Changes

Modern translations are based on ''[[Codex Vaticanius]]'' and ''[[Codex Sinaiticus]]'', both fourth century manuscripts. These two manuscripts are said to be "Alexandrian" because they have same type of text as ''[[Codex Alexandrinus]]'', a fifth century manuscript. (No one knows where they were produced.) In 1881, B.F. Westcott (1825-1903) and F.J.A. Hort produced a "Critical Text" based on these two manuscripts.<ref>Modern Bible translations are based on Greek texts edited by [http://www.nestle-aland.com Nestle Aland] and the [http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org United Bible Societies]. These are similar to Westcott-Hort, but take into account manuscripts and papyrus fragments that were discovered later.</ref> Westcott and Hort figure prominently in KJO demonology, where the "Westcott and Hort Only" movement is denounced.<ref>Stringer, Dr. Phil, "[http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-only.htm The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy]"</ref>

Modern translations are based on ''[[Codex Vaticanius]]'' and ''[[Codex Sinaiticus]]'', both fourth century manuscripts. These two manuscripts are said to be "Alexandrian" because they have same type of text as ''[[Codex Alexandrinus]]'', a fifth century manuscript. (No one knows where they were produced.) In 1881, B.F. Westcott (1825-1903) and F.J.A. Hort produced a "Critical Text" based on these two manuscripts.<ref>Modern Bible translations are based on Greek texts edited by [http://www.nestle-aland.com Nestle Aland] and the [http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org United Bible Societies]. These are similar to Westcott-Hort, but take into account manuscripts and papyrus fragments that were discovered later.</ref> Westcott and Hort figure prominently in KJO demonology, where the "Westcott and Hort Only" movement is denounced.<ref>Stringer, Dr. Phil, "[http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-only.htm The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy]"</ref>

KJO has been comprehensively rejected by religious leaders, fundamentalist and otherwise. Dr. John Rice, editor of ''[[The Sword of the Lord]]'' and the best known fundamentalist writer of the 1960s and 1970s, wrote:

KJO has been comprehensively rejected by religious leaders, fundamentalist and otherwise. Dr. John Rice, editor of ''[[The Sword of the Lord]]'' and the best known fundamentalist writer of the 1960s and 1970s, wrote:

Rice died in 1980 and ''The Sword of the Lord'' now supports KJO. However, the publication is no longer influential. Bob Jones University, the leading Independent Baptist educational institution, has the following statement on its site: "Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position...we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language."<ref>"[http://www.bju.edu/about/what-we-believe/translation.php Statement about Bible Translations]", Bob Jones University.</ref>

Rice died in 1980 and ''The Sword of the Lord'' now supports KJO. However, the publication is no longer influential. Bob Jones University, the leading Independent Baptist educational institution, has the following statement on its site: "Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position...we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language."<ref>"[http://www.bju.edu/about/what-we-believe/translation.php Statement about Bible Translations]", Bob Jones University.</ref>

The ''New King James Version'' (1982) was written in response to the arguments regarding text used by KJO writers. Unlike other modern translations, it is translated from TR rather than from the Critical Text. It includes numerous footnotes that give alternative readings and explain which reading comes from which text.

The ''New King James Version'' (1982) was written in response to the arguments regarding text used by KJO writers. Unlike other modern translations, it is translated from TR rather than from the Critical Text. It includes numerous footnotes that give alternative readings and explain which reading comes from which text.