Top Sites

The Fundamental Top 500


King James Bible

Regarding The KJV Issue

Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible are well aware of how “stupid” “ignorant” “backward” “cultic” “unloving” and “narrow minded” we are IN YOUR EYES.

You do not need to tell us again, we heard you the first time and have been hearing you for hundreds of years. The trouble is that we are a loyal and faithful lot finding it difficult to change our stand and beliefs. Even with all of your books, magazines, articles, and posts, you have not given us any evidence, either material or Spiritual, to show that you offer us anything better than what we already have. In fact there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you could even offer us anything as good as we have!

Therefore to listen to your insults, blasphemies, and offers, is a repeat of history and a waste of our time but we thank you for your concern (you did come out of true concern didn’t you?) but we are really not interested in your offers.

We will however pray that you come to know and believe in something to the point that you are willing to stand as a true defender of the faith in the face of any and all opposition just as most of us do.

We DO however stand with open invitation to all who come sincerely seeking the truth in the matter of the King James Bible versus the Modern Versions. I don’t know of a single KJBible defender who will lie to you or twist History or the Scriptures to make a point. If any do then they have other problems that need dealt with before the Lord and have no fellowship with the true defenders of God’s Word.

We ask the seeker to look beneath all the hype and the arguments found in every public KJBible forum, for the devil sends such events to keep you discouraged and in the dark. Be not detoured from your mission of truth, for in the end the Spirit of God will testify to the spirit in you as to what is true and what is not.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26

Written by Jim Oakley and used by permission.

What About Those Printing Errors in the 1611 Holy Bible?

By: Will J. Kinney

Pastor David F. Reagan has written an excellent article about The Myth of Early Revisions of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In his article he discusses the conditions of the printing process in 1611, and shows how the so called revisions are actually only examples of updating the spelling of words and the correction of minor printing errors.

His article can be seen here – Myth of Early Revisions

Pastor Reagan rightly says: “We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man.”

Dr. Donald Waite also has written a booklet titled The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today’s King James Version. In this booklet Dr. Waite discusses the “thousands of changes”, and he clearly shows that the vast majority of the changes have to do with changing the printing type from Gothic print to Roman, and updating the spelling of such words as Sonne to Son, and sinne to sin, seede to seed and blesse to bless.

There are also a number of minor printing errors such as omitting or duplicating a word, or mispelling a simple word. These are things like “the shearer” to “his shearer” (Acts 8:32); “sacrifice” to “sacrifices” (1 Peter 2:5) ; and “made a” to “made thee a” (Isaiah 57:8).

In his book, Dr. Waite lists the words that had been changed if you could HEAR the difference. You cannot hear the difference between “sonne” and “son”; “weepe” and “weep”; “owne” and “own”.

First, the facts… The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been – are you ready – there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That’s it!

From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that’s not all. It gets better.

Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted –

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.

BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.

AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.

LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.

YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.

Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature!

We see that 214 of the 421 changes of the changes are from 5 simple words. Towards was changed to toward (14 times); Burnt changed to burned (31 times); Amongst to among (36 times); Lift changed to lifted (51 times); and You was changed to Ye (82 times). As you can see, the text itself was not changed and the meaning is exactly the same in both cases, but Mr. Waite included these among the 421 “translational changes”. Of these 421 changes in form, 136 of them are, according to Dr. Waite, “substantial”.

Of these 136 examples 46 are changing the letter Y, which used to be employed at times in place of “the”. So where the 1611 said “Y”, the change now reads “the”. Another change not usually mentioned is that the original 1611 would use the ampersand, or the “&” sign, but that was later changed to the common word “and”.

Of the remaining 90 “substantial changes” all of them are simple printing errors of the nature I mentioned previously. Other examples among these remaining 90 changes are: “thy people” to “the children of thy people” in Ezekiel 3:11 (easily a printing error of skipping three words); “wayes” to “ways” 2 Kings 22:2; “wee shall” to “for we shall” Romans 14:10. All of these are easily explained as minor printing errors; the text itself has never changed.

The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 “and…afraid” where 21 words were accidently omitted due most likely to the printer’s eyes having skipped from one “and” to the next “and”.

At a Bible club I belong to, one Christian brought up two examples he thought were textual changes rather than spelling errors. He said to me: “Brother Kinney, if you will continue to look at Dr. Waite’s excellent booklet you will notice on page 20, item numbers 0144 and 0177 where “GOD” was changed to “LORD” twice. (Once in 2 Chronicles 28:11, and again in Isaiah 49:13) On page 21, item number 0067 where “LAMBE” was changed to “RAM.” (Numbers 6:14) I am sure you do not dismiss those as corrections of printer’s errors. They are actual word changes. How do you address those actual word changes in view of your position on the perfect nature of the KJV?”

To which I answered: “These two examples are really quite easy to explain. I believe they are simple printing errors. The words God, Lord, GOD, LORD, are found with what a printer might consider monotonous regularity throughout those passages. It would have been quite easy for a tired and weary printer to skip over or misread the word God and put Lord instead, or vice versa. The fact is that out of the thousands of times the words “Lord, LORD, God, and GOD” occur in the Old Testament, only twice did this easily explained printing error occur.”

“As for the second example, the verse in question – Numbers 6:14- actually contains three printing errors. I will highlight the printing errors in capital letters. Also notice the old style spelling of some words, which later were updated, and which the critics love to number among their “thousands of changes”. In the reprint of the original 1611 Bible, put out by Thomas Nelson Publishers, it reads: “And he shall offer his OFFRING unto the LORD, one hee lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a burnt offering, OFFERING, and one ewe lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a sinne offering, and one LAMBE without blemish for peace offerings.”

You will notice here the three printing errors in this one verse. The printer mispelled offering once as “offring”, he also repeated the word “offering, offering”, and instead of reading “lamb”, “lamb” and “ram”, he accidentally printed “lamb, lamb, lamb”. The word “lamb” occurs twice already in Numbers 6:14, and the third time the original 1611 misprinted the word “lamb” for “ram”, which is in the Hebrew and in the present day KJB editions. This mistake would have been quite easy to do for the printer who was hand setting the type. He most likely saw the word “lamb” twice already and mistook “ram”, which shares both the “a” and the “m”, with the word “lamb”.

As you can see, there is no deliberate change in the text or meaning from 1611 to the present. To compare these extremely minor changes in spelling and accidental printing errors of no real significance, to the wholesale changes in both text, meaning and translation that occurs in the modern versions is totally unjustified. There is no reasonable comparison at all.

Throughout the history of Bible printing there have been some rather humorous examples of errors that have occurred. It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today’s advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the “Wicked Bible” because the seventh commandment read, “thou shalt commit adultery.” The printer was fined 300 pounds.

The printer of the “Fool Bible” had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.”

In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” and one in Romans 6:13 that read, “”Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin.” This Bible became known as “the Unrighteous Bible.”

In 1716, the “Sin On Bible” commanded, “Go, and sin on more” in John 8:11.

In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the “parable of the vineyard,” which called it the “Parable of the vinegar.” This Bible was called “the Vinegar Bible.”

In 1801, Jude 16 stated, “these are murderers” instead of “murmurers”, and Mark 7:27 stated, “let the children first be killed” instead of “filled.” This Bible was nicknamed “the Murderers Bible.”

In 1820, Jesus says, “Who hath ears to ear, let him hear” in Matthew 13:43, and this was called “the Ears to Ear” Bible.

In 1823, Genesis 24:61 states “Rebekah arose, and her camels”, instead of “her damsels,” in “Rebekah’s Camels Bible.”

The cause for all of these defects may be found in “the Printers’ Bible” (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, “printers have persecuted me” (instead of “princes.” have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of legitimate meaning, this is it. “Printers have persecuted me.”

The whole “Printing Error” complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen; not as a serious issue concerning the ultimate truth of Scripture and its preservation.

I know of people who studied the issue of 1 John 5:7 and considered the historical, textual and grammatical evidence for it being the true, God inspired Scripture. They became convinced it should be in the Bible, and they became a King James Bible believer.

Likewise I know of another person who compared the meaning of Revelation 19:8 in the KJB and the NKJV, and since he was well grounded in sound doctrine, he became a KJB believer and rejected the NKJV. But these decisions had to do with the truth of Scripture, not minor mistakes in the printing process.

Most people who reject the KJB as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: “The KJV is not based on the best texts”, “God forbid” is wrong, or “1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible.” They most likely assumed that all KJB Bibles read the same since the very beginning; it wasn’t till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they toss this up as a smokescreen. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. It is a non-issue of no importance.

If one adopts the view that printing errors negate any Bible version or Hebrew or Greek text, from being valid or true, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. That too is carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. Guess who wants you to think this way?

Another member at one of the internet Bible clubs brought up this very common objection. He asked: “Why did God guide the hands and minds of the KJV translators to produce a perfect Bible, only to have it corrupted by printers? I’ll await your answer.”

To which I answered: Hi…, excellent question. Here is what I believe about this. The production of the KJB mirrors exactly what happened in the case of the originals and all good copies of the correct texts.

God inspired the originals. Scribes then copied these originals into other manuscripts but all of the correct line of good copies introduced “printing errors”, inversion of word order, slight omissions, and such like. God’s word was not lost but needed some degree of purification as a result of the human element.

God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making “printing errors”, but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original state.

It seems you would have to admit that the stated purpose of modern scholarship is to accomplish this same end. They believe they need to examine the evidence, purge the texts of errors and false readings, and try to restore the texts to their original state.

Yet their results are exceedingly flawed, and some even admit it is hopeless. Witness the textual differences between the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV. Literally hundreds of words from the texts themselves are different between the ESV and the NASB.

The scholars today, all of whom have the same training and access to the same information, all come up with very different conclusions, and the various, conflicting bible versions reflect these differences.

My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and He has already providentially guided certain chosen men through this same “scholarly process” to select both the correct texts and the correct meaning for those texts. After all, only God really knows which readings are His and which are not.

The KJB believer first looks to God and His promises to preserve His words, and believes that God has done what He said He would do.

The “No Bible is Inspired” group, or the biblical relativist, seems to think that he and his buddies are capable of “restoring” what God never lost, and denies that God has already preserved His words in the King James Bible, or any other bible.

This is the fundamental difference in our approach to the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. We KJB believers are convinced God has done what He said He would do. The Bible of the Month Club member thinks it is still an ongoing process and his results are getting more scattered and divergent as time goes by. The Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek texts, upon which most modern versions are based, continue to change every few years, and the modern versions have introduced hundreds of variations into the Old Testament Scriptures. They often reject the Hebrew readings in favor of the alleged pre-Christian Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, or Vulgate texts. Just look at the differences between the KJB, NASB, and the ESV in this regard.

The “Probably Close Enuf” side ends up with no inspired, complete, inerrant, sure words of God, and maximum uncertainty. = “Yea, hath God said…?”

The King James Bible believer is convinced he has the inerrant words of God and enjoys maximum certainty and rest in the fulfilled promises of Almighty God. = “Thus saith the LORD”.

The King James Bible we have today is the same as the one in 1611. Even the American Bible Society, which promotes and publishes most modern versions, wrote, “The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text…” They further stated, “With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators” (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called “thousands of changes” that have occured in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.

AVDefense 1611
(Used With Permission)

Myth Of Early Revisions

By Pastor David F. Reagan


Men have been “handling the word of God deceitfully” (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man’s corrupting hand.  The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam’s day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version of 1611 has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.

One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God’s Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and–so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.


If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy, which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that’s one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition the King James Version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations, which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these “revisions.”


Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. This book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.

In the section of Scrivener’s book dealing with the KJV “revisions,” one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two that had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known of they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process: the purification of early printing errors, so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process: the standardization of the spelling. These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say there are still changes whether they are few or many. What are you going to do with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the character of these changes.


Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let’s examine the evidence.


For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The typestyle you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember that that is where printings were invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supercede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the Bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modern reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v. This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle s changed to f) and Joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic d is shaped quite differently from the Roman d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the “thousands” of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.


Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600’s spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600’s a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e’s were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find mee, bee, and mooued instead me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.


Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present edition and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: That this is a fact may be seen in three things: 1) the character of the changes, 2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and 3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible.

The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

F. H. A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below.  In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left-hand pages of Scrivener’s book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading: and finally, the date the correction was first made.

  • 1   this thing – this thing also (1638)
  • 2   shalt have remained – ye shall have remained (1762)
  • 3   Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik – of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)
  • 4   requite good – requite me good (1629)
  • 5   this book of the Covenant – the book of this covenant (1629)
  • 6   chief rulers – chief ruler (1629)
  • 7   And Parbar – At Parbar (1638)
  • 8   For this cause – And for this cause (1638)
  • 9   For the king had appointed – for so the king had appointed (1629)
  • 10   Seek good – seek God (1617)
  • 11   The cormorant – But the cormorant (1629)
  • 12   returned – turned (1769)
  • 13   a fiery furnace – a burning fiery furnace (1638)
  • 14   The crowned – Thy crowned (1629)
  • 15   thy right doeth – thy right hand doeth (1613)
  • 16   the wayes side – the way side (1743)
  • 17   which was a Jew – which was a Jewess (1629)
  • 18   the city – the city of the Damascenes (1629)
  • 19   now and ever – both now and ever (1638)
  • 20   which was of our father’s – which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener’s entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has “seek good” when the Bible should have read “seek God.” Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words ”good” and “God” in spelling shows how easily a weary typesetter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent Bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e. one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as “chief rulers” to “chief ruler” and “And Parbar” to “At Parbar.” But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener’s appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no “revision” issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!


An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes should help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr. Dave Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons with a recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made.

  • 1   1:5       the place – his place (1638)
  • 2   2:16     shall be – shall all be (1629)
  • 3   8:17     out, yea further – out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)
  • 4   11:17  thing is it – thing it is (?)

Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation (“thing is it” to “thing it is”) is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without even printing errors by the year 1638. That’s approximately 350 years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.


Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, “For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world.” In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.

An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor; etc.) were not included in this count.  That means there are probably about 600 alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in the entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change, you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That’s only fair. Still, the number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. According to the fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of revisions. Then pray tell me how four “revisions” and 375 years brought only 400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than the total number of changes in the first four! That’s preposterous!

Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of the alterations are serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas, the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the reading as found in the King James Version: and last, the reading as found in the New King James Version.

  • 1:13 sore travail; grievous task
  • 1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind
  • 1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood great wisdom
  • 2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with
  • 2:3 acquainting; guiding
  • 2:21 equity; skill
  • 3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task
  • 3:11 the world; eternity
  • 3:18 that God might manifest them; God tests them
  • 3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts
  • 3:22 portion; heritage
  • 4:4 right work; skillful work
  • 5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently
  • 5:6 the angel; the messenger of God
  • 5:6 thy voice; your excuse
  • 5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official
  • 5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy
  • 6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child
  • 7:29 inventions; schemes
  • 8:1 boldness; sterness
  • 8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness
  • 10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment
  • 10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull
  • 10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success
  • 12:9 gave good heed; pondered
  • 12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars

This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world becomes eternity (3:11) Man without God is no longer a beast but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 (“he that is higher than the highest”) is successfully removed  (“higher official”). But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10:10), this must be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where “the masters of assemblies” become “scholars.” According to the New King James, “the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.” The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the source of the Shepherd’s words. That is what these scholars would like us to think, but it is not true.

In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others like it are nothing more than continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.

The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.

© Copyrighted by David F. Reagan. As long as this notice is included, permission is granted to copy and distribute this material (electronically or in print form) for individual use or for small groups. All other rights (such as use in books, periodicals, on web pages, etc.) are reserved and must be obtained by permission from the author. Contact David Reagan at Antioch Baptist Church, 5709 N. Broadway, Knoxville, TN, 37918 – (865) 688-0780 – Fax (865) 689-1611 –

Used With Permission

Principles Of Bible Preservation

By Jack Moorman
(From Missing In Modern Bibles)

One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote:

“If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages.”

This is the crux of the matter; does God preserve that Word which He originally inspired? And if so, to what extent? Is it merely the concepts and basic message that is kept intact; or does preservation, as inspiration, extend to the words themselves?

That the Bible declares both the fact and extent of its preservation is made abundantly clear in the following:

“Know now that there shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the LORD” (2 Kings 10:10).

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (Psa. 12:6,7).

“The law of the LORD is perfect converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple” (Psa. 19:7).

“The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations” (Psa. 33:11).

“For the LORD is good, his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations” (Psa. 100:5).

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89).

“Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it” (Psa. 119:140).

“Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever” (Psa. 119:152).

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever” (Psa. 119:160).

“Every word of God is pure” (Prov. 30:5).

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isa. 40:8).

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:11).

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18).

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17).

“The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:23).

“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:25).

We have a strange anomaly today; Christians claim to believe what the Bible says about it’s own inspiration but virtually ignore the equally direct statements concerning preservation. To say that you believe in the full inspiration of Scripture while at the same time accepting the textual theories inherent in the modern versions, is about as incongruous as taking Genesis one literally while holding to the theories of Darwin.

One: The starting point of apostasy

The questioning of the Bible’s preservation is the starting point of all other kinds of apostasy. Satan in Genesis 3 did not begin his attack by questioning whether there was a God, or whether God created, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true. Nor did it begin with the question of whether God’s word was inspired in the originals. Apostasy began when Satan asked Eve, “Yea hath God said?” “Eve, are you certain that you presently have a full recollection of what God said?” When doubt was given a bridgehead at this point, the other defenses soon fell. The same principle applies today: Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture.

Two: Preservation must be approached in an attitude of faith

Like all other Bible truths, the Scripture’s teaching on its own preservation is to be in the first instance accepted by faith. Edward F. Hills in his outstanding book, The King James Version Defended calls it “the logic of faith.” The facts and evidence of such preservation will then follow.

Three: Preservation is grounded in the eternal counsels of God

The Bible’s preservation is rooted in the eternal counsels of God. The Scriptures are as eternal as God Himself.

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89).

Four: Preservation is brought to pass through the priesthood of believers

The preservation of the Scriptures took place through the priesthood of believers. The Old Testament text was preserved by the Aaronic priests and the scribes who grouped around them. “Unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2).

In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ. Hence, the New Testament text has been preserved by faithful Christians in every walk of life. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

It was not the pronouncements of church fathers or counsels that determined the text and canon of the New Testament. Rather, the Holy Spirit guided His own into the acceptance of the true word of God. Such copies proliferated, while defective ones were ignored. The Holy Spirit continues this work today in the questions that arise over the wording in the modern versions.

Five: Preservation extends to the actual words

Preservation has to do with the actual words of Scripture, not merely the general teaching or concepts. This is made clear in the list of verses just given. Advocates of the modern versions commonly say: “There is not a single doctrine missing.” But what they fail to tell you is that the words which support and develop these doctrines are frequently missing. Thus, the force of the doctrine is diminished. As inspiration of the Scriptures is verbal so also is preservation.

Six: Preservation is operative in the spread of the Scriptures

Preservation has taken place in the diffusion of God’s word, not in its being hidden or stored. Stewart Custer, in seeking to somehow equate the use of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with the doctrine of preservation, said:

“God has preserved His word in the sands of Egypt.” (This statement was made in a debate at the Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Chicago, 1984.)

To take such a position would mean that believers have had the wrong text for 1800 years, and it has been only with the advent of two liberal British churchmen, and the retrieval of two disused Alexandrian manuscripts that we now have the “true preserved” Word of God. No! The miracle of preservation was operative while the Scriptures were being disseminated.

“The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it” (Psa. 68:11).

“Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world” (Rom. 10:18).

Seven: preservation must of necessity apply to key translations

As so few can read the original languages, God’s promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. The Scripture frequently affirms “that we are born again by the Word of God” (James 1:18; 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Pet. 1:23). If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith (Rom. 10:17; Matt. 4:4).

Further, the Bible’s use of the term “preserved” demonstrates that it is an absolute and not a relative term. To speak of the Bible, or in this discussion, a translation as being “almost preserved” is a misnomer. Either it is preserved or it isn’t, either it has errors or it doesn’t. Either the flower fades and the grass withers or it does not.

Eight: The meaning of the term “Scripture”

While it may be assumed that the Bible usage of the word “Scripture” has reference to the original autographs; yet virtually each time the word is used it is the copies or even translations of the Scriptures that are in view, e.g. it is the Scriptures that the people had access to.

“But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth” (Dan. 10:21).

“Did ye never read in the scriptures?” (Matt. 21:42)

“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).

“How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled” (Matt. 26:54)?

“That the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (Matt. 26:56).

“That the scriptures must be fulfilled” (Mark 14:49).

“The scripture was fulfilled, which saith” (Mark 15:28).

“This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:21).

“He expounded unto them in all the scriptures” (Luke 24:27).

“And while he opened to us the scriptures” (Luke 24:32).

“That they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45).

“They believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said” (Jn.2:22).

“Search the scriptures” (Jn. 5:39).

“He that believeth on me as the scripture hath said” (Jn. 7:38).

“Hath not the scripture said” (Jn. 7:42).

“The scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35).

“That the scripture may be fulfilled” (Jn. 13:18).

“That the scripture might be fulfilled” (Jn. 17:12; 19:24; 19:36).

“Another scripture saith” (Jn. 19:37).

“They knew not the scriptures” (Jn. 20:9).

“This scripture must needs have been fulfilled” (Acts 1:16).

“The place of the scripture which he read” (Acts 8:32).

“And began at the same scripture and preached ” (Acts 8:35).

“Reasoned with them out of the scriptures” (Acts 17:2).

“They searched the scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

“Mighty in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24).

“Showing by the scriptures” (Acts 18:28).

“Promised before by his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Rom. 1:2).

“What saith the scripture” (Rom. 4:3)?

“The scripture saith unto Pharaoh” (Rom. 9:17).

“The scripture saith” (Rom. 10:11).

“Wot ye not what the scripture saith” (Rom. 11:2).

“Comfort of the scriptures” (Rom. 15:4).

“Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26).

“Christ died… according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).

“He rose again… according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4).

“The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify” (Gal. 3:8).

“The scripture hath concluded all under sin ” (Gal. 3:22).

“What saith the scripture” (Gal. 4:30)?

“The scripture saith” (1 Tim. 5:18).

“That from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:15).

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16).

“The royal law according to the scripture” (James 2:8).

“The scripture was fulfilled which saith” (James 2:23).

“Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain?” (James 4:5)

“It is contained in the scripture” (1 Pet. 2:6).

“No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20).

“Wrest, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16).

The above shows clearly that the word “Scripture” refers to what the people had access to, what was at hand, what was current, what they could then actually read and hear. Therefore, the biblical usage of the word refers primarily to copies rather than the original autographs.

The fact that these copies and possibly even translations are called “Scripture” strongly implies their preservation, and that the very qualities of the inspired original have been brought over unto them.

These copies are holy (2 Tim. 3:15; Rom. 1:2).
These copies are true (Dan. 10:21).
These copies are not broken (Jn. 10:35).
These copies are worthy of belief (Jn. 2:22).
The prophecies contained in these copies have been fulfilled to the very letter and await fulfillment (Luke 4:21).
These copies are the very voice of God.

This can be shown by a comparison of the following:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews… For this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth” (Ex. 9:13-16).

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth” (Rom. 9:17).

And again:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram… In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:1-3).

And the scripture… preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying in thee shall all nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8).

And further:

Wherefore she [Sarah] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac” (Gen. 21:10).

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman” (Gal. 4:30).

These verses establish the fact that there is no difference between the Scriptures speaking and God speaking. And as the Scriptures refer to that which is current and available, it follows that our copies are as much the voice of God as the original is.

Consider also that classic passage on inspiration:

“And that from a child thou has known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

There are some remarkable things about this passage that are often overlooked. The words “is given by inspiration of God” are translated from the one Greek word, theopneustos (God-breathed). And “is profitable” is from Ophelimos. These two words are joined by the conjunction kai. Thus, all scripture (graphe) is said to be “God-breathed and profitable.”

The Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary says of this phrase:

“Graphe is never used in the Bible of any writings except the sacred Scriptures. The position of the two Greek adjectives (theopneustos kai ophelimos) forbids taking the one as a modifier and the other as a predicate. i.e. ‘every God-breathed scripture is also profitable.’ The adjectives are so closely connected that as one is a predicate the other must be too.”

Therefore, the translation “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof…” must be adhered to.

But what is remarkable here, is that while the Scriptures were inspired in the past and their profitability has to do with the present, yet both facts are joined together in an identical grammatical construction. Therefore, it is the work of past inspiration which makes the Scriptures profitable in the present. And conversely, the Scriptures cannot be profitable in the present if the manifold blessings of inspiration have not been preserved. Past inspiration is inseparably linked to present profitability.

Nine: The bearing of John 16:13 upon the translation and preservation process

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

God has promised to guide His people into all truth. “All” here does not mean “basically,” “generally,” “almost,” “nearly,” “relatively.” It must surely mean ALL!

“Truth” is defined in the next chapter of John as referring to the Bible. “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17).

Through the priesthood of believers, God guided His people into all truth as to the canon of Scripture, e.g. which books were and were not inspired. He also guided them into all truth as to the text of Scripture (which were and were not the correct readings). And in order to make this relevant and practical He must also guide them into all truth concerning the translation of Scripture.

Three important things can be seen in John 16:13:

(1) The Guide – “the Spirit of Truth”
(2) The Journey – “will guide you”
(3) The Arrival – “into all truth”

The history of how our Bible came down to us after its inspiration in the original autographs is to be found under these three points. These must be considered in the history of every Bible of every language.

The Guide

The same Holy Spirit of Truth who verbally inspired the Word in the autographs is committed also to its verbal preservation in the textual, transmissional, and translation process.

The Journey

The statement “will guide you” indicates that a process is in view. In the history of a given Bible where God was actively guiding there will be at least three key periods:

(1) The Manuscript Period
(2) The Early Printed Edition Period
(3) The Period of an Authoritative Standard Edition

In each of these periods God’s Word will be current and available to His people. “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart that thou mayest do it” (Deut. 30:14).

In the first two periods God’s Word may not have been available from the same written source. Relatively minor variations existed in the hand copied manuscripts of the Received Text tradition. The early printed Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza had some variation, as did the early printed English versions. Yet, God’s promise of guiding into all truth could still be counted on, and through the comparing of several sources He would put upon the heart of his people which of the variants was the true reading.

For example, Wycliffe’s Bible was based on the Latin Vulgate and was therefore flawed. Yet it could be clarified with the Celtic, Waldensian, and Old Latin translations which had a Received Text tradition.

This same general principle could hold even today in those remote and primitive areas where only a preliminary translation is available. The earnest seeker of truth can know what a true reading is, for God has promised to “guide into all truth.” There is, however, the disadvantage today that many missionary Bibles are based on the Alexandrian text.

The Arrival

If “will guide you” refers to the process or journey; then “into all truth” must refer to the arrival at a destination. This destination refers to that point when a given language receives an authoritative standardized Bible accepted over a considerable period of time by the great mass of believers. By any criterion the publication of the King James Version in that language which is most used in international communication is the single most important event in the transmissional history of Scripture.

Certainly here we see the biblical principle of 1 Corinthians 13:10 (at least in a secondary application): “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

History has shown this version in its widespread appeal to tower above the other great standard versions of Europe. Even to this day it is the measuring rod against which all others are judged.

The King James Version is the grand culmination of God’s promise to guide His people into all truth. Our conviction that this pinnacle was reached in 1611 is enforced by the fact that since then textual scholarship has been rationalistic, has denied the inspiration of Scripture, and has moved in precisely the opposite direction.

Ten: Lifegiving qualities in a translation

Inspiration in the originals will not only ensure preservation in certain key translations, but also animation. It is this quality which enables a translation to convict the sinner and bring manifold grace to the believer: Heb. 4:12; Acts 2:37; Isa. 55:11; Psa. 119:9,11,130; Rom. 10:17. It is this which ensures that a translation will become an enduring standard among the humble people of God. The Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Slavonic, Luther, Tyndale, Geneva, and King James are examples of versions which in a sweetly natural way worked their way into the hearts of millions of God’s people. High pressured promotion was not needed as in the case of Constantine’s Bible, the Latin Vulgate, or the New International Version.

Thus when a translation is being prepared in accordance with the will of God, the life giving breath of God will be felt in that translation. Modern versions claim to be the “results of the most recent scholarship,” but there is no life in them and they fall flat after a few years.

God’s work of preservation does more than keep the Bible from error in its transmission and translation, it gives to the Bible an enduring freshness. Therefore, a translation can be as much the Sword of the Spirit as the original autographs. When God is active in the work of a translation (and is there reason to think that He would not be?), the manifold blessings of the once delivered work of inspiration are transmitted to that translation. Our standard translation is not a valley of dry bones, it has breath! To test this fact, read John 14 in the New International Version and then in the Authorized Version.

Eleven: A standard translation should be accepted as the preserved Word of God

It is only God who can make a translation or version a true Standard. Such a Standard will endure the test of time, receive universal acceptance, and result in widespread conversion. Such a Standard will spawn and encourage the publication of vast amounts of supplemental literature: commentaries, concordances, theological works, study helps of all kinds. And such a Standard will evoke the wrath of Satan. Since it’s inception, the King James Version has been called “the paper pope of the Protestants.”

That the Authorized Version is such a Standard and the only Standard in the English language for nearly 400 years argues convincingly that it is God’s preserved word in that language. In response to God’s promises of preservation and the abundant evidence of the same, the believer may be fully confident that the AV has no blemishes and is without proven error. There are places that may need explanation, and it is right for the teacher within reasonable limits to amplify, elucidate, and expound the English as well as the underlying text. But this must not be done in such a way as to imply to the listener that errors exist. For example, “This word means” is acceptable; but, “A better rendering would be” is not. Certainly also, before being too concerned about the “force of the Greek or Hebrew,” the reader should be certain that he has a grasp on “the force of the English”!

I say that the KJV is without “proven error” because I am not aware of errors having been proven! Given all that can be said in behalf of the King James Bible, the burden of proof must rest with the one making the charge. If he feels he has better understanding and spiritual insight at a given point than did the fifty AV translators – not to mention the translators of the seven Bibles from Tyndale to the Bishops which prepared the groundwork of the AV – then he must set forth his evidence.

That this is not so easy can be seen from the following incident involving one of the AV translators:

Dr. Richard Kilby, the translator in the Old Testament group at Oxford, heard a young parson complain in an earnest sermon that a certain passage should read in a way he stated. After the sermon Dr. Kilby took the young man aside and told him that the group had discussed at length not only his proposed reading but thirteen others; only then had they decided on the phrasing as it appeared (Gustavis S. Paine, The Men Behind the KJV [Baker Book House, 1959], pgs. 137,138).

Great and totally unnecessary harm has been done by “young parsons” (and old ones too!) who do this.

Long ago it was said:

Nothing can be more unseemly than for the unskillful to be always correcting with their literal translations and various readings, distressing simple souls rather than seeking that which tends to godly edifying. Anyone who approaches a so-called problem passage in an attitude of honour toward God’s Word will find the solution equally honoring. He will find that God’s promise of preservation has been vindicated.

Twelve: Will there be another standard Bible?

It is possible that in the providence of God another universally accepted standard translation could be produced. However, given the lateness of the hour, the lack of spiritual scholarship, and the fact that our language no longer has the depth and vitality it once had, this seems most unlikely. All indications point to the KJV as the Bible God would have His people use in these last days before the Second Coming of Christ.

A final word

What is it that make the King James Version unique? Does it indeed have a sense of the supernatural that is lacking in the modern versions? That is does, is given remarkable confirmation in the following extended quotation from the research of a secular author:

Can a committee produce a work of art? Many would say no, yet we have seen that this large group of the king’s translators, almost threescore of them, together gave the world a work greater not only in scope but in excellence than any could have done singly. How did this come to be? How explain that sixty or more men, none a genius, none even as great a writer as Marlowe or Ben Jonson, together produced writings to be compared with (and confused with) the words of Shakespeare?

…If hard work alone were the secret of success, we would have the answer, for we know that the learned men worked hard. Many of them labored like monks in rooms so cold and damp, except close to the fires, that fingers and joints got stiff even though they swathed themselves in their thick gowns. They worked at odd hours, early in the mornings and late at night, as other duties permitted. They endured rigors that we would think beyond us.

But hard work alone, singly or in groups, does not insure a great result. Were the learned men saints, under direct inspiration?

As we have seen, these men who made the translation for King James were subject to like passions as we are. Even as they gave themselves to the great work, they yielded also to petty vanities and ambition and prejudice zeal for the great undertaking survived their own wrangles over doctrine and their differences of opinion in personal matters. The quarrels that are recorded were over such differences rather than the work in hand. There they must have learned to rise above themselves for the good of the whole, an act of grace deserving of reward. But does even this account for the result?

To know that the Bible words were beyond the choosing of the best of them, we have only to look at their individual writing. And this writing of theirs in books or sermons or attempted poetry also answers the suggestion that their work on the Bible was great because they lived in a great age. It was an age of great writing, in which poets and dramatists flourished, yet these men as individuals lacked the skills of those who made the Mermaid Tavern and the Globe Theater live in literature. In vain do we look to the eloquent Lancelot Andrewes or even to Miles Smith for the dulcet temper and torrents of sound in concord that mark the religious prose of Sir Thomas Browne, or for the dooming ire, like a knell, of Dr. John Donne. At the same time their Bible surpassed others in an excellence not to be attributed wholly to the original writers in the ancient tongues, so that Lytton Strachey could say of the prophets, “Isaiah and Jeremiah had the extraordinary good fortune to be translated into English by a committee of Elizabethan bishops.” Badly as some of the committee could write on other occasions, not only was theirs the best of the English Bibles; there is, in no modern language a Bible worthy to be compared with it as literature.

Though such verse as we have of their own lacks value for us, they were poets who fashioned prose without knowing how expert they were Keats, silent on a peak as he marveled at Chapman’s Homer, might have marveled still more if he had much traveled through the realms of gold in the King James Bible. Chapman’s Homer of those same years no longer has the power to dazzle us, while the Bible’s power has shown increase. At Oxford and Cambridge the learned men breathed the air of noble language, amid brilliant buildings and gardens which could excite them to lofty efforts in a domain that seemed timeless. And they produced a timeless book.

Are we to say that God walked with them in their gardens? Insofar as they believed in their own calling and election, they must have believed that they would have God’s help in their task. We marvel that they could both submerge themselves and assert themselves, could meekly agree yet firmly declare, and hold to the words they preferred as just and fitting. At the same time they could write and they could listen, speak clearly, and hearken to the sounds they tested, as well as to the voice of what they deemed the divine Author. And that must have been the secret of their grace and their assurance: they agreed, not with the other men like themselves, but with God as their guide, and they followed not as thinking themselves righteous but as led by a righteousness beyond them.

…So they put down what they had to put down; their writing flows with a sense of must. Some of it they took wholly from former works, yet the must extends to what the 1611 scholars had the wisdom to adopt and, as it were, to inlay in the rest.

…They knew how to make the Bible scare the wits out of you and then calm you, all in English as superb as the Hebrew and the Greek. They could make their phrasing proceed as though caused by the First Cause, without shadow of turning; they could make the stately language of threat and wrath or the promises of tender mercy come word for word from God Himself.

…Soul and body, the work of the learned men still moves the world because they wrought inside each sentence a certain balance of letter and spirit. If other versions have their day and pass, it is because this balance is somehow marred.

Miles Smith in his preface bears out this idea that the work carried them above themselves. “The Scripture is not an herb but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine… And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or prophets. But how shall men… understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? As it is written, `Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me’.”

“Translation it is,” Smith continued, “that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water.”

…”After the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God… Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal one.”

…”Neither did we disdain,” Smith declared, “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 coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to the pass that you see.”

…”And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of it, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord” (Gustavus Paine, The Men Behind The KJV, pgs. 167-76).

God has preserved in the King James Version His original work of inspiration. The flower has not faded. The sword is as sharp as in the day it was first whetted.

NIV Bible Test

It has been said by many that the NIV is the most readable and accurate Bible on the market today and that it is based on older and more reliable manuscripts than the King James Bible. In regard to the above statements an “acid test” is the only fair way to put the NIV and the KJV “to the test” as one might say… so get out you NIV, a pen and when you have completed the test I encourage you to then take a KJV and see the result…


Using the New International Version (NIV) Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. “Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you.”

2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon? a. ______ b. _______

3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth? _______________

4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate’s first name? ________

5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV. ________________

6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________

7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear? ____________

8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name? _____________

9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know? _______________

10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do? a. _______ b. ________

11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus? ___

12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written? a. _______ b. _______ c. ________

13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish? ______________

14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man? __________

15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4? ____________

16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus? _______

17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism? _______

18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6? _______

19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34. _______

20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain’s name? What did the chief captain command? a. _______ b._______ c. _______

21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV. _____________

22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh? _______

23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do? a. _______ b. _______

24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7? a. ___ b.___ c. ___

25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, “I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:”

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it’s much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.

How I Know The King James Bible is the Word of God

How I Know The King James Bible is the Word of God


God Promised to Preserve His Words

The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King

Because It Has No Copyright

Because God Always Translates Perfectly

Because It Produces Good Fruit

Because the King James Translators Believed
They Were Handling the Very Words of God

Because the King James Translators Were Honest In Their Work

Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV

Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated

Because No One Has Ever Proven That the KJV is Not God’s Word

Because of the Manuscript Evidence

Because It Exalts the Lord Jesus Christ


Copyright © 1997 James L. Melton

Published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN

There are many good works that one can read on the authority of the King James Bible, and this particular effort offers nothing really new. However, it does attempt to explain the issue in a simple and brief manner for all to understand. Over the years I have learned a great deal about this issue, and I believe that a truth worth learning is a truth worth telling.

Many preachers and teachers across our land talk about “preferring” and “using” the KJV, but I haven’t heard them speak much about BELIEVING it. Many prefer it and use it, because that’s what their congregations prefer and use, but they do not BELIEVE it to be the infallible words of God. They are taught in college to USE, PREFER, and RECOMMEND the KJV, but they are NOT taught to BELIEVE it. Most “Christian colleges” teach that the King James Bible is only a translation, and that NO translation is infallible. Consequently, the average minister today uses a Book which he doesn’t even believe.

Now, I thank God that I don’t have that problem. I don’t have to play make-believe with anyone about the word of God. I believe it. I believe the King James Bible is the preserved and infallible words of God. It doesn’t merely “contain” the word of God: it IS the word of God. I’m absolutely sure of it, and I’d like to give a few reasons why. Here are twelve reasons how I know that the KJV is the word of God:

God Promised to Preserve His Words

Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that “. . . . his truth endureth to all generations,” and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God’s WORD is truth.

These words state very clearly that God’s preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.

You say, “But ALL translations are God’s word, not just one.” That’s impossible, because the various translations contain different readings, and God is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). Besides, if all of the versions are the word of God, then where are the “corrupt” and “perverted” versions that we are warned about in II Corinthians 2:17 and Jeremiah 23:36? If everyone is innocent, then where are those who are said to be GUILTY of subtracting from and adding to the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19)? God wouldn’t have warned us about Bible perversion if it wasn’t going to be a reality. According to the scriptures, there must be a single Book that is the word of God, and there must be MANY which are involved in CORRUPTING the word of God.

Now, if the Authorized Version isn’t the infallible word of God, then WHAT IS? There has to be a Book somewhere in “all generations” which is God’s word; so what book is it? Those who “use” the new versions believe that these are good and reliable translations, but they do NOT believe these to be INFALLIBLE translations. However, I know MANY people who believe the King James Bible to be an infallible Book. Why? Because they know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK. He promised to preserve His words, and we believe that He has done just that. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). If His words didn’t pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.

The Authorized Version Was Translated

Under A God-Ordained English King

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS,” according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king’s name was “James,” which is the English word for “Jacob,” whom God renamed “Israel,” because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God’s form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English-speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.

Because It Has No Copyright

The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV’s without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.

The new “bibles” are the work of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The term “Authorized” has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book, which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long. The fact that it bears no copyright allows printing ministries throughout the world to print millions of copies each year for the mission field. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it has no copyright.

Because God Always Translates Perfectly

The words “translate” and “translated” occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is “only a translation.” Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul’s kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What’s the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Luke 4:4; John 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Corinthians 2:9; Galatians 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE “ORIGINAL GREEK” ISN’T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord’s leadership (John 16:13).

The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through “holy men of God” (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: “ . . . . because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . “

I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because God is very capable of using anyone He pleases as His very own instruments of righteousness in order to preserve His word.

Because It Produces Good Fruit

The Lord Jesus said that every good tree will bring forth good fruit, and we can know them BY their fruits (Mt. 7:17-20).

God had the KJV translated for the purpose of bringing forth fruit, and it has been very obedient to the call. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than questioning its authority.

The KJV produces good fruit. I was led to Christ with a King James Bible. Nearly every Christian I know was led to Christ with a KJV. Why? Because it produces good fruit.

The new translations produce EVIL fruit. The modern perversions of scripture are producing infidels who do not even know what the word of God is, much less where to find it. The new translations produce spiritual babies who are totally incapable of discussing Bible doctrine. The new versions produce NEWER versions, which produce MONEY for the publishers, and I Timothy 6:10 tells us that the love of MONEY is the root of all EVIL.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t bear witness to the modern translations, but He DOES bear witness to the King James. I’ve always believed the KJV to be God’s word, even before I was saved. No one ever told me to believe this, but the Holy Spirit just bore witness to the King James–not the others. After being saved, I spent several years of my Christian life not being aware of the big debate going on these days between King James Bible believers and New Age Version believers. The whole time I believed only ONE BOOK to be God’s word, and even then I was suspicious of the new versions, although no one had told me to be. When I discovered that over eighty percent of the “Christian” schools in our nation do not believe the KJV to be the word of God, I was shocked.

How is it that one comes to believe the KJV naturally, but must be EDUCATED OUT of his belief in it? Why is it that King James believers are accused of following men when GOD is the One Who led them to believe it? Why do opponents of the KJV accuse us of following men, when THEY are the ones who allowed MEN to talk them out of believing the KJV.

The KJV produces good fruit, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it like no other book in the world. It’s easier to memorize than any new version, and the beautiful old English language gives the reader the impression that he is reading a Book very different and far superior to the rest. It reads different because it IS different, and it IS different because it has a different Author. We shall know them “by their fruit”, and I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because it produces GOOD fruit.

Because the King James Translators Believed

They Were Handling the Very Words of God

One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version. These men didn’t believe they were handling “God’s message” or “reliable manuscripts.” They believed they were handling the very words of God Himself. As I Thessalonians 2:13 says, they “. . . . received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

Like the serpent of Genesis 3:1, modern translators approach the scriptures in skepticism, saying, “Yea, hath God said?” This was the first recorded sin in the Bible, and it still runs rapid through the hearts and minds of most scholars and new version promoters.

God has always allowed such people to be DECEIVED because of the IDOLS in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1-9; II Thessalonians 2:10-12; I Kings 22). A man who lacks faith in God’s word is in no condition to translate it. This eliminates every revision committee in the past one hundred years, because these committees have consisted mostly of highly educated men who were heady, high-minded, and proud, thinking that their intelligence qualified them to tamper with the pure words of God.

The KJV translators were not like this. Their scholarship FAR EXCEEDED that of modern translators, yet they remained humble and allowed God to use them in order to produce an infallible masterpiece. They didn’t set out to “judge” and “correct” the word of God. Their purpose was to translate God’s word for the English speaking people, as they were told to do by their appointed king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because the KJV translators believed it themselves.

Because the King James Translators

Were Honest In Their Work

The critics of the KJV enjoy making a fuss about the words in italics, which were added by the translators, but the argument is entirely unnecessary and unfair.

The italic words in the KJV actually PROVE that the translators were honest in their work. When translating from one language to another, the idioms change, thus making it necessary to add certain words to help the reader grasp the full meaning of the text. When the KJV translators added such words they set them in italics so that we’d know these words were added, UNLIKE we find it in so many new versions today, which do NOT use the italics.

Besides, no one has ever PROVEN that the italic words are not the words of God, because no one has “the originals” to check them with. In fact, we know for sure that the translators were led by the Holy Spirit to add at least some of the italicized words.

One good example of this is found in II Samuel 21:19. When the translators came to this verse in the Hebrew text, they noticed that an exact translation would give Elhanan credit for slaying Goliath, but we know from I Chronicles 20:5 that he actually slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath. So the KJV translators added the words “the brother of” to II Samuel 21:19. If the Lord had not led them to do so, then II Samuel 21:19 would contradict I Chronicles 20:5 (as it DOES in the New World Translation!).

Another fine example is I John 2:23. The last half of the verse was missing at the time, but the KJV translators inserted it anyhow (in italics), feeling that it was necessary. This naturally disturbed many people, but since that time new manuscripts have been found which CONTAIN the last half of I John 2:23. The translators were RIGHT in adding the italicized words.

One last example of the Holy Spirit’s guiding influence on the KJV translators is found in Psalm 16:8, which says, “I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.” As you can see, the words “he is” are in italics. According to many scholars they should be omitted, but according to the Apostle Peter they should NOT be omitted. Peter quotes Psalm 16:8 in Acts 2:25, and he USES the italicized words! How did the translators know this if the Lord didn’t lead them?

The italics in the King James Bible are the marks of an HONEST translation, for no one added these words to mislead us, or to change the word of God. They added the words to help us, and they set the words in italics so we’d know they were added. That’s honesty. I know the KJV is the word of God, because the translators were more honest in their work than any of the modern Bible translators.

Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV

The new versions do not compare themselves with each other, because they’re too busy comparing themselves with one Book–the King James Bible. This fact alone proves that there is something very special and unique about the KJV.

Why does everyone line up in opposition AGAINST the King James Bible? Why not attack one another? That’s easy: Satan has no desire to divide his own kingdom (Mt. 12:26). His desire is to discredit the word of GOD, not himself; so he attacks only one Book, God’s Book, the KJV.

Those who oppose the KJV are unsure of themselves, for they have no Final Authority; so they despise those of us who DO have an Authority. They’re unstable, insecure, dishonest, and very inconsistent. They’re all TERRIFIED of One Book, the KJV, and they’ll stop short of nothing in their efforts to rid the Body of Christ of that Book.

I know the KJV is the word of God, because it’s the standard which all others use for comparison.

Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated

The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations. The Laodicean period is the last church period before the Second Coming of Christ. It is the last of the seven church periods in Revelation chapters two and three. One can clearly see that we are living in the Laodicean period today by simply comparing modern churches to the church of Revelation 3:14-22. This lukewarm period began toward the end of the 1800’s and will continue until Christ returns. The new versions fit well into the lukewarm churches, because they are lukewarm “bibles.”

The Authorized Version, however, was translated LONG BEFORE the Laodicean churches appeared. It was translated during the Philadelphia church period, which is the best church period of all. It was this church that the Lord Jesus COMMENDED for KEEPING HIS WORD( Rev. 3:8-10)!

In 1611, when the King James Bible was completed, the scourge of lukewarm Laodicea had not yet swept over the world. There was no “scientific” crowd around in 1611 to put pressure on the translators. There was no civil rights movement going on at this time to influence the work of these men. The women were not screaming for “equal rights,” and the humanists and socialists had not yet taken control. The massive army of liberal and modernistic preachers had not yet been assembled. The open public denial of God’s word and the Deity of Christ was practically unheard of among ministers. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that professing Christianity became flooded with lukewarm preachers who would be willing to compromise the word of God for self gain.

The greatest missionary work in church history occurred between 1700 and 1900, so it makes perfect sense that God would have a Bible ready for this great work, and He did – the KJV. Unfortunately, the new translations appeared a bit LATE on the scene! Think about that. I know the KJV is the word of God because of the time in history in which it was translated.

Because No One Has Ever Proven

That the KJV is Not God’s Word

Any honest American should know that innocence is supposed to prevail in our land until guilt is proven. The KJV should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Has anyone proven it guilty? No. Has any scholar actually PROVEN that there are errors in the King James Bible? No. Enemies of the KJV delight in IGNORING the facts about the Authorized Version, while never PROVING anything. All apparent “errors” in the KJV can be explained through prayer and a careful study of the scriptures, but the opponents of the KJV aren’t interested in looking for TRUTH; they’re interested attacking God’s word, while never proving anything. I know the KJV is the word of God, because, over nearly four hundred years, no one has proven otherwise.

Because of the Manuscript Evidence

Only a very deceived individual could believe that the new versions are equal to the King James Bible. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence.

The new “bibles” are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the “Vaticanus” and the “Siniaticus.” These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible.

The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other “bibles” do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome. We don’t need an Egyptian version, for Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exodus 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that “every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians” in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten. Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don’t need a “bible” from Alexandria, Egypt.

Then there’s the Roman text, also called the “Western Text.” We can also do without a Roman “bible”, because it was ROMAN soldiers who nailed our Lord to the cross. The harlot of Revelation 17 is a perfect description of the Roman Catholic Church, which has persecuted Christians for thousands of years. Romans persecuted the Christians in Acts18:2, and in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Rome is the “dreadful and terrible” beast of Daniel chapter seven, and Christ will destroy the “Revised Roman Empire” at the Second Coming (Dan. 2; 7; and Rev. 13). It has been estimated that Rome is guilty of the blood of some 200 million people who have rejected her corrupt system. A “bible” from Rome is another thing we can live without.

There’s only one line of manuscripts that we can trust, and this is the line from Antioch, called the “Syrian” or “Byzantine” type text. The word of God speaks POSITIVELY of Antioch, and NEGATIVELY of Rome and Egypt. We should TAKE THE BEST AND DUMP THE REST! I know the King James Bible is the word of God because of the manuscript evidence.

Because It Exalts the Lord Jesus Christ

Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: And they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39.

A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another.

By perverting the many important verses of scripture which deal with the fundamental doctrines of Christ, the new “bibles” have a CONTINUOUS ATTACK launched against our beloved Saviour, and this is NOT an overstatement! His Virgin Birth is under attack in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33. His Blood Atonement is under attack in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5. The Bodily Resurrection is under attack in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark. His Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16. The new versions attack the Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and the list goes on, because the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the pre-eminent place.

If the reader doubts this, we challenge you to take whatever version you want and compare the above verses in it to the same verses in the King James Bible. If you still doubt it, after checking the verses, then write us and we will send you a great many more references to check. The new “bibles” have a very consistent record of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ; so they cannot possibly be “the scriptures” that He said would testify of Him in John 5:39. They testify AGAINST him.

The King James Bible NEVER attacks our Lord. More than any book in the world, the Authorized Version of the Protestant Reformation EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ. If we had no other reason for receiving the Authorized Version as the word of God, this reason alone should be enough to convince any true believer, for how could we not become suspicious of the new versions for making such changes? I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it always exalts the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bible Versions – Does It Matter?

Bible Versions – Does It Matter?

I have been comparing Bible versions and it is amazing how much deception is out there. I can see where the United Church Moderator gets his beliefs from – straight out of the NIV Bible without even twisting the text. The NASV and NRSV are just as corrupt. I believed that the NASV was the most accurate version, but the Lord opened my eyes in 1997. Some friends challenged me to compare these modern versions verse by verse (and word by word) with the King James Bible. So I did and I was shocked at all the changes and omissions (there are over 64,000 words less in the NIV Bible – that is over 8% less!)

You may think that I am unjust to use that old “error-ridden” translation as my standard, but I will tell you something: I have never found an error in it yet! Everyone says it is untrustworthy so therefore we should use these newer versions. Almost every single translation that has come out in the last 120 years has used the Westcott and Hort Greek text (commonly known as the NU Text – the N estle-Aland Greek New Testament and the U nited Bible Societies Greek text.) (Even the New King James Version does not solely use the traditional texts – see next paragraph – and contains many NU readings in the margins, if not in the main text.) Both Westcott and Hort were heretics who denied many fundamentals of Scripture (and especially about Jesus Christ), they were pro-Catholics (Westcott even renamed his wife Mary in honor of this church), they were also both involved in the occult, satanic worship, and even believed in contacting the dead – in fact they started several clubs to do this very thing – The Hermes Club and The Ghostly Guild respectively. These two have also chosen several Unitarians for the committee of the English Revised Version of 1881. Westcott believed in Communism, and Hort believed in evolution. They were both friends of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Helena Blavatsky, the mother of the modern New Age/Satanic movement ! (Her doctrines have influenced them in some of their major departures and changes from the Traditional Texts.) If an unsaved man cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14), why do the majority of modern scholars somehow assume that the work of these apostate, unbelieving heretics would be superior to the Authorized King James?

All forty-seven translators of the King James Bible (KJ) were godly, committed Christians, who were Protestants and believed in the inerrancy of Scripture and that God will preserve His Word according to Psalm 12:6-7. The King James Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, which history proves as thoroughly reliable and unchanged because the scribes, who believed they were handling the very words of God and took seriously the warnings not to add to or subtract from Scripture, preserved the words exactly as they were written originally. (The Masoretic and priestly scribes also destroyed the worn out copies as they made newer word for word {and jot and tittle} perfect copies. See Matthew 5:18. A jot is the smallest letter and a tittle is the smallest stroke or mark of a letter – like the dot over an “i”.) The King James New Testament comes from the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text). Both of these became the common accepted Bible texts (the traditional texts) for the Old and New Testaments. The King James was based on these, and it thus became known as the Authorized Version (AV) because all of the known world at that time, excepting the Roman Catholic church, accepted it as the Word of God. ( Note: the King James Bible was built upon the sevenfold foundation of the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, Great, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles.) King James authorized this translation for public and private use, to replace the various English translations that were currently being used so as to remove confusion and have one universal standard for his realm. Authorize means To give authority, credit or reputation to and To justify; to support as right . According to these definitions, we can see that the common people authorized it as well. It was written at the height of the English language. The Philadelphian missionary age (and Great Awakening) from 1750-1900 (approx.) solely used the King James Bible.

One of the myths the New King James Version’s publisher and owner (Thomas Nelson) is striving to promote is that they are continuing in the tradition of the King James, and are in fact the fifth major revision of it, implying that our present-day King James Bible has gone through four “revisions.” This is a blatant lie that careful research will bear out. The first two “revisions” (actually editions) were done in 1629 and 1638, within twenty-seven years of the original printings, and were in fact mere corrections of printing press errors. These omissions and errors were also corrected by two of the original translators, by the way. The last two “revisions” were performed in 1762 and 1769, and were merely standardizing of the spelling. When the King James was translated it was at the height of the English language, though many words and names were spelled several different ways. (How many different ways have you seen William Tyndale spelled?)The majority of the word changes were along the lines of changing sonne to son, borne to borne, blinde to blind, sinne to sin, etc. As you can see, these types of changes don’t warrant the term “revision.” According to D.A. Waite, there are only 421 changes, between the 1611 and the 1769 editions, that can be heard by the ear. These would include changing burnt to burned, towards to toward, amongst to among, lift to lifted, you to ye, etc. (He listened to the 1769 King James being read while he compared it visually with a 1611 edition.) “There were only 136 substantial changes that were different words. The others were 285 minor changes of form only… Now you’re talking about only 136 real changes out of 791,328 words.” That certainly doesn’t sound like thousands of changes at all. Puts their claims in a little different perspective, doesn’t it?

Now in an apostate generation we are supposed to believe that we have accurate, more reliable manuscripts; that our newer “Bibles” are easier to understand (for who, the unbeliever?). What about the Holy Spirit helping us to understand? What about God’s promise found in Proverbs 8:8-9, All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. What about studying to shew (present) yourself approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth? (2 Timothy 2:15) What about continuing in the Word of God and being a disciple? Jesus promises if we do that, we would know the truth. (John 8:31-32) If we have better, easier to read Bibles (like the NIV), how come North America is walking away from God at a rapid pace? How come so many “Christians” with these “perfected Bibles” are just going through the motions? I thought God’s Word was quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit… and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart! (See Hebrews 4:12-13) Instead of a sharp, twoedged sword, most of modern Christendom prefers a dull, gilt-edged butterknife!!

This is Laodicea; this is the age when we have a form of godliness, but deny its power. According to Matthew 22:29, the Scriptures are the power of God! (See also 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Romans 1:16) What about all those who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted? (See 2 Timothy 3:12) Who in North America is being persecuted? (Except for the lone Christian or church that goes against the flow.)

And if the NASV (or the NIV, the NRSV, or the others) is the “right” translation, how come they keep coming out with more? Like the Message, God’s Word, The King and The Beast, The New International Reader’s Version, etc. Whether you agree or disagree with using the King James Bible as a standard, I challenge you to check out the differences. Whether you believe that the King James is accurate or not, look at what they are deleting and changing, and tell me honestly that you can’t see Satan in the works. I think that you will find that the differences between the King James and all the others is Catholic doctrine or New Age teachings. The King James is what many of the Reformers stood on – now we’ve got everyone rushing back to Rome! What changed? Our Bibles?! When you’ve got the whole “Christian” world at any given time running after something, you’ve got to take a step back and carefully examine what they’re caught up in, like these new Bibles, especially the NIV. (See Matthew 7:13-14 and 24:28) And when you’ve got the majority of this same lukewarm bunch knocking a Bible that has been the standard for almost 400 years, you’ve also got to take a look at that as well.

There are many liberals and compromising “Christians” translating these newer versions. In the preface to the New Revised Standard Version, it says that the translating committee was comprised of liberals, evangelicals, Catholics and Jewish scholars, and that they worked together to make a translation that they all could agree with. Okay, so who compromised? Catholics and Protestants have disagreed strongly over the Gospel for 500 years. (Do the words “Protestant Reformation” ring a bell?) Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah (unless they are Messianic Jews); maybe this is why many of the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament pointing clearly to Jesus, are quite vague (if not altogether gone) in the NRSV.

The editor of the NIV, R. Laird Harris, does not believe in Hell, which is probably why this version doesn’t have too much to say about it. Virginia Mollenkott, the assistant editor, is an avowed lesbian who believes that God is female, that there is scientific evidence that Jesus also was female, and that God is the One. She also believes that homosexuality is not wrong, and that the main sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but lack of compassion on their neighbours – that where they did wrong was in wanting to rape the men (angels) that came to take out Lot from that wicked city. She is also a member of a church that has 500 homosexual couples. The chairman of the NIV’s Old Testament translation committee, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, was a homosexual. Maybe their stance in this area is the reason for the NIV’s complete removal of the words “homosexual” and “sodomites”, except for 1 Corinthians 6:9 that uses the vague term “homosexual offenders.” According to this verse in the NIV, those who “offend” homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. The NIV chief editor, Edwin Palmer, believes that God’s sovereignty so overwhelms our humanity that we are not responsible for our own sin; in his own words he stated, “All things are foreordained by God; the moving of a finger… the opening of a window… the mistake of a pianist while playing – even sin… The Bible describes man as passive in the whole matter.” (Note: I later found out that this statement was a result of his Calvinistic beliefs; something is wrong with a school of thought, if it can lead someone to a conclusion like this!) This is similar to theological liberals stating that they believe that homosexuality is in the genes. In other words, it’s not our fault; God made us that way!

What about Kenneth Taylor, who lost his voice in the middle of translating the Living Bible. His psychiatrist suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the Word of God. Philip Schaff, who was on the Greek committee and director of the American Standard Version and who openly admitted to holding beliefs that were considered heretical, had lost his ability to speak entirely. Westcott, who (along with Hort) wrote the Greek text on which all modern versions are based, also lost the ability to speak audibly. John (J.B.) Phillips, who wrote the New Testament in Modern English, aside from losing his voice, also had periodic bouts of insanity. Phillips also believed he had ESP and found comfort in Psychiatry during his bouts, comfort he believes Christianity does not offer. Robert Bratcher, the chief translator of the Good News Bible, denied that Jesus Christ was God.

At least Frank Logsdon, the man who was involved in the NASV committee and wrote the preface for it, totally renounced all his involvement with that translation before he died. He was shocked and ashamed of all the changes and deletions that the committee made. I’m glad he repented of his work on the NASV. He also became convinced that the KJ Bible was inerrant and chose to promote that translation. I believe that he was saved and that we will see him in Heaven. Unfortunately, the havoc that the NASV has wreaked cannot be undone.

Are these people reliable, godly, committed Christians; people that God would use to preserve His holy inerrant Word? Many of the people on these translating committees don’t even believe that we can have an inerrant Bible today. What good is their statement that “we believe that the originals were inerrant” when we no longer have any originals? But God promises that His Word will never pass away and will be preserved forever. (See Psalm 12:6-7 in the KJ, and Matthew 24:35) Where is this infallible, inerrant, preserved Word if we don’t have the originals? What about the King James Bible? I can prove over and over again that there are corruptions and contradictions in all these newer versions, can you prove that there are “errors” in the King James?

Many people complain about the “thee’s and thou’s”, but a little education will clear this up: in the King James, the words thee, thy, thou, thyself, and thine, always refer to one person, and the words ye, your, yours, yourself, always refer to more than one person. (By the way, these pronouns accurately reflect the pronouns in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. Sometimes the Biblical writer will switch between the singular and plural pronouns in the same passage or verse, and this emphasis is lost in modern versions. Consider two passages that clearly illustrate this point: Luke 22:31-32 and John 3:7) The only other real drawback with the King James are the old words, but I have a list of several hundred archaic words in the NIV, NKJV, NASB, and NRSV,and in most cases the KJ reading of these same passages is much easier to understand – a quick glance in a Strong’s Concordance or a good dictionary such as (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) will dispel any confusion. How many times have you come across hard to understand (multi-syllable) words in the NASB? The KJ uses mostly one or two syllable words, and it has been proven to have a lower reading level than most modern versions despite claims to the contrary. The history of the KJ, plus its simplicity over all, prove that it is the version honoured by God. (Most scholars will readily admit that God wrote His word in the common language of the people.) Only now there is so much confusion and slander regarding the King James that most people won’t even try to read it.

The problem is not so much that people can’t understand the Bible (don’t forget the Holy Spirit – 1 John 2:20, 27), it’s that people don’t want to obey what they already understand. God promises to give us greater understanding if we obey Him; if we don’t apply what He has already revealed to us, then He will take away what little we have. (Matthew 13:11-12; Mark 4:24-25; Luke 8:18) Maybe this is the reason that so many “Christians” are running after every new “Bible”; maybe these newer translations by lukewarm (dare I say, apostate) Laodicean scholars can help compromising Christendom understand what God’s Spirit hasn’t (or won’t) reveal to them. Reminds me of a King named Saul, whom the Lord wouldn’t guide because of all his rebellion and sin. (See 1 Samuel 14:37; 28:6, 15)

Read the footnotes in your Bible and see what they are explaining away. (See the NKJV – it’s famous for these types of footnotes!) Look in a Strong’s Concordance for the names “Jesus”, “Lord”, or “Christ”, and see how many times they are removed from the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. See how many times they delete the references to Jesus being Lord, or God, or Christ. To a New Ager, “the Christ” is someone who has reached godhood or has a divine spirit living within him. Notice how many times these newer versions say “the Christ” instead of “Christ”; and see how many times when it mentions Jesus Christ in the KJ that either “Christ” is removed, or “Jesus” is removed in these modern versions so we don’t confuse Him with “the Christ.” Also “the One” is the chief Babylonian god, not our God. The only time the KJ uses a similar title is when it says “Holy One (of Israel)”, “Just One”, “Mighty One (of Israel, of Jacob)”, and “High and Lofty One.” These are descriptions that tell us something about the character of God. God (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and my God as well) is never called “the One” in the KJ, but some of these newer versions use “the One” everywhere (like the NASV, NKJV, NIrV, and NLT.) The One is not Jehovah God!! Any historian commenting on the religion of old Babylon, like Alexander Hislop in his book “The Two Babylons”, can tell you that. So can any New Ager, or witch, or satanist! New Agers refer to Lucifer as “The One” and use the terms “Living One,” “Coming One,” and “Mighty One” (without the clarification “of Israel,” or “of Jacob”) to reflect religious philosophies that are worlds apart from Biblical Christianity.

Open your eyes if you are serious about serving God; this is an issue that you can’t just overlook. There is so much deception out there; if the elect don’t open their eyes they will be deceived, like Jesus said. But if we are following Him closely and bringing everything in our lives under the subjection of the Word of God, we won’t be deceived. I don’t think just being a Christian excludes you from deception; check how many times it says in the New Testament, “be not deceived.” And also check how many false cults are in the world, all claiming to teach true Christianity. These cults have thousands upon thousands of followers, some who truly believe they are Christians.

Look at the following changes about Jesus’ deity and eternality:

Matthew 1:16 in the NIV adds an extra comma to imply that Joseph is Jesus’ father. Luke 2:33 in most modern versions change the word Joseph to “his father.” (See also Luke 2:43)

Isaiah 7:14 in the NRSV has “young woman” and not virgin. Luke 1:34 in some versions have Mary saying “How can this be seeing I am not married.” Last I checked (and according to John 4), being unmarried doesn’t necessarily imply virginity, especially in North American culture today!

In Galatians 4:4, most modern versions completely remove the miracle of the virgin birth by changing the words from made of a woman, made under the law to “born of a woman…” Funny thing is: I was born of a woman, how about you? Where’s the miracle there? If God wasn’t Jesus’ Father (as declared in numerous passages), and if Mary wasn’t a virgin, then Jesus wasn’t God!

In fact many newer versions declare in 1 Timothy 3:16 that “He was manifest in the flesh.” They just don’t say that God was manifest in the flesh. If Jesus had a human father that would also mean that He inherited Adam’s sinful nature that is passed down through his descendents, according to Romans 5:12, 19.

John 1:18 in these same versions state that Jesus was “the only begotten God,” not the only begotten Son of God. When was Jesus’ Godhood begotten? The NIV calls Jesus “God the One and Only.”

Look at Micah 5:2 in the NIV, “whose origins are from old, from ancient times.” KJ says whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Look at Philippians 2:6 in the NIV, NASV. They both imply that Jesus was not equal with God.

The NASV’s rendering of Psalm 8:5 as “Thou hast made him a little lower than God,” does the same thing in a round about way when you consider that this passage was specifically applied to Jesus in Hebrews 2:7. (Funny thing – the NASV translates the phrase as “lower than the angels” in Hebrews, but not in Psalm 8. Why this inconsistency?) (Also a little apostate side note according to Eugene Peterson’s The Message; in this same verse he says that “we’ve so narrowly missed being gods.” Listening to the Serpent again there, eh Eugene? See Genesis 3:5)

Romans 14:10 says “God” instead of Christ.

For an interesting glimpse of translator’s apostasy, look in Jude 25 (NIV, NASV), “to the only God our Savior…through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Uh, excuse me, last I checked the only God our Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord!

What about Jesus’ physical resurrection and ascension to Heaven:

Mark 16:9-20 are put in brackets and explained away in the NIV and the NASV. They are also explained away in the NKJV footnotes.

Luke 24:51 in the NASV removes and was carried up into heaven.

Romans 14:9 in the NIV, NASV, NRSV – removes and arose.

Some ways these new versions pave the way for Catholic doctrine are:

Hebrews 1:3 removes the words by Himself. Allows room for Mary as co-redeemer.

Matthew 1:25 removes the word firstborn, thereby removing the implication that she had other children. Though personally, I can’t understand how some people can believe that the four other sons and at least two daughters mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56 could possibly be Jesus’ cousins (and not his actual siblings as those verses plainly state.)

Mark 1:5 in the NIV implies that the people were confessing their sins to John in order to be forgiven. If you don’t think that is implied here, I dare you to read James 5:16 in either the NIV or the NASV. It says “confess your sins to each other.” The KJ reads Confess your faults …

1 Corinthians 9:27 says “I beat (buffet) my body and make it my slave,” instead of I keep under my body and bring it into subjection. (See also Colossians 2:23) There’s a major difference between controlling your body and abusing it, like the doctrine of penance.

Revelation 14:8 removes the word city. Babylon is not here identified as a city. Wouldn’t want Catholics to get the idea that God’s wrath is upon their beloved Vatican City (Rome), which has been known as the City on Seven Hills for 2500 years or so. (See Revelation 17:9, 18) In the NASV, Revelation 17:5 says “a mystery, Babylon The Great…” Wouldn’t want Christians to do research on the Mystery religions, especially associated with Babylon; they might discover that many (if not all) of the Catholic doctrines (and a few Protestant practices) come straight out of Mystery Babylon. If you don’t want to believe this, I highly don’t recommend “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop, because he does a great job of documenting this very fact.

There are so many changes and contradictions in these newer versions that it’s hard to mention which ones to get your attention.

Here are some contradictions:

Several places in the Old Testament, like Deuteronomy 32:17; Leviticus 17:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:20, make it pretty clear that we are not to seek to contact the dead (and in fact we can’t) and when we think we are speaking with the dead, we are actually in contact with fallen angels (devils). 1 Samuel 28:14 in these newer versions say that “Saul knew that it was Samuel.” KJ says that Saul perceived… In other words, he thought he was communicating with Samuel. Quite a difference, I’d say.

Matthew 5:22 in the KJ says that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement. Newer versions remove without a cause (because Origen didn’t like it in there), thereby making it a sin to be angry at all. This contradicts Ephesians 4:26, and makes Jesus a sinner according to Mark 3:5 and Matthew 23.

Mark 1:2 in the KJ says as it is written in the prophets because Mark quotes from two Old Testament prophets – Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. These newer versions say “Isaiah the prophet.”

Luke 2:22, in the NIV and NASV, says ” in the days (time) of their purification.” This contradicts Leviticus 12:2-8 which states specifically that it is the woman herself who must purified after bearing a child. Many feel this is a direct attack on the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, as this particular change leaves the implication that the pure, spotless Son of God also needed purification! The KJ reads the days of her purification.

The NIV states that Jesus was the “one and only Son of God” in John 1:14,18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9. That contradicts both the Old Testament where God calls the angels sons of God (Job 38:7), and the New Testament where Christians are called sons of God (John 1:12; Romans 8:14, 19) Adam was called a son of God (Luke 3:28) as were those saved in the line of Seth (Genesis 6:4). The KJ calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. Jesus was the only person who was ever born physically as the Son of God. Angels and Adam were created individually (were not born), some in the lineage of Seth chose to follow the Lord and be saved (therefore they were called sons of God – see Genesis 4:26), and Christians are born spiritually as sons of God.

David killed Goliath with a slingshot and a stone and then cut off his head in 1 Samuel 17:50-51; however, according to the NIV and NASV in 2 Samuel 21:19, it says “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” This even contradicts another passage in these versions (1 Chronicles 20:5) which states that “Elhanan… killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” Will they make up their mind. This is worse than a murder mystery; at least then you know that it was the butler who did it! (And you also know who was killed!)

The NASV in John 7:8 makes Jesus out to be a liar when He says, “I do not go up to this feast” and two verses later He’s there! The KJ has the word yet in verse 8. He was going, but not at the same time His brothers went.

These apostate translators’ adding, subtracting, and twisting of God’s Word make it so hard for the serious Bible believer to study and rightly divide the word of truth. They are playing at being God over what should be and shouldn’t be in there, and this removes and changes many cross-references, parallels, and word studies. It’s almost impossible to determine what God meant by a word or phrase in the NIV when you’ve got that same word translated fifty different ways. In the King James Bible the translators were consistent. These new translators, by rejecting the authority of God’s Word, are doing what is right in their own eyes. When you’ve got 200 or more different translations of a word or passage, you’ve got total confusion and chaos. God didn’t mean 200 different things when He spoke. He meant His Word to be clear and easily understood. (Of course we still have to study it, but when we seek for the meaning of a passage the Lord will reveal what He wants us to understand at that time, if we intend to obey His will when it is revealed to us. John 7:17 makes this clear. Those who seek – from God and His Word – do find.)

Ephesians 5:30, in newer versions, deletes the words of his flesh, and of his bones , thereby removing the beautiful type of Christ and His church found in Genesis 3:21-23.

Now either I’ve thoroughly annoyed you with this letter, or I’ve made you realize that there are some serious differences between the King James Bible and all these modern, newer, “more accurate” versions . (I decided to mainly use the NIV and the NASV for these comparisons, but grab any other version and check out these same passages.) (Note: the NIV and the NKJV have gone through several revisions, so some of the passages that I’ve pointed out may be even further changed in the edition that you may have.) Hopefully you will pray about this issue and check out other passages as well. There is so much at stake here; this is a choice between deception or truth, between tradition (and peer pressure) or standing alone on the uncorrupted Word of God. Most people will not acknowledge these differences or say that they do not matter doctrinally (or even personally.) Ha!

Does it matter if Acts 8:37 is completely removed? The verse that clearly states that a person must be mature enough to understand and make a choice to follow and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Does it matter if the words through his blood are removed from Colossians 1:14? These are the words that clearly state how this redemption is made possible. Does it matter that 1 John 5:7 is removed? This is one of the clearest references to the Trinity in the whole Bible. Does it matter if your “Bible” states that Jesus was just a created god; or if he was just a man? “He was manifest in the flesh.” Well, so was everyone else – we just weren’t God (or gods) before! (Never will be either – sorry Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, Copeland, Satan, et. al.)

Does it matter if your “Bible” translates Lucifer as the Morning Star in Isaiah 14:12, thereby equating the person who sought to exalt himself above God and who was subsequently cast out of Heaven with Jesus Christ, the Morning Star? And if that heresy wasn’t obvious enough for us, they also added cross-references referring to 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16 so we wouldn’t miss the point. The Amplified (Satanic) Bible even goes one step further by their note on Isaiah 14:12, where they say:

“‘Light-bringer’ or ‘Shining one’ was originally translated Lucifer , but because of the association of that name with Satan it is not now used. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. Lucifer, the light-bringer is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word Phosphoros , which is used as a title of Christ in II Peter 1:19 and corresponds to the name ‘bright Morning Star’ in Revelation 22:16, which Jesus called Himself.”

Does it matter if North American Copyright Laws state that for someone to copyright written material, it must be 10% (or more) different from any other previous published material – yes, even Bibles! A copyright states that the creator of a product has exclusive rights to that product. (So these translators are setting themselves up as the creators of God’s Word!) The King James Bible is not copyrighted (not in the same sense we copyright today – it had a Crown Copyright, which protected the text of the Bible and prevented anyone from changing it); however, if you buy a KJ with a concordance, maps, or notes, etc., then these will be copyrighted – not the King James text itself. Every other “new” per-version is copyrighted, including the New King James Version. (There are over 100,000 word changes in this “faithful” translation!) No one can tell me that the difficult words in the King James account for 10% of the text. What are all these other changes? (Why do they change many easy to understand passages if they are trying to be “faithful” to the KJ, and why do many of their changes not only “update” words, but also change the meaning of the passage?)

I don’t want to be in any of those translator’s shoes. They won’t see Heaven unless they repent of their playing around with, deleting, and adding to God’s Word:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, And out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15

I will pray that you will check out what is written in this letter and will share this knowledge (if you are convinced) with others. May God bless you as you search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so. Please don’t reject what I am saying until you have prayed about and checked this issue out for yourself. Don’t just take some Bible teacher’s or “scholar’s” opinion as truth. You are accountable before God to be a Berean, to compare every teaching with the Word of God. (See Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 2:15 and 14:29; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22; and Hebrews 5:14, among others.) If I’m wrong on this issue, you have nothing to lose; but if I’m right, Babylon’s got a worse foothold than most Christians realize and the final apostasy is upon us. Wake up, Laodicea, before Jesus spues you out of His mouth forever!

I leave you with one promise and one warning:

But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word . Isaiah 66:2

You can’t tremble at God’s Word if you don’t believe that the Bible you read is God’s infallible, inerrant, inspired, preserved Word. And if you don’t let the Spirit of Truth teach you and change you.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they might all be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, we will accept and believe, and yes, even tremble at His Word. How about you? Don’t reject what I’ve told you, before you’ve personally checked it out, especially if you are convinced. I believe all the true evidence will lead you straight to the King James Bible in English (and Textus Receptus-based translations in other languages.) Don’t reject this information just because it is unpopular with the world and carnal Christians. Receive the King James, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh (continually works) also in you that believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

May God guide you and make you strong in Christ – I know you’ve got some serious choices to make.

Jerry Bouey
Eagle’s Wings Ministries