Another King James Bible Believer


Revelation 15:3 king of saints, nations or ages? Comparing the "oldest and best manuscripts in Revelation."

Revelation 15:3 "thou King of saints"


One of the silly comments James White makes is his criticism of the KJB reading found in Revelation 15:3. Here we read: "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy words, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King OF SAINTS."

James says on page 66 that King of saints "should be either "King of the AGES (NIV) or "King of THE NATIONS" (NASB), the TR's reading again fails to have Greek manuscript support."

James is such a joker, isn't he? In his book he recommends three different versions as being "reliable and trustworthy" - the NASB, the NIV and the NKJV, yet all three of these "reliable versions" differ from each other, and every "erroneous" reading of the KJB in the book of Revelation that he discusses in his book is also found in the NKJV which he recommends!  

I have been told that Dr. Wite Out has "revised" his latest updated edition of his book and he has now omitted all the references to the NKJV as being "a reliable version". This is no doubt because he kept sticking his foot in his mouth and ended up contradicting himself over and over again. I have been told that his "new" edition now lists the ESV, NIV and NASB as his "reliable versions".


In his first edition book he gives us three different versions with three different readings, and then misinforms us when he says the KJB reading fails to have Greek manuscript support. The proof that James is utterly mistaken is that if he had bothered to consult even his own UBS Greek textual apparatus he would have noticed that the UBS First edition and the Third edition note here at Revelation 15:3 that the reading of "king of SAINTS" is found in mss. 296, and 2049 and is so quoted by Victorinus-Pettau, Tyconius, Apringius and Cassiodorus.  

The UBS 4th edition omits a lot of this information, but still lists mss. 2049 as reading like the KJB does in this verse.  James White's footnote is given immediately after telling us that "king of saints" "fails to have Greek manuscript support".  

You can also see this information at this online site here -

γίων 296 2049 Victorinus-Pettau Tyconius Apringius Cassiodorus


Mr. White slants his "evidence" in such a way as to imply that the reading has NO support, much less any Greek support.  Yet if we follow his own footnote # 47 to page 87 he himself then states in this particular footnote: "Again we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the TR reading."  Well, James, if we follow your own footnote, even you admit there IS Greek support for this reading.  

There are also very early Latin witnesses to this same reading of "king of saints", so even these two known Greek mss. are not "the only ones who support the TR reading".

Some more thoughts on James White's footnotes.

As a side note while we're talking about James White's footnotes, let's  take a look at the very next footnote he has here on page 87. It's footnote # 48 and he says: "One of the greatest advantages of the textual footnotes of the New King James Version is that the English reader can note these variations quite easily without having to access critical Greek texts. We could only wish that other modern translations would follow the example of the NKJV at this point."

Well, let's take a look at what the NKJV itself says regarding these texual footnotes men like James White would like to see included in all the modern versions.

The New KJV "Every man for himself" mentality

Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 - 5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.

In contrast to the divergent, ever-changing, "Let's include verses even we don't think are authentic", every man for himself mindset of ALL modern versionists, the King James Bible believer actually believes God has providentially kept His promises to preserve His inerrant, complete and 100% true words in the BOOK OF THE LORD.

Back to Revelation 15:3 -

As the UBS texts continue to change every few years, they omit more and more textual evidence that is found that supports the KJB readings.  They want people to think there is little or no evidence for the readings found in the Traditional Greek texts that underlie the KJB and the Reformation bibles.  They are not at all interested in giving information that supports these readings, and seem to only do so occasionally and reluctantly.

You can even go online and see The Greek New Testament site for variant readings and listed there is this support for the reading found in the King James Bible and in most Reformation Bibles - "king of SAINTS".

This site lists in favor of the KJB reading: 296, 2049 Victorinus-Pettau Tyconius Apringius Cassiodorus.  When Mr. White affirms in no uncertain terms: "the TR's reading again fails to have Greek manuscript support" he is wrong, and he is wrong by his own admission in footnote 47 of his own book.

Where did Erasmus, Stephans, Beza and Elziver brothers get their Greek readings? They must have had Greek manuscripts in their possession at the time they made up their N.T. Greek texts that read this way, because that is precisely what they all say, and they had Greek manuscripts that pre-dated 296 and 2049.  

It is well known that Erasmus scoured the libraries and universities of Europe taking copious notes from a multitude of Greek manuscripts. He was well aware of the numerous variant readings found among them, and yet he chose to put "king of SAINTS" in his Textus Receptus, as did Stephanus in 1550 and Beza in 1598.  And it is these texts that formed the Reformation Bibles in all languages.

Erasmus didn't use the Latin Vulgate texts for this reading because the Latin Vulgate does not read "king of saints" but "king of the ages".

Of these four early church fathers who also quoted Revelation 15:3 as the KJB has it - "king of saints" we have Victorinus-Pettau who around the year 270 A.D. wrote commentaries on the book of Revelation as well as Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew and other books of the Bible. His works were later anathematized by Pope Gelasius 1. The only surviving work of his it this commentary on Revelation and according to the UBS's own notes he quoted the verse as it stands in the TR that underlies the KJB and all other Reformation bibles.

We also have Tyconius who around 370 A.D. also wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation and he quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.

Then there is Apringius who himself wrote another commentary on the book of Revelation in the 6th century and it says the same thing as the Textus Receptus - "king of saints".

And lastly we have the Roman statesman and writer Cassiodorus who around 460 to 485 established a library of Greek and Latin texts and himself wrote a commentary on the book of Psalms, and he makes reference to Revelation 15:3 and quotes it as it stands in the Textus Receptus.

It should be obvious that there have existed throughout the centuries Greek manuscripts that did contain this reading long before Erasmus and all the others included it in their Greek textual editions for the complete New Testament.

ο βασιλευς των αγιων = Thou king OF SAINTS  

Agreeing with the King James Bible and reading "King of SAINTS" are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthews Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, the Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Clarke N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, the Thomson N.T. 1816, Webster's translation 1833, The Living Oracles 1835, the Longman Version 1841, the Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, Anderson's N.T. 1866, the Smith Bible 1876, the Dillard N.T. 1885, Young's 1890, Anderson N.T. 1918, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "O Sovereign of the set-apart-ones", Lawrie New Testament 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days Bible 1999, Green's Modern KJV 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Evidence Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the Conservative Bible 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints!", and The Modern English Version 2014 - “Just and true are Your ways,  O King OF SAINTS!”


Foreign Language Bibles


There are numerous foreign language Bibles that read "King of SAINTS" just like the KJB.  Among these are Luther's German Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "du König der Heiligen!", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995, and the 2004 Reina Valera Gómez Bible -"Rey de LOS SANTOS.", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Tes voies sont justes et véritables, ô Roi DES SAINTS!", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 "o Koning van die heiliges!", the Czech Biblia Kralicka - “ó Králi všech svatých.” - “King of SAINTS”, 

the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - “o Koning van die heiliges!”, the Hungarian Karoli Bible - “óh szentek Királya!” = “O King of saints!”, the Russian Synodal Version - “Праведны и истинны пути Твои, Царь святых”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - " Gij Koning der heiligen!" = "king of SAINTS", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681, the modern Bíblia Sagrada and the 2009 Portuguese Almeida Revisada - "ó Rei DOS SANTOS.",  The Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “o Królu świętych” = “O King of the SAINTS.”, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 "tu Împărat al sfinţilor.", the Ukranian Bible "о Царю святих!" = O king of saints!, the Smith & van Dyke Arabic Bible وهم يرتلون ترنيمة موسى عبد الله وترنيمة الخروف قائلين عظيمة وعجيبة هي اعمالك ايها الرب الاله القادر على كل شيء عادلة وحق هي طرقك يا ملك القديسين. = "O, king of saints", the Bulgarian Bibleправедни и истинни са Твоите пътища, Царю на вековете. = "O, king of saints", the  Basque Navarro-Labourdin N.T. -  sainduén Regueá.


and the Modern Greek Bible as can be seen at The Unbound Bible site - δικαιαι και αληθιναι αι οδοι σου, βασιλευ των αγιων.  

This is the reading found in the remaining Greek manuscripts of 296, 2049 and 2066.


It is also the reading of the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elziver 1624, and the Trinity Bible Society Scrivener text 1894. And as we have seen, "King of saints" is also quoted by various church fathers such as Victorinus, Tyconius, Apringius, and Cassiodorus.

Not even the modern versions agree among themselves.

Westcott and Hort originally went with "king of the AGES" ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων·,


but later on the UBS text changed this to "king of NATIONS" ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν. and so read the NASB, NRSV, ESV, Jerusalem bible, and Holman Standard.


However, versions like the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, RSV, Douay, and the NIV 1984 all read: "king of THE AGES". There is no Vaticanus mss. for Revelation, but the other so called "oldest and best"  Sinaiticus itself originally read "ages" then some scribe changed it to "nations" and then another scribe changed it back to "ages" again.

Further confusion and contradictions are found in these so called "oldest and best manuscripts".  The reading of "nations" is found in manuscript A (Alexandrinus) but C reads "ages", but in Revelation 15:6 of this same chapter instead of the seven angels clothed "in pure and white LINEN" (which is the TR and Sinaiticus) both A and C have the angels clothed "IN STONE". This  was the reading adopted by Westcott and Hort and how the Revised Version of 1885 and the ASV of 1901 actually read!

But then the textual critics later "scientifically" decided to go back to the reading of "clean and white LINEN". 

In addition to these differences among the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” in this same short chapter, instead of reading “having the harps of GOD” Sinaiticus reads “harps of THE LORD” and Sinaiticus also adds the word “Amen” to the end of verse 7 but it is not followed by the other versions nor by Alexandrinus nor C.

The so called “oldest and best” manuscripts upon which most modern Catholic versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV are based are Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and C, also called Codex Ephraemi.  All three manuscripts are in constant disagreement with each other.

A or Alexandrinus is a 5th century manuscript with many scribal corrections throughout.  It contains some 84 singular readings just in the book of Revelation.  Sinaiticus contains 201 singular readings in the book of Revelation and 120 of them were “corrected” by various scribes in the 7th century.  It has numerous places were a word or phrase was “corrected” and many of them were then “corrected” and changed for a second time.

Codex C (Ephraemi) is another 5th century manuscript and it has some 92 independent readings not found in any other Greek manuscript.  Just in the book of Revelation it is missing Revelation 1:1-2; Rev. 3:20 to 5:14; 7:14-17; Rev. 8:5 to 9:16; 10:10 to 11:3, is also missing from Revelation 16:13 to 18:2 and from 19:5 to the end of chapter 22:21 is also completely missing.

These three “oldest and best” are in constant disagreement with each other. Here are just a few of the numerous examples from the book of Revelation. 

In 1:1 instead of “to his servants” Sinaiticus originally read “to his SAINTS”. 

In 1:8 where God is “the beginning and the end” (omitted by the NASB, NIV, ESV) Sinaiticus original had the phrase, then it was omitted by a scribe, and then put back in again.

In 1:9 “patience of JESUS CHRIST” is just “Jesus” in Sinaiticus original and C, but A has only Christ. Then Sinaiticus was changed to read Christ Jesus. The UBS text now follows “patience of Jesus”, basically following the C reading.

In Revelation 1:18 we read: "I am he that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, AMEN." The word Amen (ἀμήν) is found in the Majority of all remaining manuscripts, the Hodges - Farstaad Majority text, in Sinaiticus correction, 046, 1006, 1841, 2329, 2344, 2351 and many others.  

"Amen" is also found in the Syraic and in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English.  But it is omitted in the new critical text versions because not in Sinaiticus original (though later it was corrected) A and C.


In Revelation 2:9 Sinaiticus and Majority read “I know THY WORKS AND tribulation” but A and C omit “thy works and” and so does the UBS.

In Revelation 2:20 where it says: “I have A FEW THINGS (oliga) against thee” the UBS text omits “a few things” because not in A or C while Sinaiticus actually reads: “I have MANY THINGS (polu) against thee”.

In Revelation 2:22 instead of “I will cast her into a BED (klinen)” Alexandrinus has “prison” (Fulakeen).

In Revelation 4:3 instead of “a RAINBOW round about the throne” A and Sinaiticus original actually read “PRIESTS round about the throne”.

In Revelation 4:8 we read “Holy, holy, holy” 3 times, but Sinaiticus has “holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy” 8 times! while A agrees with the KJB and C is missing 27 entire verses here.  

In Revelation 4:11 in the King James Bible we read: "Thou art worthy, O LORD, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure THEY ARE and were created."

There are numerous textual variants in this one verse alone.  In the Majority text by Hodges and Farstaad, instead of  reading "O Lord" it reads: "O Lord and our God the Holy" but nobody follows the Majority text here.

Sinaiticus says: "Lord, the Lord and our God", but modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV do not follow Sinaiticus either.

Alexandrinus is the one they follow and it says: "the Lord and our God". 

Then when we get to "for thy pleasure THEY ARE" - eisi = present tense, Sinaiticus and A both say "THEY WERE" = past tense, and then Alexandrinus omits "and were created", but they don't follow the Alexandrinus reading here.

So, once again we see that the so called "oldest and best mss." not only disagree with the Majority and the Textus Receptus, but also with each other and the new Catholic versions like the NIV, NASB, ESVs jump willy nilly from the readings found in one to the other even in the same verse.

In Revelation 5:9 the KJB and Reformation Bibles read: “thou...has redeemed US to God” and “us” is even found in Sinaiticus, but the Catholic bibles like the New Jerusalem, the NIV, NASB, ESV omit the word “us” by following mss. A and then put a word in their texts not found in any Greek manuscript - redeemed “persons” (NIV 2011), or “men” (NASB) or “people” New Jerusalem, ESV.

In Revelation 5:13 Sinaiticus omits the words “and under the earth”, but they are found in Alexandrinus. 

In Revelation 6:1, 3, 5 and 7  the TR and Sinaiticus say four times “Come, AND SEE”, yet Alexandrinus omits the words “and see” all four times and so do the Catholic bibles like the New Jerusalem and the NIV, NASB, ESV. 

But then in the same chapter, verse 17 where we read: “the great day of HIS wrath is come” which is also found in Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus says “THEIR wrath” and so do the St. Joseph NAB, the NIV, NASB and ESV.

The modern versions go back and forth between their so called “oldest and best” and it often seems that they follow any reading at all, as long as it differs from the time tested King James Holy Bible.

In Revelation 7:4 the texts say there were 144,000 sealed, but Sinaiticus actually says there were 141,000. 

In Revelation 9:2 Sinaiticus omits the words “And he opened the bottomless pit”, yet they are found in A and in all the bible versions.

In Revelation 12:12 Alexandrinus has one of the silliest readings you will ever find.  Instead of saying “Woe to the inhabiters of THE EARTH and of the sea!” Codex A actually reads: “Woe to the inhabiters of THE LOVE  (agapeen) and of the sea!”

But, thankfully, no one followed this “oldest and best mss.” in this place.  You can see this documented in the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text footnotes.

In Revelation 13:7 both Alexandrinus and C omit all these words: “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them”, but they are found in Sinaiticus.

In Revelation 14:3 once again we read of the 144,000 but Sinaiticus said 141,000 and C has 140,000! 

Then in Revelation 14:9 instead of “if any man shall worship THE BEAST”, Codex A reads: “if any man shall worship THE ALTAR”

In Revelation 16:11 Sinaiticus omits the words “and of their deeds” but they are found in A and C and in most bibles, and in 16:13 both Sinaiticus and C omit the words “and out of the mouth of the dragon” but they are in A.

 In Revelation 16:17 both Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus disagree with each other and with the Majority text and the TR.  Instead of reading: “there came a GREAT voice out of the temple OF HEAVEN from THE THRONE”, Alexandrinus omits the word “great” and omits the words “of heaven”, while Sinaiticus contains the word “great”, omits “of heaven” but has FROM GOD instead of “the throne”. 

So, the new Catholic versions (NIV, NASB, ESV, Jerusalem bible) jump from one to the other, back and forth, in this same verse, but they all agree against the KJB and the Reformation bibles.

Revelation 18:2 is an interesting case of “the science of textual criticism” gone to seed.  First of all, “Babylon the great is fallen, IS FALLEN”.  The phrase “is fallen” is stated twice in the majority of all texts, the TR and in Alexandrinus, but Sinaiticus has it only once.  The modern versions reject Sinaiticus here and read like the KJB with “fallen, fallen”. BUT, there is more:

Revelation 18:2 - KJB - "And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful BIRD." (orneou)

So read the Majority of all texts, the TR AND Sinaiticus. "every unclean and hateful BIRD" is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, The Message, and the NIV 1973 and 1984 editions.

However manuscript A (Alexandrinus) reads "the cage of every unclean and hateful BEAST."  (theerion)

The previous Westcott-Hort, Nestle's Greek texts read as do the King James Bible and even the NASB, NIV 1984, but later on, the UBS Greek "scholars" decided to change it, and it now includes both readings in full.

So now the 2003 Holman Standard and the 2001 ESV have come out and they add this extra reading of five Greek words which follows neither the Majority text, Sinaiticus nor Alexandrinus.

These two latest versions read: “Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the great! She has become a lair for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN BIRD, AND A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN AND DESPICABLE BEAST." (Holman Standard 2003, ESV 2001.)  So, it looks like not even the "old" NIV of 1984 nor the 1995 NASB are now "up to date with the latest scholarly findings"!

 Oh, but wait a minute.  The OLD NIV of 1984 read: "“Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a HOME for demons and a haunt for every EVIL spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable BIRD."

 But now the NEW NIV of 2010 reads: "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’ She has become a DWELLING for demons and a haunt for every IMPURE spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN AND and detestable ANIMAL." - taking part from the majority of texts and the other 5 words they add from just one manuscript (Alexandrinus), and they change the English text from what they had before in 1984 by changing “home” to “dwelling” and “evil” to “impure”. 

So, they now include both readings in a single verse.  Scholarship is a wonderful thing to behold, isn't it?

In Revelation 18:8 Alexandrinus omits the word “Lord” from the expression “for strong is the LORD God who judgeth her”, but it is found in Sinaiticus.

In Revelation 20:9 we read: “and fire came down FROM GOD out of heaven, and devoured them.”  The words “from God” are found in Sinaiticus but not in Alexandrinus, and this time the modern Catholic versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV and Jerusalem bible omit these words.

In Revelation 21:3 we read: “and God himself shall be with them, AND BE THEIR GOD.”

The Bible Babble Buffet can’t quite get their act together yet in this verse.  Sinaiticus omits these words, but they are found in Alexandrinus and in the TR.  The RV, ASV, NIV, ESV and Holman include the words “and be their God” but the NASB, RSV, NRSV and NET version omit them. 

Notice how each revision changes the text of what the previous version said.  The NASB changed from what was in the ASV, and in the reverse manner, the ESV changed what was in the RSV.  And they call this a “science”!

In Revelation 21:4 we read: “And GOD shall wipe away all tears”, with A including the word, and Sinaiticus omitting it as do the NIV, NASB, ESV and the modern Catholic bibles, though the word God was in the previous Douay version as well as all Reformation bibles. 

Also in Revelation 21:4 Sinaiticus omits the words “any more pain” but they are found in Alexandrinus, and instead of saying “the FORMER THINGS are passed away” Sinaiticus actually says “the SHEEP are passed away”!!!

In Revelation 21:5 instead of saying: “I make all things NEW” Sinaiticus says: “I make all things EMPTY”!  And this is one of their “oldest and best manuscripts” the modern versions are based on!


In Revelation 21:11 Alexandrinus omits the words “Having the glory of God” but they are found in Sinaiticus, and in Revelation 21:12 Alexandrinus omits the words “and at the gates twelve angels” but they are found in Sinaiticus.

In Revelation 22:2 Sinaiticus omits the words “of the nations” from the phrase “the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations”, but they are in Alexandrinus.

And finally in the very last verse we read in the King James Bible: “The grace of OUR Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. AMEN.” So read Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, even the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible, the KJB and the NKJV.

Here the critical texts unite in omitting the words “our” and “Christ” and instead of reading “with YOU ALL” Alexandrinus says “with all” (NASB, ESV, NET) while Sinaiticus says “with the saints” (RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV and Holman). 

The final word Amen is found in Sinaiticus (NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman) and but is omitted in Alexandrinus (NET) and in the UBS critical Greek text. 

Though the earlier Douay-Rheims translation 1582 and the Douay  Bible 1950 both read exactly as the King James Bible has it - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.", the new "Catholic" versions are all in disagreement even with each other. 

Both the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible say: "May the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you all. Amen.", while the NIV has "the grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen"  (Holman - "with the saints.")

and the NASB, ESV have "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen."

This is the true nature of these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which the modern Catholic versions are based.

Back to Revelation 15:3 and the evidence for the reading of “king of saints” -----

John Gill (1697-1771) comments on Revelation 15:3 saying: "thou King of saints: the Alexandrian copy, one of Stephens's, the Complutensian edition, and Arabic version, read, "King of nations", the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read, "King of ages" BUT THE GENERALITY OF COPIES READ AS WE HAVE IT."

Note - Notice that John Gill mentions “one of Stephen’s” manuscripts read “king of nations”, but Stephen had at least 16 Greek manuscripts, so we can safely assume that at least some of his other manuscripts correctly read “king of saints” because that is what he put in his Greek text.

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament Commentary gives us the exact opposite of what John Gill said and affirms: "Thou King of saints. King of those who are holy; of all who are redeemed and sanctified. The more approved reading here, however, is King of nations--\~o basileuv twn eynwn\~--instead of King of saints--\~twn agiwn\~. So it is read in the critical editions of Griesbach, Tittmann, and Hahn."

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament notes: "Some MSS. have "the king of the saints" and some "the king of the nations."

But then, so you get a better idea of how the Scholar's Shell Game Shuffle works-

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (around 1870) tell us: "saints--There is no manuscript authority for this."!!!

Do you see how the game is played?

Notice that the RV, and ASV read "king of the ages", but then the revision NASB changed this to "king of nations".

The RSV read "ages" but the revisions of the RSV now read "nations". The Douay read "ages" but the other Catholic revision now says "nations". The NIV 1984 edition says "AGES" too, but wait! Now the revision of the NIV has come out in 2011 along with the TNIV of 2005 and they both say: "king of the NATIONS".

NONE of the revisions agree with the previous versions, and yet Mr. White has the temerity to recommend three different bible versions, none of which agrees with the others, and then he incorrectly affirms that the KJB reading "fails to have Greek support."

In addition to this, of the three "reliable versions" James recommends in his book, one of the three, the NKJV, also reads "king of saints", the reading he just got done criticizing!  

In fact, in his book in chapter 4 which he calls "Putting it Together" James goes through a whole laundry list of whole verses and particular textual readings that he thinks the KJB got wrong.

Just for the book of Revelation, from pages 63 to 66 he lists no less than nine (9) readings found in the KJB that he thinks are in error, based on the wrong texts or not found in any Greek manuscripts.  These are Revelation 1:6; 1:8; 5:14; 14:1; 15:3; 16:5; 17:4; 17:8 and 22:19.

And in the rest of the chapter he lists another 20 verses (29 total) that he thinks are based on the wrong texts and these include Matthew 20:22; Luke 2:22; 17:36 (whole verse); John 1:28; 8:59; 16:33; Acts 8:37 (whole verse); Acts 9:5-6; Romans 4:1; 8:11; 10:17; 12:11; Ephesians 1:18; 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:19; Hebrews 9:21; James 2:18 and 1 John 5:7.

Yet every one of these 29 alleged "errors" in the KJB are also found in the same NKJV which James recommended as one of his three "reliable and trustworthy" versions!!!  

Would you trust this man to sell you a used car?


Return to Articles -