religion and that
the "meaning comes out more clearly" in
In all its forms it has greatly served
religion, and in its modern forms its meaning comes out more clearly and
more tellingly than ever.
The NKJV publisher continues to build on
Goodspeed's modernist foundation:
"With care, the translators brought the
majesty of God's word into a language that everyone can understand." (2)
James 1611 Version was Revised
After setting the reader up to believe that
modern versions are more understandable, Goodspeed went on to send the message
that the King James 1611 had to be heavily revised from 1611 until 1769 to
obsolete words and spellings that might confuse the ordinary reader.
The King James Version is predominantly the
Bible of the layman, and it will undoubtedly continue to be so for a long
time to come. This fact makes it doubly important that it be presented to
him as intelligently and as intelligibly as possible. This well-recognized
fact has led its publishers through the generations to have it tacitly
revised from time to time, so that the obsolete words and spellings might
not confuse the ordinary reader. This commendable activity began immediately
upon the first publication of the version in 1611 and continued
intermittently until 1769 when, under the hands of Dr. Blayney of Oxford, it
reached its present form. It has cleared the text of the version of
innumerable antique spellings, such as Hierusalem, Marie, assoone, foorth,
shalbe, fet, creeple, fift, sixt, ioy, middes, charet and the like.
Comparatively few verses in the version have escaped such improvements and
modernizations, and most verses contain several such changes.
In conjunction with Barbara Aho's
statement that the King James Bible has undergone many revisions, Goodspeed's
message conditions the reader to believe that since the King James Bible has
supposedly been revised and is still regarded by many as the word of God in
English, then one more revision [i.e. NKJV] in these days of apostasy will
not cause it to cease being God's word.
Goodspeed's partial truth, "This
well-recognized fact has led its publishers through the generations to have it
tacitly revised from time to time, so that the obsolete words and spellings
might not confuse the ordinary reader" reminds me of an advertisement
for modern 'bible' versions. The words of the 1611 King James Bible have not
been altered through the years. Spelling and printing errors have been
The words remain the same. (See:
King James 1611: The Myth of Early Revisions)
writing in the spirit of the modern-day King James Bible critic, brought up the removal of the
Apocrypha and the insertion of other historical (not canonical) material as
another "serious change" the original 1611 King James Bible:
The omission of the Apocrypha from most
modern printings of King James and the insertion of Archbishop Ussher's
chronology, which first appeared in its margins in 1701, were more serious
changes from the original King James; the chronology in particular has
certainly outlived its usefulness and, as at best a late accretion upon the
version, out not to continue.'
Since Goodspeed had such high regard for the
Apocrypha that he translated it into contemporary English, it is no wonder that
he considered the removal of this document from the King James 1611 a
Modernism: KJV 1611 is Not the Ultimate
Bible in English
This pro-Westcott-Hort liberal theologian
proceeded to instruct the "untrained" readers of the King James Bible
that it is not the original or the ultimate [English] Bible:
Not only do most readers of the King James
Version suppose it to be the original English Bible; they are actually
unconscious that there is any more ultimate form of the Bible to translate
or consult. A leading layman, in one of our most intellectual communions,
has told me that he always supposed the modern translations of the Bible
were made from the King James Version, and not long ago a newspaper
paragraph, with the commanding endorsement of the Associated Press,
explicitly made that assertion. The same idea appeared in the New Republic
as recently as April of last year. What can save these untrained,
well-meaning people from the idea that the King James Bible is the
"original"? Nothing but the statements of its own Preface.
The King James 1611 was not the original
English Bible but it is the ultimate English Bible. It is the last or concluding
element in a series of authentic English Bibles.
Modernism: KJV 1611 Not Authorized by
This modernist of his day, whose preface to the
King James Translators' Preface serves to undermine the readers' faith in
the King James Bible, did not want anyone to believe the King James 1611 was
authorized by God. He defined authorized as meaning that it was "officially
recognized for use in public worship" but he was especially disturbed
Christians of his day believed the King James Bible was
authorized (approved) by God:
Another widespread impression as to the
King James is that it is the "Authorized" Bible. The dean of a well-known
New England divinity school recently insisted upon that designation for it,
and strongly resented the application of it of any other name. We need not
go into the old vexed question of whether or not it was ever actually
authorized. For practically it certainly was so, and so regarded, being in
fact the third Authorized Bible of the English Church. The first was the
Great Bible of 1539, which was intended for church use. The second was the
Bishops' Bible of 1568, and the third was the King James of 1611.
"Authorized" meant, of course, officially recognized for use in public
worship, as the phrase "Appointed to be read in Churches" shows.
He said the
King James was not the Authorized Bible of his day:
The Roman Catholic Church
in this country uses in public worship the Douay Bible. It will be seen that
the King James is far from being the Authorized Bible today.
Goodspeed's citation of a bible
version favored by a false church in order to 'prove' the King James 1611 was not the
Authorized Bible speaks volumes.
Edgar J. Goodspeed, like the rest
of the infiltrators who held (and who currently hold) positions of authority in the church, was determined
that none of his readers believe that God authorized the King James Bible:
But the tragic part of it
all is that the people who still call it the "Authorized Bible" understand
by that term something very different from this. They understand it to mean
plenty of evidence that the NKJV
publisher and translators also did not believe that God preserved his word.
Versions More Suitable
Next Goodspeed mentioned a "more suitable bible
for purposes of public worship"--the Revised Version of 1881:
But when the Convocation of Canterbury in
1870 inaugurated the revision of the English Bible, it was definitely with a
view to providing a more suitable Bible for purposes of public worship, and
as a matter of fact the English Revised Bible of 1881-85 has, we are told,
actually displaced the King James in the use of Canterbury Cathedral and
Goodspeed also cited the American Standard
In the Protestant Episcopal
Church in America, Canon 45 provides that the lessons at the morning and
evening shall be read in the King James Bible ("which is the standard Bible
of this church"), or in the Revised Version, or in the American Standard
Goodspeed's citations of modern
bible versions is not surprising. He was on the translation committee for the Revised Standard Version
and he wrote his own bibles, one of which he named after himself!
Words Undermine Authority of KJV 1611
This liberal scholar, who devised 'bible'
versions of his own from the corrupt WH Greek Text and regarded the
King James Bible as a mere 'version' that was being phased out by newer ones,
introduced the subject of verbal inspiration.
I have today received
a letter from a very zealous young minister in Atlantic City, definitely
declaring his belief in the verbal inspiration of the King James Version.
This extraordinary view is very widely held.
Goodspeed (as well as
modern-day King James Bible critics) used the words of the King James
translators to try to cast doubt on the authority of the King James Bible. After
citing some passages, Goodspeed remarked:
These candid, scholarly
words of the Translators are not the words of inspired men, oracularly
confident of every word they use; they are the unmistakable words of
careful, sincere scholars, well aware of the inevitable limitations of their
knowledge. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Translators was not held
by them, and it is difficult to see how it can be held by anyone who will
read even this much of their Preface.
The issue concerning the King
James Bible, is not whether the translators were inspired by God
to write the Bible (God already inspired men to write his word) but did God
commission and help these godly, scholarly men to accurately translate
his inspired word into the English language, thus producing the Holy Bible in
English that God approves.
In the case of the King James Bible we
trust in the expertise of its translators and more than that in the
providential protection that God exercised in the form of preservation (not
source: Can You Trust Your Lexicon? http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0143.htm)
Modernism: King James 1611 is Not the
Word of God
It is plain that Edgar J. Goodspeed did not
want anyone to believe the King James Bible had any more authority than any
But of course the greatest illusion about
the King James Bible is that it is the sole, unique, divine Bible, untouched
by human hands.
Goodspeed regarded the doctrine that the King
James Bible is the sole, divine Bible in the English language as grotesque:
This doctrine, grotesque as it is, is
actually held as a matter of course by the vast majority of people.
Of course he cited the preface from the
Translators again in an attempt to 'prove' that the King James 1611 is not to be regarded as
the actual word of God:
The publication of any preface from the
Translators to the Reader would, by its very presence, whatever its
contents, do much to remedy this. The superstitious veneration with which
some very pious people regard it would be corrected by the reprinting of the
The Translators remarks did not cast doubt upon the authority of the King James Bible.
They acknowledged that those who traveled before them were raised up by God:
"... we are so far off from condemning any
of their labors that travelled before us in this kind, either in this land
or beyond sea, ... that we acknowledge them to have been raised up by God,
... and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity, in everlasting
remembrance. ... Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the
same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser; so, if we
building upon their foundation that went before us, and being helped by
their labors, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no
man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if
they were alive, would thank us." (Quoted from the real Translators' Preface
to the King James Version 1611.)
That is the reason Goodspeed's
thesis had to be written--to cause the reader to believe that God did not raise up men
who, in spite of
their own human weaknesses, translated his
inspired word to his satisfaction. Only those who are desperate to
'prove' that God was impotent to enable those modest but learned men to translate his inspired
word correctly into the English language use the Translators' Preface in this
Scholars who esteem man's word over God's word are hereticks and must be rejected. God
promised to preserve his Word. After the first and second admonition, reject
those who tell you otherwise.
Modernism: Accept Scholars of the Critical Greek
Goodspeed was deeply committed to textual
criticism (correcting 'errors' in the Traditional Text) and was not
that God's people (especially at that time in history) were rightly wary of modernists.
One of the most unfortunate things about
the adherents of the King James Version is their antipathy to scholars. They
regard them with grave suspicion. Yet their own version is the masterpiece
of biblical scholarship in Jacobean England. If the Preface reveals no more
to them than this, it would be worth printing, for it is precisely this rift
between piety and learning that is most dangerous to the church. As a matter
of fact, we owe the English Bible to university men, from the sixteenth
century to the twentieth. It could hardly be otherwise. But today, not one
reader of King James in ten thousand even dreams that any biblical scholar
had anything to do with his English Bible.
It was not godly biblical scholars that
Christians of Goodspeed's day rejected. Those who were wise distrusted scholars
of the critical Greek text kind:
Large numbers of King James Bible defenders
in 19th-century Britain understood the theological apostasy associated with
the critical Greek texts.
Criticism and Infidelity http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textualcriticism.htm)
The 'version' as Goodspeed repeatedly called
the Holy Bible King James, was translated in a better time because it was
God's time. This translation was conducted by men that God commissioned for this
purpose and as such, they handled the text as though it was the very word of
And this is the word of God, which we
(Quote source: The Translators to the
King James translators did not produce a mere 'version' to be
corrected by occultists Westcott and Hort who were themselves commissioned by
Satan to alter the Greek Text.
Modernism: King James Bible 1611
is Hard to Understand
Edgar J. Goodspeed
continued his thinly disguised diatribe against the King James Bible by stating
that the translators' Preface was removed from the King James 1611 due to its
obscurity and the King James 'version' is just as obscure as the Preface:
It may require some patience for the modern
reader to peruse the King James Preface. But think of the patience he is
called upon to exhibit in reading long obscure areas of Paul and the
prophets! He is by no means unaccustomed to reading his Bible in the midst
of obscurity. And it is an admirable idea to have a genuine piece of first
class Jacobean prose before him, side by side with the Jacobean revision, to
show him how these revisers actually wrote when not translating but
expressing their own thoughts. Here their real literary standards appear, in
an authentic sample. If to their modern publishers their style appears
obscure, it may in part explain the greater obscurity of their version. And
at all events, it shows how they thought one should write. This affords
their readers an example of what they considered clear and forceful English,
and the value of this to any serious reader of King James, as a measuring
rod, a standard of style, is unmistakable. Anyone who can understand the
Preface can understand the version.
Goodspeed's message that the King James Bible
is obscure reinforces his earlier assertion that modern bibles are more clear:
In all its forms it has greatly served
religion, and in its modern forms its meaning comes out more clearly and
more tellingly than ever.
Modernism: Man's Notes Needed
to Understand the Bible
was distressed by the removal of
Myles Smith's Preface to the King James Version 1611. He feared that the "ignorant and untrained
people who use the "version" would fail to read Smith's Preface and thus be
denied the opportunity to learn that the translators had no confidence in the
flesh to translate God's word.
The result of this upon the hosts of
ignorant and untrained people who use the version is disastrous in the
extreme. My own correspondence abounds in letters from well-meaning people
who have been led into the strangest misconceptions by its absence. It is
indeed long, controversial, and pedantic, but this very fact is significant.
And with all its faults, it says some things about the version and its
makers and their aims that still greatly need to be said, indeed, that must
be said, if the readers of the version are to be given the protection and
guidance that they deserve and that its makers provided for them.
Goodspeed indicated that without the inclusion
of the Translators to the Reader Preface, the
King James Bible 1611 can be used for evil:
The King James Version is a tremendous
force in the modern world, very potent for good if it be intelligently used,
but for evil if it be left unexplained.
Goodspeed considered the high regard that
Christians of his day had for the King James Bible an evil thing! He was opposed
to the "ignorant" King James Bible readers holding to what he deemed
was a strange misconception: that God worked in the translators both
to will and to do of his good pleasure regarding the translation of his word.
He stated, "no greater service" can
"be done to biblical study today than to put back the King James Preface
into its rightful place." His
statement reveals that he believed the King James Bible could not be
comprehended without the Preface! Indeed, he wrote, "It [the Preface] is
essential to any real understanding of the King James Version."
For my part, I know of no greater service
that can be done to biblical study today than to put back the King James
Preface into its rightful place, in every copy of that great version, to the
understanding of which it is so indispensable.
Goodspeed's "Man's notes are needed to
understand the bible" paradigm shift paved the way for the acceptance
of the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 and 1917.
Modernism: King James 1611 is
This author sounded like a
modern 'bible version' salesman by referring to the King James text as "quaint
and antique" that belongs in the museums of literature. His likening of the
beautiful language of the King James Bible with denying a sick man medical
modern treatment that leads to his death is downright sinister.
To me, of course, the religious values of
the Bible far outweigh any mere literary considerations. It has great
messages which the modern world greatly needs. To obscure these messages in
phraseology which may once have conveyed them but is now so quaint and
antique as to belong to the museums of literature, seems to me a very
shocking and tragic business. It is like denying a very sick man the medical
aid of today and giving him instead the treatment of the 16th century,
because it is so picturesque! It is like insisting upon cupping him and
bleeding him, at the risk of his health and even his life.
Edgar J. Goodspeed concluded his anti-King
James Bible thesis as follows:
But even to those who take the Bible less
seriously -- to the dogmatist and the dilettante -- it must be clear that
the King James Preface belongs at the beginning of the King James Bible,
where its makers put it and meant it to remain; and that the reasons
advanced by its publishers for omitting it are really very cogent reasons
for restoring it to its rightful place.
Not once in this thesis did Edgar J. Goodspeed
refer to the Holy Bible as the word of God.
Barbara Aho's expose, ""The Nineteenth Century
Occult Revival: The Legacy of Westcott and Hort" (3) sends the message that she
disapproves of the Westcott-Hort revision of the Greek text. Why then is she
sending the opposite message by advancing Edgar J. Goodspeed's
modernist 'bible' version paradigm
update 8/19/05: Barbara Aho recently added an
explanation (4) for her promotion of this "modern manuscript scholar" on her
website. So as not to cause others to spiritually stumble, it is best that she
endorse the Translators' Preface to the 1611 King
James Version without posting the spiritually corrupt thesis of an
unbeliever in bible scholar garb.
Goodspeed denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. He believed
Jesus was a social reformer who gave his life as a martyr for
a 'cause' and that " 'Genesis [was] the product of an 'Oriental story teller at
his best.' " (See: An Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel Gipp
(1) Edgar J. Goodspeed's thesis, "The Translators to the Reader Preface to the King James
Version 1611" http://watch-unto-prayer.org/thesis.html
(2) About the NKJV http://www.newkingjamesversion.com/about/
(3)The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival
(4) Barbara Aho's explanation for her promotion of
Edgar J. Goodspeed, an anti-Christian theologian who scattered the sheep
rather than gathered with Jesus Christ can be found at http://watch-unto-prayer.org/thesis.html
James Version and the One World Church