[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Why Use The KJV Translation?  (Read 19068 times)


  • Guest
Why Use The KJV Translation?
« on: November 18, 2003, 04:12:38 PM »
Hi saints, I just began this study and it is a mind-blower.  May God be pleased to confirm the faith of Bible believers everywhere.

They Dare Call This Science!

Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament text of the King James Bible. The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.

In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Horts magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.


In this study we will be looking at just a few of the places where the readings found in some of these modern versions are based on only one, two or sometimes three manuscripts as opposed to the overwhelming majority of all other Greek texts. In most instances, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other. The main versions referred to are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV. Of these 5 versions, the NASB, NIV and ESV are primarily based on the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian Greek text, while the KJB and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text of the Greek speaking churches.

Gospel of Matthew

Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Here the word "wife" is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits this word and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. Likewise the word "hundredfold" (hekatontaplasiona) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, and "hundredfold" is the reading of the NIV, ESV, RV, ASV etc; but Vaticanus reads "many times as much" (pollaplastonta) and only the NASB so reads.

Matthew 21:28-31 "But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said I WILL NOT; BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, SIR; AND WENT NOT. Whether of the twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, THE FIRST."

This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and is the reading not only of the KJB but also of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV. However the case with the NASB is quite interesting. From 1960 through 1977, a period of 9 revisions, the NASB followed the Vaticanus manuscript which reverses these two sons, but then in 1995 the NASB reversed themselves again from the previous NASBs and changed their readings back to match that of all the other versions. The NASB 95 Update now reads like the KJB.

From 1960 through 1977 the NASB read: "he came to the first and said, Son go work in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I WILL SIR, AND HE DID NOT GO. And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT. Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, THE LATTER."

Matthew 23:4 "For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders." All texts read "and grievous to be borne", (kai dusbastakta) including Vaticanus, except Sinaiticus which omits these words. Here the NASB and NIV chose to follow ONE manuscript (Sinaiticus) and omit these words; yet "and grievous to be borne" is found in the Revised Version, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NKJV.

One last verse of interest in Matthew is 27:24 where Pilate washes his hands and says: "I am innocent of the blood of this JUST PERSON." The reading of this "just person" (tou dikaiou toutou) is in all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus; only three manuscripts omit the word "just" or "righteous", two very minor and Vaticanus. Even when the Westcott-Hort text first came out, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version kept this word in their texts and read as the KJB, Douay, NKJV, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac, Tyndale, Geneva, and Wycliffe. The first English version to omit this word "just" was the liberal RSV and from then on the NASB, NIV, and ESV followed suit and now omit the word because of Vaticanus. So the NASB, NIV now read: "I am innocent of this man's blood", leaving out the testimony of Pilate that He was a "JUST PERSON".

Gospel of Mark

Mark 13:33 "Take heed, watch AND PRAY; for ye know not when the time is." The words "and pray" are found in all texts including Sinaiticus. Only three are listed as omitting these words, two very minor and Vaticanus. The Revised Version, ASV, Catholic Douay, Lamsa's Syriac translation, NKJV all contain the words "and pray". But following the RSV the NASB, NIV, ESV now omit these words mainly because of Vaticanus.

Mark 14:68. I mention this one because it is of interest to see the changing nature of what the modern scholars like to call "the science of textual criticism". Here we read: "But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; AND THE COCK CREW." These last words "and the cock crew" are found in the majority of all texts including A, C and D, the ancient Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions. They are also in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version. When the Nestle text first came out, they omitted these words, but later put them back in. The first English version to omit these words was the RSV and the NIV also omits "and the cock crew". The NASB again is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 they omitted these four words, but then in 1995 the NASB put them back in and so does the NRSV, ESV, the upcoming ISV and Holman Christian Standard versions.

What is a point of great curiosity here is that it is both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that omit the words "and the cock crew". Now the modern versions are starting to put these words back in the New Testament but they still omit literally thousands of words and several whole verses precisely because of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omissions. Does this make any kind of rational sense to you?

You see the modern versions have no settled text at all but it is in a state of constant change and flux. If the bibles didn't change from one edition to the next, then the professional scribes would all be out of work and would have to get a real job.

Mark 14:72 "And THE SECOND TIME the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And WHEN HE THOUGHT THEREON, he wept."

Two things to notice about this verse. The words "the second time" are found in Vaticanus and the majority, yet they are omitted by Sinaiticus, but most versions retain the reading. Secondly, the words "when he thought thereon" (epibaloon) are found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet omitted by manuscript D. This manuscript D says "he began to weep" thus adding the word "began" and omitting "when he thought thereon". ONLY the NASB omits "when he thought thereon" which is found in the RV, ASV, NKJV and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. The NASB simply says: "And he began to weep." The NIV, RSV and ESV have retained the reading of epibaloon and not followed D with its "BEGAN to weep", but they translate the whole phrase differently by saying: "And he broke down and wept." Here it is only the NASB that follows D and rejects all the others, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Mark 16 verses 9-20. These last 12 verses are entirely omitted by the RSV and many other modern versions either place these 12 entire verses in brackets (NASB) or with a footnote telling us "The most reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20" (NIV). The truth is only three manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and one obscure witness omit these words while they are found in over 2000 manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions and early Church Fathers.

For my article showing the true nature of these two "most reliable early manuscripts" see http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

Dean Burgon wrote a book called The Last 12 Verses of Mark 16 which utterly destroys the arguments for omitting or questioning these words. Brother Marty Shue has written a brief article showing the overwhelming proof that these verses are authentic. Here is his article:


If the new versionists were honest and consistent in thier "science of textual criticism", they would either not include these 12 verses in such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV because they are not in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, or else they would properly include them and then restore the other 14 entire verses and multiple whole sections which they have deleted from the New Testament based on the readings found in Sinaiticus and or Vaticanus. It is that simple. As Dr. Gordon H. Clark wrote, "If a version brackets these verses, than you know that they are not going by the evidence."

Will Kinney


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2003, 04:13:51 PM »

Gospel of Luke

Luke 8:43 "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any..."

All the words in capital letters are missing only in Vaticanus and 2 other manuscripts, and are omitted by the RSV, NASB, and the NIV. However all these words are found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and are in the Revised Version, ASV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman, Douay and Lamsa's Syriac Peshitta.

This is an interesting case of constant change among the modern versions. Westcott and Hort originally deleted all these words from their text and so did the earlier Nestle-Aland text. Then later the Nestle text added these words back again, but in brackets. The earlier RV, ASV retained them as they stand in the KJB and all earlier English versions like Tyndale and the Geneva Bible. Then the RSV omitted these words and so do the NASB, NIV. However now the other modern versions are once again putting all these words back in the text as we see with the ESV, ISV and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. Yet these newer versions continue in the main to follow the Westcott-Hort texts. Even the footnotes are deceptive. The NASB omits all these words and then tells us in a footnote "SOME mss. add...", while the NIV says "MANY mss. add..." Isn't scholarship a kick in the head!?!

Luke 9:2 "And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal THE SICK." Again we see the same fickleness in the "science of textual criticism" as before. The words "the sick" are "tous asthenountas" and they are found in every known manuscript including Sinaiticus except ONE, and that is Vaticanus. The words "to heal THE SICK" are found in the RV, ASV, NIV, ISV, Holman, but the RSV, NASB and ESV all continue to omit "the sick", based on one manuscript. The earlier Nestle text omitted the words but now they are back in their text again.

Luke 10:41-42 "And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful about many things, BUT ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

"but one thing is needful" is the majority reading of all texts, but a curious thing happens when we look at both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Instead of saying "but one thing is needful", these two "oldest and best" read: "but few things are needful, the one". ONLY the NASB from 1960 to 1977 and the Amplified version read: "BUT ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part."

Not even the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, ISV read as does the NASB from 1960 through 9 revisions to 1977. Ah, but then in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to go back to the other reading of "but one thing is needful" and so now the 95 Update reads like all the others.

Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent."

This is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, A, C, D, the Syriac Peshitta, Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the brand new International Standard Version. Keep in mind that the RV, ASV and ISV are all generally based on the Westcott-Hort texts.

However Vaticanus omits all the capitalized words above and so do the NASB, NIV, and ESV. The NASB reads: "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"

Luke 12:39 "if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would HAVE WATCHED AND not have suffered his house to be broken through." "he WOULD HAVE WATCHED" is found in the Majority and Vaticanus, and is the reading of the RV, ASV and again the new ISV. However Sinaiticus omits these words and so do the NASB, NIV and ESV. Even Westcott and Hort originally retained these words, but later on, the Nestle text decided to omit them, but now they are appearing once again in the ISV. Our noted modern versions scholars are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

Luke 14:5 "Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" AN ASS is the reading of the Majority of texts and Sinaiticus, the RV, ASV and even the RSV. However Vaticanus reads SON instead of "an ass" and the NASB, NIV and ESV read: "Which of you having a SON or an ox that has fallen into a well...".


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV and ASV. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1960 to 1972 the NASB likewise omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV and Holman Christian Standard also retain the verse and place it in their versions. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?

Luke chapter 24 is a real mess, especially in the NASBs.

Luke 24:36 "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU."

This is the reading found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only ONE manuscript omits the words "and saith unto them, peace be unto you" and that is the notorious manuscript D. Yet on the basis of this one manuscript the RSV and the NASB from 1960 through 1977 omitted all these words. The whole phrase is retained in the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV and the NIV. Then in 1995 SOME of the NASBs decided to put them back in the text. The particular NASB 95 Udate I have still omits them, but I have heard that other NASBs 1995 now place the words back in.

Luke 24:40 "AND WHEN HE HAD THUS SPOKEN, HE SHEWED THEM HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET." Again, ALL texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contain this verse, but on the basis of only one manuscript (D) the RSV omitted the entire verse as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1972. Then in 1977 the NASB put this whole verse back in their version. The NRSV, ESV and NIV do contain this verse.

Luke 24:51-52 "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN. And they WORSHIPPED HIM AND returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Once more, all the words "and carried up into heaven" and "worshipped him and" are found in all texts except one manuscript - D again. Yet the RSV as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1977 omitted these words. Then in 1995 the NASB added them back to the text. They have always been in the RV, ASV, and they are in the NRSV, ESV as well as the NKJV.

The new ISV (International Standard Version) still manages to sow confusion and doubt by the notes found within the text. Notice these verses: 24:3: but when they went in, they didn't find the body of the Lord Jesus. (Other mss. lack of the Lord Jesus) Lk 24:6: He is not here but has been raised. (Other mss. lack He is not here, but has been raised) Lk 24:12: Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. He stooped down and saw only the linen cloths. Then he went home wondering about what had happened. (Other mss. lack verse 12.) Lk 24:36: Jesus Appears to the Disciples While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (Other mss. lack and said to them, “Peace be with you.”) Lk 24:40: After he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. (Other mss. lack verse 40).

The truth of the matter is that only one manuscript lacks all these words and whole verses, all of which are omitted by the RSV, NEB (New English Bible 1970) and most were omitted by the NASB from 1960 till either 1972 or 1977. That single manuscript is D. Dear saints, it should be obvious that this mysterious process is not a "science" but the strange brew of modern-day textual alchemists.

Will Kinney


  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2003, 01:56:45 PM »

Agreed. The modern versions are an unreliable hack job based on erroneous assumptions about the authenticity of older texts. The average professing Christian purchases a Bible based on popularity; there is no thought to the textual basis for the Bible they choose.  

I have yet to find the ideal Bible, the selection is divided between KJB, NKJV, MKJV, Green's Literal Bible, and Young's Literal Bible. Sadly, each of these Bibles has some shortcomings: Inconsistent translation, smoothing text to make it flow better, or not translating the Greek accurately in an attempt to make it more readable.  Two other problems are red-letter editions, they intimate that the words of Christ are superior to the other words, and, men's commentaries stuck inside God's Word.

Ah, to find an impeccably accurate literal version, no red letters, no commentaries, book-style text (no columns), and with descent font size. 500 years after the Reformation it's still a dream. The YLT and KJB are probably the best we can expect to get.

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2003, 04:29:21 PM »
Hi John, you said: "Ah, to find an impeccably accurate literal version, no red letters, no commentaries, book-style text (no columns), and with descent font size. 500 years after the Reformation it's still a dream. The YLT and KJB are probably the best we can expect to get."

John, I disagree with you on your assessment of the KJB.  I believe it is the preserved, inerrant and infallible words of God in the English language.  Young's has many problems.  For instance, Can God be deceived by His people?

You may be surprised by what both Young's and the NASB say regarding this.

I strongly maintain there are no proveable errors in the KJB.  At least you have the textual issue fairly sorted out by not following the Westcott-Hort stuff, but apparently you do not believe God has given us a complete, perfect, and  inspired Bible.

I'm sorry to hear this is your present position.  You yourself then become the final authority instead of any  single Holy Bible.  That is where your present position inevitably leaves you.

If there is one proveable error in a version, then we know that to that degree it is a false witness.  So, I ask you again, Can God be deceived by His people?

God bless,



  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2003, 04:31:04 PM »
Gospel of John

John 7:8-10  Is Jesus Christ a liar?

In the KJB, NKJV, Revised Version, NIV, ISV and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard we read the words of the Lord Jesus saying:  "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. But when he had said these words unto them he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

NOT YET (houpoo) is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus.  However Sinaiticus has Jesus saying "I DO NOT GO unto this feast" (ouk).  The NASB, ASV (notice the ASV and the RV differ from each other), RSV, NRSV, and ESV  all follow Sinaiticus here instead and have the Lord say: "I am NOT GOING up to this feast...but after his brothers had
gone up to the feast, then he also went up" (ESV).  These versions have Jesus saying He was not going up to the feast, and then He does go up to the feast.

John 7:53-8:11 - the woman taken in adultery.  These entire 12 verses are included in the Majority of all texts,  the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta translated by Lamsa;  as well as the Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions.  However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these 12 entire verses and so does the Revised Standard Version.  At least the RSV was being consistent in their method of adopting the Westcott-Hort Greek text.  However the NASB, NIV and ESV all include these verses in their versions.  Why?  If they already have rejected 14 other entire verses in the New Testament on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then why retain these extras twelve?

 The NASB, NIV and ESV all contain footnotes for these verses saying: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" (NIV 1978 edition.)  Unless you have the NIV Scofield edition 1982 which says: "Although not found is some ancient manuscripts, the immediate context, beginning with Christ's declaration, "I am the light of the world" (8:12) seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in 8:9, and also helps to explain the Pharisees' word in 8:41. It is therefore to be considered a genuine part of the Gospel."

   If the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars really believe Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the best and most reliable texts, then they should follow them and not include these 12 verses in their versions.  Why omit some 5000 words from the New Testament  primarily because of Sinaiticus-Vaticanus,  not follow them  in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, and then call this whole textual process "scientific"?

John 9:4 "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."  Both "I" must do the works, and "him that sent ME" is the reading in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Arminian and Ethiopic ancient versions.  However the NASB, NIV, ESV  scholars got themselves in a bit of a bind here because their "oldest and most reliable" texts are in total disarray.  

The NASB, NIV, ESV say: "WE must work the works of him that sent US."  They came up with this reading because Vaticanus says "WE must work"; but then Vaticanus also ends with "him that sent ME", while Sinaiticus has "him that sent US". So they adopted the scientific method of winging it as long as it differs from the King James Bible.  But now the new ISV is coming out and guess what?  They have gone back to the KJB reading of "I must do the works of him that sent ME."

John 10:17-18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man TAKETH it from me, but I lay it down of myself."

Here obviously the Lord Jesus is still alive and He states that no man would take His life but that He would lay it down of Himself.  "No man TAKETH it from me", (present tense - aipei) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, except two, one of which is Vaticanus.  "No man taketh it from me" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, and ISV.  The Vaticanus reading is absurd but that didn't stop the previous Nestle-Aland scholars from following Vaticanus in their text.  ONLY the NASB has adopted the Vaticanus reading which puts this verb in the past tense (eeren) and says: "No one HAS TAKEN IT AWAY from me, but I lay it down..."  Duh, wouldn't it be obvious that no man had taken His life is He were still alive and speaking to them?  The NASB 95 still reads this way, but the Nestle text has once again changed their scholarly opinions and gone back to the KJB reading.

Will K


  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2003, 08:16:02 PM »
John, I disagree with you on your assessment of the KJB.  I believe it is the preserved, inerrant, and infallible words of God in the English language. Young's has many problems.  


You apparently believe something, the inerrancy of the KJV, that the original translators did not believe. In the title page of the 1611 Bible the translators wrote:

"The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New, Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties Speciall Comandement.” They go on to say that a “varietie of Translation is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.”

The original translators are saying the KJV is a translation, like any other, not being the first group to translate the Bible, and they relied on the work of other translations done by other men. They have praise for other earlier translations: Septuagint (200 B.C.), Jerome’s Vulgate (4th century), and English translations like, Wycliffe’s (1388), Tyndale’s (1526, NT), the Geneva Bible (1560), Bishop’s Bible (1568) and those of Coverdale (1540), Taverner (1539), and “Matthew” (1537).

In reality, the KJV is a slight revision of the Bishops Bible (an authorized version), as compared to the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they could find. Yet, the Bishops Bible was a revision by Bishop Parker of The Great Bible (an authorized version). The Great Bible was a revision by Coverdale of The Matthew Bible with comparison to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Now, the Matthew Bible is a revision by Thomas Matthew of the Tyndale Bible. The Tyndale Bible in turn was one of the first English translations of the scriptures available.  If the King James Version Only position is true, then the perfect word of God, and thus the Bible, did not exist until 1611 and then only in English. I would suppose that no other previous translations were infallible, including those done in other languages, just the King James Version, why?

Further, the Greek text of Desiderius Erasmus, which is the basis of the KJV, was produced quickly (about a year) and based on few manuscripts. It was revised by Stephanus and Beza, and it is their revision that was used by the 1611 English translators. However, it was not until the second edition in 1633 that Elzevir, who produced a reprint of Beza's 1565 text, stated the text to be the “best received of all”. This “received text,” known as the Textus Receptus, becomes the textual basis for future KJV New Testaments; yet it differs from the Erasmus text used in the first edition in a few hundred minor instances. The Greek text was revised and the KJB was revised too, nothing here is infallible and unchanging, to think otherwise is to believe a myth. How can the 1611 version be perfect and yet have subsequent versions continue to make improvements?

The KJB translators never thought themselves or their work ‘inspired’, and would probably be shocked to find people thinking so. With the revisions of the KJB many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words occurred — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611... or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850? Each edition made very real changes based on improved scholarship, something we would not expect if the 1611 version were God-breathed.

Difference in various editions of the KJB compared with the original 1611 version (there shouldn’t be differences since the 1611 version was inspired?)  

1611 And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes in gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.

1850 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues

A summary of changes (not just misspellings as often alleged by KJB-Onlyists)

SCRIPTURE    A.V.  KJV  (1611)                  Current  KJV  (1850)
Genesis 19:21   concerning this thing                            concerning this thing also
Genesis 23:18   gates                                                    gate
Genesis 39:1   hand                                                    hands
Genesis 39:16   her lord                                      his lord
Genesis 47:6   any man                                      any men
Exodus 15:25   he made a statute                        he made for them a statute
Exodus 21:32   thirty shekels                                  thirty shekels of silver
Exodus 23:13   names                                                 name
Exodus 35:29   hands                                                 hand
Leviticus 2:4   it shall be an unleavened cake             it shall be unleavened cakes
Leviticus 10:14  sacrifice                                 sacrifices
Leviticus 19:34  shall be as one born                    shall be unto you as one born
Leviticus 20:11  shall be put to death                     shall surely be put to death
Leviticus 25:23   were strangers                          are strangers
Leviticus 26:23   be reformed by these things      be reformed by me by these things
Leviticus 26:40  the iniquity of their fathers         their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers
Numbers 4:40      houses                                          house
Numbers 7:55   charger of an hundred            charger of the weight of an hundred
Deutnomy 5:29   keep my commandments           keep all my commandments
Joshua 3:11   covenant, even the Lord       covenant of the Lord
Joshua 7:14   households                               [2nd occurrence] household
Ruth 3:15   and he went into the citie.          and she went into the city.
1 Samuel 18:27  David arose, he and his men        David arose and went, he and his men
1 Samuel 28:7   servant                                               servants
2 Samuel 16:8   to thy mischief                                    in thy mischief
2 Kings 11:10  in the temple.                                      in the temple of the LORD.
2 Kings 23:21    this book of the Covenant          the book of this covenant
1 Chron 7:5   were men of might                        were valiant men of might
1 Chron 11:15     of David                                     to David
2 Chron 28:22     this                                                      his
Job 33:22   His soul draweth near                        Yea, his soul draweth near
Psalm 141:9   snare                                                   snares
Proverbs 7:21   With much fair speech                 With her much fair speech
Eccles 2:16   shall be forgotten                       shall all be forgotten
Sg of Solm 4:6   mountains                                  mountain
Sg of Solm 5:12   water                                        waters
Isaiah 34:11   The cormorant and the bittern              But the cormorant and the bittern
Isaiah 49:13   heaven                                                 heavens
Isaiah 49:13   God                                                the LORD
Isaiah 57:8   and made a covenant                      and made thee a covenant
Jeremiah 4:6   standards                                      standard
Jeremiah 31:14   be satisfied with goodness           be satisfied with my goodness
Jeremiah 31:18   thou art the Lord my God           for thou art the Lord my God
Jeremiah 51:12   watchman                             watchmen
Jeremiah 51:30   their                                         her
Ezekiel 6:8   that he may                                       that ye may
Ezekiel 12:19   violence of them                          violence of all them
Ezekiel 24:5   him                                                  them
Ezekiel 24:7   poured it upon the ground              poured it not upon the ground
Ezekiel 48:8   they                                                   ye
Daniel 3:15   the midst of a fiery furnace              the midst of a burning fiery furnace
Daniel 12:13   the lot                                                   thy lot
Joel 3:13   the wickedness                         their wickedness
Amos 8:3   Temples                                            temple
Zechariah 7:7   of the plain                                     and the plain
Malachi 3:4   offerings                                    offering
Matthew 12:23    Is this the son of David?             Is not this the son of David?
Matthew 14:9   othes                                                   oath's
Matthew 16:16   Thou art Christ                           Thou art the Christ
Mark 6:26   othes                                                oath's
John 11:3     sister                                               sisters
John 12:22   told                                                tell
John 15:20   the Lord                                      his Lord
Acts 5:34   a doctor of law                          a doctor of the law
Romans 14:10   we shall all stand                          for we shall all stand
1 Corinth 10:28   The earth is the Lords              for the earth is the Lord's
1 Corinth 12:28   helps in governments              helps, governments
1 Corinth 15:6     And                                          After
Philippians 4:6   request                                          requests
2 Thessa 2:14   the Lord Jesus Christ                            our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Timothy 1:4   rather than edifying                             rather than godly edifying
2 Timothy 4:8   unto them also                                      unto all them also
Hebrews 3:10   hearts                                                    heart
Hebrews 12:1   run with patience unto the race   run with patience the race
1 John 5:12   he that hath not the Son, hath not life.   he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Revelation 13:6   dwelt                                                   dwell
2 Chron 33:19   [Cambridge  KJV  Editions] sin                  [Oxford  KJV  Editions] sins
Jeremiah 34:16   whom ye                                             whom he[/table]

It was the desire of the KJB translators to make a one better translation out of many good ones (such as Tyndale’s Bible and the Geneva Bible). The KJB translators wrote, “Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our mark.”  The never would have dreamt their work would be proclaimed God-breathed, inerrant, infallible, unchangeable, and the Word of God preserved. The KJB-only crowd has the very translators words against them.

Sample problems with the KJB

In John 5:44 the Greek text very clearly reads "...and seek not the honor that comes from the only God." Yet, for some reason the KJV translates this as "and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?" The reference to monotheism is removed.

In Hebrews 10:23, the Greek text reads, "let us hold fast the profession of our hope”. Yet, the KJV translates the Greek word for "hope" as "faith" and reads, "let us hold fast the profession of our faith”.

Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV? Isa 37:36, “Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses”.

Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV? Matt 14:8 “And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist’s head in a charger”. It should be “John the Baptist”.

Does the inerrant translation of 2Cor 6:11-13 need improvement in the KJV? "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."

Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV? Luke 14:10  “But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” The word translated “worship” should be “glory”.

Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV?

Should Rom 8:24 be better rendered “in hope” rather than the KJB “by hope”? Rom 8:24  “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?”

Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? Luke 8:55, “And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.” It would be better translated, “be given to her to eat”.

The word “day” is added, not in the Greek in Luke 23:56. Luke 23:56 “And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment”. An infallible translation should not have errors, should it?

It is enough to see that the KJB is a very good translation based on very good Greek texts and translated by very knowledge men of God. It is not true that the King James Bible is inspired by God and the translators were moved by the Holy Spirit to produce an inerrant work.

The fact is the word of God has been preserved throughout time, in many languages by many extant copies and fragments. Apparently, because the KJV was about the last (up to the NKJV) translation before the W-H text generated these now many inaccurate modern translations, the KJB became elevated over against these modern translations, even to the point of claiming perfection by some. Now doubt if the Geneva Bible (a very good translation and the choice of our Pilgrim fathers) were the last major translation, it too would have become the 'perfect' text and defended bitterly as God-breathed.

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2003, 05:18:37 AM »
Hi John, I have seen this silly list of supposed errors many times.  If you care to take them up one at a time, I will be happy to do so.

For instance, what is wrong with calling the Holy Ghost "it"?  Did you get your information from the likes of Doug Kutilek?

Also you say the KJB translators were not inspired.  I agree.  It is God's words that are inspired, not men.  God keeps His promises to preserve His inerrant words and it is my belief that He has done this in the KJB.

From what I have read from you so far, it appears you do not believe in any inerrant, complete, inspired Bible.  If I am wrong in this, please correct me and tell me what you believe the  inspired Bible is called and where I can get a copy.

I suspect the only inspired bible you have is the mystical one that exist only in your own mind.

You also play the same trick James White does and take the quote "variety of translations is profitable" totally out of context.

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Solomon, or David ever say they were inspired or what they wrote was inspired of God?

Does a person have to know he is being used by God to give us His inspired words, or is the Biblical pattern more like God uses whom He will, even without their knowing it?

You have no infallible, inspired Bible, do you?  What is the standard by which you sit in judgment on the KJB?  What are you using to measure it by?

What is your Final Authority for what God said?

Will K


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2003, 05:20:57 AM »
Acts of the Apostles

Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, RISE UP AND walk."

Here the words "rise up and" (eyeire kai) are found in the Majority of all texts, including A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, and Armenian ancient versions. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the ISV. The Nestle-Aland text originally omitted these words too, but then later added them back to the text again. The words "rise up and" are now included in the NRSV, ESV, and even in the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. Are you beginning to get the picture of how our scientific scholars constantly disagree among themselves?

Acts 7:46 "Who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the GOD of Jacob."

Here the reading "GOD of Jacob" is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus correction, A, C and many ancient versions like the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian and Armenian. The "GOD of Jacob" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, NASB, and ESV. But again Vaticanus reads differently and says: "to find a tabernacle for the HOUSE of Jacob." The NASB, even though it reads "God of Jacob", has this footnote: "the earliest mss. read 'house' and not 'God'". Well, if they think this is the closest to the original reading, why not put it in their version? Ah, but wait, the NRSV and the upcoming ISV have done just that and now read "for the HOUSE of Jacob."

Acts 19:16

In Acts 19 we are told of SEVEN sons of Sceva, who were vagabond Jews, exorcists, which "took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, WE adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth". There are two blunders found here in the "oldest and best" texts of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against the majority of all others. The Majority of all texts, as well as the Syriac Peshitta, read as does the KJB with these seven sons saying "WE adjure you by Jesus". The word "we" is obviously plural, and the evil spirt answers in verse 15 "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are YE?". Now, the word "ye" is plural in all texts answering to the plural "we" of "We adjure thee".

However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both have only one individual saying: "I" adjure you by Jesus, and so read the NASB, NIV, and ESV. Nevertheless, the evil spirit still answers addressing a plural number of persons rather than one individual even in the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.

The more striking blunder is found in Acts 19:16. There we read: "And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame THEM, (autoon) and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded." There were seven sons and the spirit leaped on THEM.

The single word "them" is the reading of the majority of all texts. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us that the evil spirit "overcame BOTH OF THEM, (amphoteros autwn) and prevailed against them." The word for "both" is amphoteros, and always means "both". Yet the word "both" can only refer to the number two, not the SEVEN sons of Sceva. In fact, the NASBs from 1960 through 1972 read "and overcame BOTH OF THEM", and so also do the RV and ASV. Finally, after several years and numerous editions, it apparently occured to the NASB scholars that there was a clear blunder in their "oldest and most reliable texts", so in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB changed their versions to read that the evil spirit overcame "ALL OF THEM" instead of "both of them". The NIV and RSV, also say "all of them". Actually, the word "all" is not found in any text whatsoever, but the NIV, NASB, RSV put the extra word in anyway.

Again, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly wrong. The NKJV correctly footnotes that the Nestle and UBS text says "both of them" instead of "overcame them".

Acts 20:21 "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus CHRIST."

The word "Christ" is found in the Traditional Greek text, and also in Sinaiticus, A, C, Lamsa's Syriac Peshitta, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, and in the modern versions of the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, and ESV of 2001.

However Vaticanus omits the word "Christ" from the full title of our Lord, and so do the NIV, NRSV, ISV, and the Holman Christian Standard. See how consistent this scientific method is in determining what God wrote?

Will K


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2003, 05:22:13 AM »

Acts 20:28

"Feed the church of GOD, which he hath purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD."

This verse is under attack by many modern versions because it clearly shows that the Lord Jesus Christ is GOD, and that GOD shed His blood to purchase the church. Those who oppose the full Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ will alter this verse in several ways to either change, hide, or obscure the truth that it was GOD'S blood that purchased the church.

The Traditional Byzantine Text that underlies the King James Bible says: poimainein thn ekklhsian tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV - feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

The Westcott-Hort text has a slight variation which says:dia tou aimatoV tou idiou- by the blood of His own", which opens the door to several of the renderings we will see in some modern versions based on the Westcott-Hort text.

There are a wide variety of readings found in this verse. Many texts say "the church of THE LORD AND GOD", and this is actually the reading of the Hebrew Names Version, and the World English Version. Many other texts have "the church of THE LORD OF GOD", while Alexandrinus, C original, D and P74 read "the church OF THE LORD which he purchased with his own blood." This last reading would say it was only the Lord (not God) who shed his blood, and thus not clearly teach the deity of Christ.

In fact, this is exactly the reading found in the American Standard Version of 1901 based on the Westcott-Hort texts, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the Worldwide English New Testament, and the New English Bible of 1970. They say: "Feed the church OF THE LORD which he obtained by his own blood." The new ISV (International Standard Version) shows both readings with this: "to be shepherds of God's (Other mss. read the Lord's) church, which he purchased with his own blood."

Other versions deny the full deity of Christ by keeping the word "God" in the phrase "the church of God", but they add an extra word to the sentence, not found in any Greek text, and thus again deny the Godhead of Christ. Among these are the modern versions like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation (based on the Westcott-Hort texts), the New Revised Standard of 1989, the New Jerusalem Bible, the 21st Century New Testament, The Contemporary English Version 1991 by the American Bible Society, Today's English Version 1992 put out by the American Bible Society and the United Bible Society, which also publish the Westcott-Hort Greek text that underlies most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV.

The NRSV, NWT, Today's English Version, the Good News Translation, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Contemporary English Version all say: "Feed the church of God which he obtained by the blood OF HIS SON". This fabricated reading denies that it was the blood of GOD which purchased the church, but affirms only the blood of His Son. The word "Son" does not occur in any manuscript at all.

The Bible versions that correctly read "Feed the church OF GOD which he purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD", are the King James Bible, NKJV, Revised Version, NASB, NIV, the Modern Greek N.T. used by the Greek Orthodox church today, Green's Modern KJV, Webster's translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the ESV. This is the reading of the Tradtional Byzantine texts that underlies the King James Bible. It is also the reading found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Old Latin, Syriac Harclean, Vulgate, some Coptic versions, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Antigua Versión of 1569, and Luther's German Bible.

Notice that the RSV, NRSV and ESV, all of which are revisions of each other, each gives a different rendering of this same verse, and the ASV differs from the NASB. Isn't modern scholarship exciting to watch! Hey, all bible versions have the same "message", and no doctrines are changed, right?


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta, both of which predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which omit this whole verse. What is of interest here is that while the NIV, RSV, ESV omit the verse, the NASB put it back in the text in 1977 and again in 1995, whereas from 1960 to 1972 they had omitted it. Now the new Holman Christian Standard version is coming out and it includes the verse while the ISV does not! If you get ten scholars in a room, you will come out with 12 different opinions :-)

The following partial list of various Bible versions around the world shows which ones include Acts 28:29 in the New Testament.

In English we have Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, KJB, Young's, NASB 95 Update, Holman CSV, and the World English Bible. Foreign language Bibles that contain Acts 28:29 are the Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Chinese, Danish, Finnish, French, German, Modern Greek, Haitian, the Hebrew New Testament, Hungarian, Italian, Norsk, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, Spanish, Swahili, Tagalog, Turkish, Ukranian, and Vietnamese Bible versions. Yet in this country the RSV, NIV, ESV and ISV omit the verse entirely. Go figure.

Will K


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Smiley Pimp
    • 4 HIS Glory
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2003, 10:20:32 PM »
ok, I'll probably get flamed for this, but who cares...

this is probably one of the longest useless threads I've read in a christian forum.  I mean, shoot if you wanna get down to the nitty gritty and be technical about it, after the original(s), everything else is a translation from there, starting with the first copy.  I mean other translations are helpful to other folks, just as God speaks to us all in different ways, so does His word.  I mean, if I wrote this whole reply in pigeon (island slang) you wouldn't be able to understand it unless it was translated for you.  what Im saying is, in all believers and/or christians, no matter what translation they're common to, the most important fact remains the same, and that is salvation can ONLY be acquired by the finished work of Christ on the cross.  no matter what translation you use, the word is how God speaks to us and prayer is how we speak to God, somewhere in there I'm sure if your doing something out of His will, He'll let you know.  when it comes down to it, its all about keeping your eyes on Him and keeping in line with His will for you, the bible is just another tool just as we are and how we witness to other people in our everyday walk, a translation is only the means in how we get the message across, you do your part as a "tool" and God will take care of the rest, He already has.  it doesn't matter if you get your vitamins from a pill or actual food, your still getting what you need.

don't get me wrong, this a very informative thread, much props to you for doing your research and laying it out, but, through a young believer (not age, but spiritually) or even a non-believers eyes reading this, confuses them even more with something that really is a non-issue.  our faith is in Him, shoot I'm sure we'll meet people in heaven that have never laid eyes on a bible, because of there faith in Him in the evidence all around us, and to keep in line with this thread...

Romans 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively.  God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

there is no excuse, no matter what translation you use or if you have none, no excuse  :-\

much love, and as always,
4 HIS Glory
~CS Out~


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2003, 07:32:45 AM »
Hi Samoan Onion, I understand what you are saying.  If all you are concerned about in a Bible version is the gospel, Yes, that can be found in any version out there. It is also in a gospel tract, or in some songs.

You are reducing things to the lowest common denominator.  Why not just write the 4 Spiritual Laws and be done with it?  There is a whole lot more to the Bible than the gospel of salvation.

How do you know the gospel is true if it is found in a Book that has 50 plus different versions that contradict each other in hundreds of verses?  At what point does God start telling the whole truth?

All bibles do not teach the same things in many places.  Just as there are false prophets, and false Christs, and false signs and wonders, so too there are false bibles which pervert many truths and sow doubt as to what God really said.

If you are satisfied with the simple gospel found in a multitude of conflicting versions, and think that God has only preserved "the general message close enough to what He probably said",  then stick with it and don't concern yourself with minor details like "Did God preserve His words as He promised?"  If God didn't keep that promise, then how do we know He will keep His promise to save our souls by trusting in Christ?  Well, I guess we can always hope for the best, huh?

Don't ask yourself if we really have an inerrant, inspired, complete Bible.  You will only complicate your life with these bothersome details which apparently are of no serious consequence.

Don't Worry. Be Happy.

Will K


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2003, 07:38:05 AM »
Some speak of the same general message and principles being found in all valid versions.  Yet we can point out many direct contradictions concerning these basic principles.  

The "any bible will do" position  leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief.  There are a multitude of contradictory versions, several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. (17 entire verses omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV - when compared to the KJB, NKJV, TMB.)

Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB, ESV?  The KJB, NIV, RV, and NKJV say: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."    But the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast,then He Himself also went up".

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, NIV teach?  Both these versions read: "when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished", as opposed to the KJB, NKJV, Geneva bibles which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished".  The only O.T. reference for this sin offering to make an atonements is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where only the woman offered the sin offering for her purification.

Is the Lord Christ the one who has "origens from ancient times" in Micah 5:2 as the NIV, RSV, NWT teach, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the KJB, NKJV, NASB have it?

Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36?  The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him.  You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not letting Him control your behavior, but you certainly cannot deceive Him.

Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation?  The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.
The NIV even perverts true doctrine when the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ, when He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18).

 In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 where God says (and ALL GREEK TEXTS read)  "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE".  The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning.  However the NIV actually says "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

The NIV here teaches that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ.  This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness "bible" (New World translation), and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

    There are many  lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.  One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.

     The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped  his sister Tamar.  Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom.  Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished.  For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

  The meaning is pretty straightforward.  We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.  

     Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

      However when we get to the New KJV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE".  This  is a lie and a contradiction.

    Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba  that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died.  2 Samuel 12:15.   In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."  In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him",  and "wherefore he slew him also."   I Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up."  And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

    In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ says in Luke 12:5 "But I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."
God obviously does indeed take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

In 2 Peter 3:12 the KJB correctly says we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God".  The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day.  However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God.  This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.


Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ.  He alone is our righteousness. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints". Versions that read just like the KJV are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Geneva of 1599, Green’s interlinear, Daniel Webster's of 1833,  Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English, Lamsa's translation of the  Syriac Peshitta,  the Third Millenium Bible,  and the 21st Century KJB version.

   But the NKJV, NASB, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.”  If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered.  So, which one is true?

 Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god."  This is a false and preposterous statement in the NASB.

 Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?

1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the NIV, NKJV too.  However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, NKJV teach or is Judah unruly against God as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one guiding and directing the modern versionists. This God seems to be a bit confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

So  if you  think all these modern versions are from God, you  have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

Wasn't there something written in the Bible that told us of the falling away from the faith in the last days?

Has Satan changed in his hatred and opposition to the words of God?

Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these last days and so now he can think more clearly?

If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in scores of verses, many verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which they speak is true?

If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God?  And if so, what are you referring to when you say this?

Will Kinney


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Smiley Pimp
    • 4 HIS Glory
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2003, 11:29:57 AM »
wattup brandplucked, good stuff...

but, you need to reread what I wrote, because I never said anything about a certain version, my point is that the focus should always be on Him no matter what version one reads.  God will get His point across a lot better than you or any bible version can, so no worries.  and with all the different versions out there, like I said, aside from the originals, who knows if the first copy was interpreted right, unless you were there, which I doubt you were... or were you.?.?  :D

so should all the people using these translations just give up because of all the cheezy little facts that you're kicking out, I don't think so.  I personally prefer the NKJV which that website you provided in your first post totally ripped apart.  does that matter to me, will I change, absolutely not.  I know Christ lives in me because of my fellowship and realtionship with Him.  when you witness to people because of how you live your life for Christ, its not the translation you read that attracts people, its the Holy Spirit thats leading you in your life that they see and want, the peace that Christ gives all believers is what everyone wants and whatever translation gets them started on there walk with Him, then good for them.  you get someone to that point, its all in God's hands.  none of us can trully say that whatever "translation" is the real one or the best one, its called FAITH, try having some, God will take care of His own and already has.  

I know we're probably gonna be on polar ends of this, but, whats important is that no matter what "translation" one reads, Christ finished work on the cross is still the only way to salvation, you don't have Christ in your life, it doesn't really matter what your reading, does it.

AMEN, thanx for your time,
4 HIS Glory
~CS Out~


  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2003, 12:52:54 AM »
Hi Samoan Onion, I agree with you that the important thing is that Christ died for the sins of His people and our salvation in Him is the principal thing.

However, I am sorry to hear that these clear doctrinal perversions found in the multitude of conflicting bible versions are considered by you to be "cheezy little facts".

Hopefully, once God has converted a soul to Christ, they will grow in grace and knowledge and be led to the true Holy Bible, but the Scriptures tell us there will be a falling away from the faith and many heeding doctrines of devils.

So, do you think the NKJV is the infallible, inerrant words of God, or is it just your personal preference of best guess scenario of what God probably said?

Do you personally believe any version in any language or any text in Hebrew or Greek is now the inerrant, complete, infallible words of God which you would not change or correct in any way?  Or is all we can hope for only a  reasonable approximation to what God most likely wanted to tell us in general terms, but mixed with error and poor translation?

Will K

Frank Mortimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2003, 04:30:42 AM »
a young believer (not age, but spiritually) or even a non-believers eyes reading this, confuses them even more with something that really is a non-issue.

I don't believe that the KJV is the only bible, but it is the best version out there. But the way you seem to trivialize the inspired words of scripture is a crime.  If I read you right, christians could use the living bible and you'd have no problem with that because it's all about relationships. You are so wrong about this. If the inspired words of the bible are really a  non-issue as you claim, then why does God warn that those who add or take away from it will come under his judgment? Why does he say that not one jot or tittle shall fail? Obviously the inspired words are not trivial to him. Obviously, translations do matter.


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]