The King James Only - What is the standard?

If you were hoping that there was going to be a whole room full of King James Only advocates, it has not been my experience in my life that that would take place. Just briefly, I was raised, say, in the General Association of Regular Baptists in the Pentecostal Baptist tradition.

I was not raised King James Only. Certainly, that was my first Bibles, and a lot of my first Bible I ever read through was a New Schofield reference edition. Oxford, well, that was a great Bible. The leather on that is still good, even after all these years.

How I Encountered the King James Only Movement

So, I'm familiar with the mindset, and it was very early. I was still in high school when I first encountered the King James Only movement. I remember my parents talking about going back to Tennessee Temple.

I had a relative that taught there, and they were talking about church splits over the King James Only issue and stuff. I started thinking about things like that back then. As soon as I started in college and started studying Greek, I started corresponding with some of the leaders of the movement and things like that.

It was not until 1994 that one of our volunteers with the ministry heard a woman on a local Christian radio station, and she called me and said, you've got to call in and listen to this. So, I turned on the radio, and the woman's name was Gail Ripplinger.

Gail Ripplinger wrote a book called New Age Bible Versions. How many of you have seen New Age Bible Versions? Not very many, but that's interesting. The book was really making the rounds. I called the guy on the station, and I said, man, you've got to have somebody on to give you the side, because he was obviously on her side.

He said, well, she said that no one will debate her, but she also said that she won't debate anyone who hasn't read her book. The book was 700 pages long, and so I said, well, I'll debate her. I'll read the book, and so I went by the station, picked up a copy of the book, and if any of you have heard the result of debate, it was the last time that Gail Ripplinger ever did a debate with anyone.

Ever since then, she has made sure that they're only pre-screened questions that she wrote, because it was fascinating. I don't have this in the presentation. I do have one quote from her, but she had something in the book called acrostic algebra.

Acrostic algebra. Any math people in here? Ever heard of acrostic algebra? Yeah, neither did I. Neither did anybody else, and what she did is she took an NASV, an NIV, and an AV, and then she subtracted the letters out, and the last letters that were left were SIN, S-I-N, and this proves that the NASV and the NIV are the same, because it's obvious.

And so, during the debate on the radio station, I pointed out to her that everywhere else in her book, she had referred to the NASV, because that is the official designation. That's the actual name, is NASV.

But that was the only place where she used NASV. Now, we all know that if she had used NASV, you would have ended up with something like SIMBA, or something like that. So, I asked her, if you call NASV everywhere else in your book, except there, why would you do that?

Her answer was, because that's what the Lord calls it. Okay, and so when I asked her, where did you get acrostic algebra? God gave it to me. It's really hard to do a meaningful debate with people who talk to God and get all their answers just directly from God, but everyone can see that there was really no consistency in this whole stuff.

And so, what happened was, I had written a bunch of notes for the radio program, and I put them together in a booklet. And my dad worked at a large little Baptist church in a print shop, and so he was allowed to print stuff for me, and so he'd print out these booklets, and bookstores all across the United States are contacting us.

We need this stuff. We're getting hit with this book all the time. And so, I'd already written a few books. I'd written Letters to a Mormon Elder, and The Fatal Flaw in Roman Catholicism, and stuff like that.

And so, I was talking to my editor at Bethany House, and he said, sounds like there's a book there. And so, I wrote The King James Only Controversy in four months in 1994. And what most people don't know is, I also typeset the book, because in 1994, Bethany House could not do the biblical language stuff.

And so, they literally bought a 1 ,000 DPI Laser Master printer for me. We couldn't afford anything like that. And as I would send out copies of that book for review, and there were corrections we made, I did all that work myself.

I typeset that entire book. That was a labor of love, believe me. We even sent a copy to Gayle Rucklinger, because we said, you're mentioned in here, there's a chapter where I talk about your arguments, and so we want to be fair, if there's anything you'd like to say.

And she, of course, didn't respond to me, but she did write to Bethany House Publishers, saying that she would sue them if they published a book. And that actually delayed the book a little bit, because they're like, we've never done anything like this before, have anybody threatened us in that way?

They ran by the attorneys, the attorneys said, well, let her sue. And of course, she never did, but that was the kind of response that you got from those folks. The book has had a huge impact. Interestingly enough, it is my biggest selling book over all these years.

It's still in print. It came out in 1994, it's in a second edition. And it's primarily used by schools, English-speaking schools, to introduce people to the subject of textual criticism. It also obviously has a pastoral bent to it as well, because once the book came out, I started getting letters from all sorts of people saying, oh, I wish we'd had this book five years ago.

My church split about this, or I had to come home from the mission field because of this, and oh, if we'd just had this information then, etc., etc. So, that launched me into this area. Now, I can't point you to a whole bunch of debates on this subject, because it's next to impossible to get the advocates of King-Jandoliism to debate.

If you want to see what happens when that does happen, the 1995 John Ankerberg series, it was an eight-show series that we recorded in Nashville. And that's fascinating. I have hair and round glasses, which is sort of the way things were in 1995, I guess.

It was already thin enough, I should have gotten rid of it even back then, to be honest with you, but the hair, I mean. But that was a fascinating encounter, and I think you can really get an idea of where the various King-James-only guys are coming from in that particular encounter.

And then I did a debate with Jack Mormon in London in 2011, and that's available on YouTube, and I think that was a very, very useful one. I've done a few radio encounters, but that's about it. You can't get the big guys to come out and do debates, because fundamentally King-James-onlyism requires you to use one standard for the King James, and another standard for every other translation of the Bible, whether it was done before or after the King James.

And so in a debate where you have to do cross-examination, that doesn't hold up real well, and so that's one of the reasons I think they don't do that kind of thing. So, I want to start off with a little bit of historical material from the King-James translators themselves.

I don't need it? Oh! Well, okay. Now this may explode in my hand and kill me, but let's see here.

Oh yeah, look at that.

Okay, this is about the brightness. You know, I almost got in trouble at an airport in Germany for having one that was that bright. They almost didn't let me on the plane, because it was that bright. But this will work, so if you weren't here last night, I did inform folks that if you fall asleep during my presentation, I will take this super bright green laser, and I will shoot it in your mouth, your eyes will glow, I'll take a picture and post it.

Well, I can post it on Facebook, can't I?

Facebook's dead.

We'll put it on Twitter, but thank you very, very much. I will definitely utilize that as best I can this year. So, I love lasers anyways. Lasers have always fascinated me. From the time I was a kid, I wanted those things.

Anyhow, alright. What I want to do is give you some historical material.

Thank you.

From the translators of the King-James Version of the Bible. Because the last people who would ever be King-James-only-ness were the men who produced it. That's the fascinating thing to recognize, is that the men who produced it would be absolutely mortified by what has been done with their translation in the King-James Movement.

Which, by the way, goes back to a Seventh-day Adventist in the early 1930s. That's as far back as it goes. That's its origin. And so, certainly there were people who argued about the best text to be translated and things like that before that period of time.

But as far as any type of elevation of the translation itself to where it becomes literally the synonym for the Word of God, it is less than 100 years in its existence. So, the KJV translators face the same arguments that are hurled against the godly men who worked on the NASB or NIB.

Wasn't the KJV good enough for you? Why prepare a new translation? Here is their reply. This is the King-James translators themselves. From 1611. Many men's mouths have been open a good while and yet are not stopped with speeches about the translation so long in hand.

It did take them seven years to do it. Or rather, perusals of translations made before and asked, what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment? Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while?

Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? That is, do we condemn the ancient? In no case. But after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.

As if he said, being provoked by the example of the learned men who lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether my talent and the knowledge of the tongues may be profitable in any measure to God's church, lest I should seem to labor in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in them, although ancient, above that which was in them.

Thus St. Jerome may be thought to speak. They quoted Jerome a lot. Regarding their reliance upon the use of the many English translations that preceded their work, because remember, the King James is not the first English translation.

The Puritans loved the Geneva translation. The Pilgrims that came over to this nation would not even bring the King James with them. They detested it. They instead brought the Geneva Bible with them. And King James didn't like the Geneva Bible because the Geneva Bible contained notes that limited the authority of kings, and referred to tyrants, and things like that.

So, regarding their reliance upon and use of the many English translations that preceded their work, the translator said, yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be wiser, so if we, building upon their foundation that went before us, and being wholten 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.

And so they acknowledged their indebtedness to those that came before them. Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not just so to be accepted against, and hath been our endeavor, that our mark, so they admit, we were using stuff that came before us.

The KGB translators had a very different view of the use of Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible.

Than King James only has do. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the news. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where through the olive branches emptied themselves into the gold.

St. Augustine called them precedent, or original language of St. Jerome's fountains. The same St. Jerome affirmed that as the credit of the old books, he meaneth of the Old Testament, is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the new by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original Greek.

You will find King James only is who will constantly ridicule you if you make reference to the original languages, which the King James translators did over and over again. Their view that the word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.

They said, now the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, for we have seen none of theirs, the whole Bible is yet, referring to the Catholics, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

And so they affirmed that even the meanest translation, that is the most basic translation of the Bible in English, contains the word of God and is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated with French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

So in other words, translations can continue to communicate the intention of the original. That was what the King James translators believed. Did the KGB translators use the same sources and methods as modern translators, looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like?

Well certainly, here's what they said.

Neither do we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Calvi, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch. Neither do we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.

But having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor covening praise for expedition, we have at length that the good hand of the Lord upon us brought the word to that past that you see.

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, the original King James, and most of the people today are certainly not reading the original King James. They're not reading the 1611.

They're reading what's called the 1769 Laney revision. But if you find an old-style King James, you will find all sorts of notes in the margins. There were thousands of them. And so some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, because there were places where it said, or this, or translated this way, or maybe this way.

Lest the authority of the scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that preemptorily.

These men were scholars of the Bible, and they knew the danger of people taking a particular phrase and reading a meaning into it that the original did not actually convey. And this is what exactly they're saying.

And that, unfortunately, is what happens in King James Onlyism all the time. Therefore, as St. Augustine said, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen King James Onlyists mock the idea of comparing translations so you can have a better idea of what the original is. If you don't have access to the original language.

We have so many fine English translations, comparing them. Oh, that's just terrible. That's not what the King James translators believed. They believed just the opposite. So diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left, even the judgment of the judicious, questionable, can be no less than presumption.

Wow, that is a good warning for any interpreter, but especially those who utilize the King James the way they do. So there's just some quotations, just to give you an idea of the fact that the King James translators themselves would not be King James Onlyists.

That should cause you to go, why would that be? Well, there are a lot of King James translators. There's different kinds of King James Onlyists today. There is King James preferred people, and that's fine.

If that's what you were raised with, that's what I was raised with. If that's something, if it communicates to you better, great, fine, wonderful. If you want to be preferred, that's fine. Most of those folks will compare the translations and really don't fit into the King James Only movement.

Once you get into the King James Only movement, if you really want to define it, you ask someone, is there any place where the King James version could be improved? Now the translators believe, yes. The translators knew that there would be translations after their own and that there would be improvements and so on and so forth.

But when you ask someone, is there anywhere in the King James that could be rendered better? If they say no, then they are definitely King James Only. So a lot of King James Onlyists really detest the new King James because it's based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts.

And so it reads very much the same, but because it's so close, there is a real detestation for it. And you can actually get into, I think, clearly cultic King James Onlyism where this becomes a central tenet of the faith itself, where your very salvation is dependent upon how you view the King James version of the Bible.

And I've met many of these folks. Some of you may remember the old Jack Chick tracts, the old Jack Chick comic books. Remember any of those? I was sent to the principal in fourth grade for passing out Jack Chick tracts on the playground.

And so I'm a fourth grader. I'm nine years old. I think I was nine years old. And so I had never been sent to the principal before. I was the guy in high school who never got a demerit. I was never tardy for class.

I was that guy. I was also classed as valedictorian and never got a B, so I was that guy too. Sorry if you hate people like that. Shame on you. And so I had never been sent to the principal before. And so I walk into his office, and he's sitting there behind his desk.

And so I just walk up to his desk and hand him a Jack Chick tract.

So he thought that was interesting.

I remember he told me, you just can't force anyone to take one. And I was one of the smallest kids in my class. I was sitting there wondering, how could I force anyone to take one anyways? But anyways, can you imagine what would happen if I did that today?

And remember, those are the cartoon tracts, you know? And one of my accomplishments in life is I have gone from being sent to the principal for passing out Jack Chick tracts to having written the King James on the controversy, being identified by Jack Chick as the Antichrist.

So that's quite a distance to go, honestly, in one life. But he passed out, he also made comic books about Alberto Rivera, who was a former Roman Catholic priest. So they're anti-Catholic comic books.

And I heard that Rivera was speaking at a church in Phoenix. I drove by it just recently. And so I and a friend went to hear what he had to say,.

And we were surprised that it was a non-Trinitarian church.

It was an Apostolic Oneness church, which I found very odd. But afterwards, we met him, and he was about the age all. And I introduced myself, and no one at this point in time knew who in the world I was.

And I've got my New American Standard Bible in my hand. And he says, what Bible is that? I said, it's the NASB Open Bible. And he says, does it have 1 John 5 -7? We're going to talk about that later on.

And I knew what he was talking about. And I said, no, you're going to hell.

You're going to hell.

So I've had many a person determine my spiritual state, not on my defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, my belief in the resurrection of Christ, the defense of the atonement of Christ, or the deity of Christ, or any of those things.

But does the Bible you're carrying and you're defending contain the reading of the King James Version? It is really the fundamental issue. And so there are King James-onlyists who, for example, do not believe the Greek or the Hebrew is relevant.

They believe that the Bible was, in essence, re-translated between 1604 and 1611. And that the translation in English is the standard. This was represented by Sam Gipp on the Engelberg show, if you want to go back and look at that from 95.

And so it is the final authority, it is the final form of the Word of God. And it is the Word of God, even more than what was written in the ancient times, and cannot be corrected as a result. That becomes the cultic kind of King James-onlyism.

So as I said, I am real popular amongst the King James-onlyists. Anybody remember Tex Marr? Tex Marr is a fascinating guy. I did a radio debate with D .A. Waite on a radio station in Texas in 90... I think it was before the Engelberg show, so it was probably 94, 93, 94, somewhere.

Anyway, Tex Marr is called in, and that was a fascinating encounter. I am pretty sure it is on Sermon Audio someplace. I think it is on our website somewhere. Anyway, James White, a boastful King James Bible opponent, continues on his baseless crusade to bash King James-only believers.

It makes for a rather sad spectacle to observe critics of the King James Bible, like Mr. Waite, humiliate themselves and show disrespect for servants of God. I am praying you will be given a repentant heart and know the great damage he is doing in the kingdom of our Savior.

Elsewhere, Mars calls me a servant of Satan and a devil. So there isn't really... There is no political correctness here. Gail Ripplinger, author of New Age Bible Verses, calls Waite a rude, crude heretic and a serial soul-killer.

Now, when you say serial soul-killer, a lot of folks get confused as to which serial you are talking about. I have had people very confused. Is that life serial? Is that meaties?

Is it what it means?

Serial as in repetitively. Serial soul-killer. And she actually put out a book about me that was filled with the most amazing attempts at poetry. Waite's Whoppers, Waite's White Lies. She just really liked to use the term white and put it into every combination she possibly could.

Sometimes, honestly, dealing with this whole thing has felt like I was back on the fourth grade playground where everybody always used your name and tried to insult you using your name. White the Weakling or something like that.

It's just astonishing. It really is astonishing. But then, let's go ahead and come up to the modern period of your own fine little town here. Because as some of you know, we had hoped that instead of only one person being up here tonight, there were going to be two people because I invited Dr. Douglas Stauffer to debate me on the issue of the King James because he's written at least one book on the subject.

And I first encountered him in 2006. At that time, I had challenged him to back up some of the things he had said and he never responded to anything that I said. But then, I didn't hear anything about him for a very long period of time.

And thanks to Twitter, someone posted some materials from Facebook where he was doing a series in his study school class.

About me.

And one of the things he claimed was that because of his books, I had changed the King James Only Conference. Now, this was news to me.

Because I had not read any of his books.

And so, when I obtained the book I was just astonished at what I was reading. The main thing that he said was.

That he had refuted me.

In regards to Titus 2 .13. Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1 are places where the King James does not render the underlying Greek text with enough clarity for you to see that these passages teach the deity of Christ.

I think that's an important issue. I have defended those translations with Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. I've defended them across the nation,.

Really the globe.

And so, it was an important subject. His arguments were completely backless. Lacked any meaning to them whatsoever. And so, I contacted him and I said, hey, I'm going to G3. I'm only going to be four and a half hours away from where you are there in Niceville.

And so, I'd be happy to come down.

And this is what I said.

I'd be happy to come down, pay my own way, put myself up.

Okay, good.

No honorarium. No cost to you. We can do the debate at your church so you don't have to worry about trying to find another location. There's no cost involved. I want to remove any impediments because all I want to do is, and in fact, if what you want to do is we just do Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1, that's fine with me.

So, I wanted to make it as easy as possible. The guy's been doing Bible studies about me, saying that I'm in it for the money and I'm a false teacher and all this stuff. So, there's no preparation before you got all your notes.

I'm the one that's traveling, so my disadvantage, let's do it. Well, I wrote and then eventually I called and it took weeks before finally.

I got a phone call from him.

And he was telling me how very, very busy he is and he needed to pray about it, to get peace about it and things like that. To make a long story short, I'm up here alone, even though I would imagine the church is probably within a five-minute drive of here one way or another.

And so, some of the things that he has said, just very briefly to give you an idea because we will be looking at Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1. The self-proclaimed scholars of today seem to have no problem with these alterations.

Now, catch something. Throughout all King James only writing and speaking, the King James is the standard. Therefore, anything that's different from the King James is an alteration.

Something's been removed.

Something's been added. It is the standard. They can never defend why it's the standard. That's where they start. That's the beginning of their reasoning process is the King James is the standard. So, they don't think historically.

They don't think back to the early councils of the church. They don't think back to when the church was dealing with the deity of Christ or the relationship with the Father, Son, and Spirit. They didn't have any King James Bibles.

Back then, obviously.

And they don't think about the fact that the King James is a part of a number of translations that came out in that particular time period. And so, it's the standard. And so, notice, no problem with these alterations.

In other words, if a modern translation differs at all from the King James, it's altered the Word of God because that's your standard. James White is a prime example of a Bible, quote, scholar, end quote, who believes that the oldest manuscripts are the best simply because of their supposed antiquity.

Now, let me stop and say, that's simply not true. And anyone who's read my book knows that's not true. I have a rather full discussion of why I do think a manuscript that's only 100 years removed is more great than one that's 1 ,000 years removed.

From the original.

But I also talk about, for example, manuscripts 1739 and 1881, which are manuscript manuscripts from around the year 1000 that we know were copied from second century manuscripts. So, they actually have great weight.

So, I talk about all those things, but the assumption when people are quoting someone like me is their people are not going to check out their citations to give you an evidence, would see the Alexandrian text type as representing an earlier and hence more accurate form of text than the Byzantine text type.

And then I discuss why that is, that the Byzantine text type shows evidence of conflating earlier readings and so on and so forth. Of course, he has swallowed Satan's plan completely. So, if you have any other viewpoint than their own, that's just Satan's plan.

It's not that there could be an argument there. They have their conclusions, and there you go. Here's a few other quotes from this book. A few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's word concerning this passage continues.

That's about Titus 2 .13. So, I'm saying, as we will see, that the King James translators did not render Titus 2 .13, which should be translated Our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ. They have Our Great God and Our Savior Jesus Christ, which allows for a distinction where there is no distinction in the original language.

Both God and Savior are being applied to Jesus in Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1. The rule of Greek grammar that says that was not identified until hundreds of years after the King James was translated.

So, I'm not faulting the King James translators. They were especially expert in Latin, but the Latin article and the Greek article are very, very different. And this has to do with the use of the article in the Greek language.

And so, all I'm saying is that our modern translations give us a better understanding of what was being communicated by the Apostle Paul in Titus 2 .13. But notice the language. That is an attack on God's word.

That's not a historical discussion of,.

And by the way,.

Every King James translator would have gone, no it's not. That's not a topic. They had these types of discussions all the time. They would never, ever accept anything. But again, when you start with the idea.

The word of God alone.

Equals the King James Bible alone. That's your starting point. You don't defend that. You just start there. That's where you get this. My attack on God's word.

So, what I'm doing is.

I'm discussing Greek syntax in defense of the deity of Christ and that's an attack on God's word. I'm a hypocritical, diluted liar. If I made such a ridiculous claim and expected everyone to believe me, welcome to the world of James White.

This was where I had said.

At the beginning of my book,.

This book is not against the King James Bible. Because it's not. It was against King James-onlyism. But in their mind, that's the same thing. It's not the same thing if you can't differentiate between the two.

You're not thinking rationally, but that's where they are. And so from his perspective, if I made a statement like that. Don't miss his point because Mr. White's house of cards comes tumbling down based on the outcome of this single verse.

Titus 2 .13 again. He placed all of his eggs in this one spiritual basket and they all just cracked leaving him with egg on his face. So, this is the mess created by the modern versions and supported by dishonest Bible critics like Mr. White.

Mr. White says, I was talking there about a chart that I'll show you later on where I compare some of the key places where the term theos, God, is used of Jesus. And the reality is the modern translations are clearer in their testimony to the use of God of Jesus than the King James.

It's a fact,.

But you'll notice his virulent attack against the word of God which translated into rational thought is his disagreement with King James only. Clearly showing his true colors, Mr. White attacks the foundation for the King James Bible in his concluding comments concerning this passage.

That was in reference to what manuscripts were used by the King James translators as I mentioned last night. They didn't use manuscripts. They used printed editions of the Greek New Testament in their particular work.

The inferior manuscripts to which Mr. White refers are those used by the churches for centuries and known as the received text, Texas Receptus. We'll talk about why they've been used for centuries. In their place he elevates two Roman Catholic texts that have thousands of difference between themselves, sheer lunacy and blatant hypocrisy.

The real problem is anyone who's read the book knows that I do not elevate Roman Catholicism into existence so they can't be Roman Catholics. King James only folks in church history don't mix very well at all.

They have a very odd, odd take on church history and each one has sort of.

A different take.

But everybody knows that I do not do that. I do not make them the standard.

In the book.

There's a large level of dishonesty there. Anyone who's read my book knows that's just simply completely unfair. It's just a falsehood. I can show you page after page where I criticize Westcott and Hart and criticize Westcott and Hart reading and so on and so forth.

But this is Westcott and Hart.

Are the big baddies in the King James only world so go ahead and take a shot at them and all is well. Last ones because there's a 2013 update here. This is a reference to the finding of Codex Sinaiticus.