How reliable is the King James bible?

Before I continue with this article I’d like to say that I don’t believe one can only be saved through reading the King James Bible. There is enough truth found in all adult versions of the Bible I’ve read – both modern and otherwise – to save or damn people who read them with an open mind and heart. But the inescapable conclusion one comes to after doing some serious reading on the subject is that some Bible versions are more doctrinally correct than others, and are therefore less likely to encourage doubt and deception in the Lord’s sheep.

So how reliable is the King James Bible? The following has been reprinted from http://www.kjvtoday.com for your interest and edification:

What is so good about the KJV?

Abbreviations:
English Standard Version (ESV)
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
King James Version (KJV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
New International Version (NIV)
New King James Version (NKJV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Today’s New International Version (TNIV)

For nearly 400 years the King James Version remained unchallenged as the standard Protestant English Bible. Newer translations did come out from 1611 to the mid 20th century but none of those gained widespread acceptance among the English-speaking Protestant churches. Then starting in the mid 20th century new translations began to gain in popularity. The Revised Standard Version (both testaments published in 1952) was the first serious contender against the King James Version. Then in the 1960’s-1970’s came the New American Standard Bible, Living Bible, New International Version, New King James Version, and eventually scores of others. Many of those mid 20th century translations had lost their popularity by the 21st century. Some of the top contenders today by number of sales are the 2011 update to the New International Version, English Standard Version, and New Living Translation. With so many newer translations available, many Christians think of the King James Version as an irrelevant relic from a bygone era. However, in the midst of this coming and going of new translations, the King James Version has withstood the test of time and continues to have a solid reader base, and for good reasons. This page describes the superb features of the King James Version.

DOCTRINE

No Demonstrable Error

Books such as The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? by James R. White and The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism by D.A. Carson point to alleged translation and textual errors in the KJV. While the stated goal of these types of books is to refute KJV “only-ism” (the idea that Christians should use only the KJV), these authors are not neutral in terms of assessing the translation and textual choices in the KJV. James R. White was a consultant for the New American Standard Bible and D.A. Carson was a translator of the New Living Translation. Although there may be different opinions on translation or textual choices (as proposed by these authors), every reading in the KJV can be justified by reasonable alternative theories. This website refutes over 150 allegations of errors to show that the KJV is demonstrably inerrant.

Fuller, Doctrinally Superior Text

The New Testament of the KJV, as with the NKJV, is based on the Textus Receptus, a variety of the Byzantine family of New Testament manuscripts. Many popular translations (e.g. NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB) are based on the Nestle-Aland text (i.e. NA 27, UBS 4), which is based on the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Translations based on these Alexandrian readings omit or cast doubt on many important words and verses: e.g. The ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), The story of the adulteress (John 8:1-11), The conclusion to the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13), The angel at the pool (John 5:4), The confession of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:37), Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21, Mathew 18:11, Matthew 21:44, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 22:43, Luke 22:44, Luke 23:17, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7. It is generally accepted even by proponents of the Alexandrian texts that the Textus Receptus readings are doctrinally superior. The main page of http://www.kjvtoday.com/ has links to pages defending the Textus Receptus.

ACCURACY

Literal Translation

The KJV is an essentially literal translation. Many new translations (NIV, NLT) are based on a translation philosophy called “Dynamic Equivalence” made popular by Eugene Nida of the American Bible Society. With Dynamic Equivalence, translators act as interpreters rather than translators. Thus readers of these dynamic translations end up reading the interpretations of scholars rather than the actual biblical text. The NKJV, NASB and ESV are also essentially literal translations. For an excellent introduction on the subject, please read this [online booklet] written by Leland Ryken, a member of the ESV committee.

Person Distinction

The KJV uses “thou” and “ye” and inflected verbs to distinguish between the second person singular and the second person plural. “Thou, thee, thy” refer to one person whereas “ye, you, your” refer to more than one person. Other modern languages such as Spanish (“tú” and “vosotros”), French (“tu” and “vous”), German (“du” and “ihr”) and Chinese (“你” and “你們”) still maintain this distinction. Without this grammatical distinction, the reader cannot identify whether an individual or a group is being spoken of in passages such as Exodus 4:15, Exodus 29:42, 2 Samuel 7:23, Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:31-32, John 3:7, 1 Corinthians 8:9-12, 2 Timothy 4:22, Titus 3:15, Philemon 21-25.

Use of Italics

The KJV translators italicized words that do not appear in the original languages but were added in order to convey the meaning of the text. Most modern translations (i.e. NIV, ESV, TNIV) do not indicate added words with italics. For example, Psalm 16:2 in the KJV says, “Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee” (“extendeth” is italicized). In the latter part of this sentence the original Hebrew only has the words “my goodness,” “not” and “to thee.” The KJV translators added “extendeth” to convey the meaning of the sentence and they indicated the addition by the use of italics. The notes to the Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV say that the Hebrew is uncertain in Psalm 16:2. Thus, Bible versions do not translate this verse in the same way. However, most modern translations do not use italics to notify the reader concerning words added by the translators. The NASB and NKJV also use italics to indicate added words.

No Quotation Marks

Quotation marks (” “) identify spoken statements. The KJV does not enclose any words in quotation marks. “Why is this a good thing?” one might ask. The KJV does not use quotation marks because the original Hebrew and Greek texts do not use them. There are many passages where translators must guess as to whether a statement is spoken by the narrator or the character. Sometimes the placement of quotation marks are misleading, or at the very least rob a reader of another valid interpretation of the text. Please refer to the page linked to above for examples of passages where quotation marks can be misleading.

STYLE

Complex Compound Sentences

The KJV seldom splits complex sentences as they are found in the Greek. For example, Romans 1:1-7 and Hebrews 1:1-4 are each one sentence in the Greek and in the KJV, but even the most literal of modern translations, the NASB and the ESV, split each sentence into several sentences. Complex sentences convey relationships between ideas more effectively and keep the author’s thought process more apparent.

Hebraisms

The KJV preserves lexicographical and syntactical Hebraisms (William Rosenau, Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible). Many contemporary translations, in an attempt to make the Bible sound more familiar to readers, dilute the Hebrew feel of the Bible. Much of the peculiarity of the language of the KJV is due to its faithful mimicry of the Hebrew language. Some Hebraic expressions such as the Hebraic anticipatorial accusative (“God saw the light, that it was good” Genesis 1:4) and Hebraic double prepositions (“Abram went up out of Egypt” Genesis 13:1) are completely removed even in translations that are purported to be essentially literal, such as the NASB and the ESV. Acclaimed Greek teacher John Dobson, author of Learn New Testament Greek, 3rd ed, invites his students to pay close attention to the Hebraic influence in the Greek New Testament. Due to his apparent preference for dynamic translations, he does not seem to prefer the KJV. However, he acknowledges that the KJV “follows Hebrew style more closely than a modern translator would normally do” (305).

Conformity with Greek Structure and Style

In the New Testament, the KJV often follows the Greek word order more closely than most translations. For example, Matthew 17:19 says, “Then came the disciples to Jesus.” This syntax, which has the verb preceding the subject, may seem peculiar to contemporary English-speaking audiences; but the word order in the KJV follows the Greek word order (“τοτε προσελθοντες οι μαθηται τω ιησου”). Mimicking the exact style and structure of the Greek can sometimes preserve what is emphasized in the Greek. Another feature common in the KJV is the historical present tense. The KJV often uses the present tense to describe past action: e.g. “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John” (Matthew 3:13). This is because the KJV faithfully translates the Greek which is also in the present tense. Greek writers used the historical present tense to add emphasis to important past actions. The historical present tense has the effect of making past narratives more vivid. Modern translations unfortunately tend to translate the historical present tense in the simple past tense.

Poetry

The Bible is a very poetic book. The obvious poetic books are Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. But even the Old Testament prophecies and Revelation are full of poetic features such as rich imageries, parallelisms, hyperboles, and similes. The books of the Pentateuch are also ripe with poetry, according to Everett Fox, the author of The Five Books of Moses. He believes that the Pentateuch is full of “oral” poetic qualities that often go unnoticed to Western readers. In fact, Jews throughout the centuries sang the Torah using cantillation marks. In the New Testament, we find poetic features such as parables, similitudes, beatitudes, Pauline metaphors, Peter’s apocalyptic utterances, John’s juxtaposition of darkness and light, etc. A truly poetic translation such as the KJV does justice to the poetry of the Bible.

BACKGROUND

Authorized by a Bible-believing Christian King

King James who authorized the KJV was a Bible-believing Christian king who unapologetically upheld the doctrines of biblical inerrancy, infallibility and sufficiency (sola scriptura). On biblical inerrancy he said, “When ye read the Scripture, read it with a sanctified & chaste ear: admire reverently such obscure places as ye understand not, blaming only your own incapacity” (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron). On biblical infallibility he said, “The whole Scripture containeth but two things: a command, and a prohibition; to do such things, and abstain from the contrary. Obey in both;” (Book I:7, Basilicon Doron). On biblical sufficiency he said, “The Scripture is ever the best interpreter of itself. But press not curiously to seek out farther nor is contained therein; for that were misnurtured presumption, to strive to farther upon Gods secrets nor he hath will ye be: for what he thought needful for us to know, that he hath revealed there.” (Book I:13-14, Basilicon Doron). That a Christian king would cause the Bible in English to be published was William Tyndale’s final prayer as he was publicly executed in 1536 crying out, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” (David Daniell, The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven: Yale UP, 2003 at 156).

Free from Modernist Bias

The KJV was not influenced by liberal theology, evolutionism, political-correctness, and ecumenicalism. Today, niche translations are published left and right to satisfy various theological and social agendas. For example, Today’s New International Version was published to appease those who desired gender-neutrality in a Bible. The result was a translation with troubling inaccuracies: e.g. Psalm 1:3, Revelation 22:18 (Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Controversy). Of course, the KJV translators too were men of their times, and their culture certainly was not “neutral.” However, the Christian monarchical culture of Jacobean England is certainly closer to the biblical ideal of a “nation whose God is the LORD” (Psalm 33:12) than our modern godless democracies. The translators’ commitment to biblical inerrancy and biblical sufficiency in all matters of faith and practice cannot be disputed. King James himself stated “Now, the onely way to bring you to this knowldege, is diligently to read his word, & earnestly to pray for the right understanding thereof” (Book I:6, Basilicon Doron).

Laws Pertaining to Derivative Works Did Not Affect The KJV

Modern Bible publishers are required by law to make substantial changes to revisionary works (e.g. new translations) in order to claim copyrights: “To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes” (Copyright Registration for Derivative Works (Circular 14)). The law requires that each new version be “different enough” from previous versions. Thus when a reader reads a modern translation which is bound by this law, he must second-guess whether the words he is reading are in fact the most accurate or whether they are less accurate substitutes made in order to qualify the translation as a copyrightable work. The KJV was not bound by this law. When a reader reads the KJV, he can be confident that the translators chose the words that they did because they truly believed that the words they chose were the most accurate. Fifteen rules were given for translating the KJV, and some of them explicitly allowed the translators to retain existing renderings that could not have been improved upon. Rule 1 urged the translators to follow the Bishop’s Bible with the liberty to depart from it if the original language text so allowed. Rule 14 allowed the translators to follow other good translations where they appeared to agree better with the original languages. Such an attitude of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” would be impossible today with our current laws for derivative works that require change for the sake of change.

The Translators Were Experts in Hebrew, Greek and Latin

The KJV builds on the scholarship exhibited in previous English Bibles which date back to Tyndale and Wycliffe – two godly contenders of the faith and the written Word. The 47 translators of the KJV were masters in Hebrew and/or Greek, as well as in cognate languages such as Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, etc. (Translators Revived by Alexander McClure). Elizabethan and Jacobean scholars were trained in grammar schools in their youth – schools where the study of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and English were emphasized. Many modern scholars who are proficient in Greek are not proficient in Latin. Latin has dropped as an ecclesiastical language in Protestant schools. However, many resources that can shed light on textual and translation variants appear in Latin glosses and writings produced over a span of 1000+ years. All the KJV translators were proficient in Latin.

The Translators Were Experts in English

Many students of the Bible often forget that the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek alone does not make one an apt translator. Translation involves expertise in both the source language and the receptor language. The KJV translators seemed to have had a better grasp of English than many modern translators. Consider this candid comment by Daniel Wallace, a critic of the KJV: “it should be noted that as many faults as the KJV has, it frequently has a superior rendering of the Greek perfect over many modern translations. (Recall that the KJV was produced during the golden age of English, during Shakespeare’s era.) For example, in Eph 2:8 the KJV reads “for by grace are ye saved,” while many modern translations (e.g., RSV, NASB) have “for by grace you have been saved.” The perfect periphrastic construction is most likely intensive, however. The KJV translators, though not having nearly as good a grasp on Greek as modern translators, seem to have had a better grip on English. They apparently recognized that to translate Eph 2:8 with an English perfect would say nothing about the state resulting from the act of being saved” (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics at 575).

LEGACY

Early Modern English

Apart from inflected verbs (which are functionally important), all words in the KJV appear in contemporary publications (Laurence M. Vance, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version). Furthermore, there are many cases where even the NIV uses harder words than the KJV. Compare the following: The NIV has “abasement” in Ezra 9:5 whereas the KJV has “heaviness.” Isaiah 24:23: “abashed” (NIV) = “confounded” (KJV). Ezekiel 40:18: “abutted” (NIV) = “over against” (KJV). 2 Chronicles 15:14: “acclamation” (NIV) = “voice” (KJV). Isaiah 13:8: “aghast” (NIV) = “amazed” (KIV). Laurence M. Vance provides 220 of these examples where the NIV uses a harder word than the KJV. A personal favourite is “squall” (NIV) instead of “storm” (KJV) in Mark 4:37. The KJV may be harder to read than the NIV for someone not used to inflected verbs, but one should thoroughly read the KJV first before making conclusions about its difficulty.

See:

Understanding the Language of the King James Version
Many people have the impression that the King James Version is just an old translation. But there is more to the language of the King James Version than its archaic elements.

A Beginner’s Guide to the Language of the King James Version
This guide will help the beginner in getting a basic grasp of the grammar and vocabulary of the King James Version.

Tried and Tested

Go to the Page: Editions of the King James Version and the Apocrypha

The King James Version has been carefully proof-read for 400 years. Today’s editions are reliable, having all printing errors corrected.

Popularity

Popularity is not a biblical yardstick for assessing the value of something. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the KJV is still one of the more popular translations. According to February 2011 CBA sales numbers, it is less popular than the highest ranking NIV but is more popular than the NKJV, ESV, NASB and NLT. Christians who use the KJV are not an outdated “minority” as some might allege. Monthly Bible sales rankings are posted here (the ranking chart changes each month).

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “How reliable is the King James bible?

  1. The most important distinction in all of this is that the KJV and NKJV are based on different texts, as noted. Which is better? I don’t know. Christians who have at least one Bible translation from each Text will get the most out it.

    The Eastern Orthodox use the Septuagint for their Old Testament, because that is the one Jesus and the Apostles all used. It is available in English and it has some Big differences.

    • Hi Jim,

      Just read your article, then checked out the Orthodox Study Bible on Amazon. After reading through the preview and reviews from other customers, I have some concerns that I wanted to share with you.

      Firstly, the commentary was described by one customer as “anti-Jewish” in places. Admittedly the text I looked at didn’t contain any evidence of this but I do know that some of the early church fathers such as John Chrystostom were quite anti-Semitic in many of their writings. So if their commentary is featured in this Bible, it is possible that anti-Semitic ideas are present too. This is a concern as Jesus Himself was Jewish, as were his apostles and many members of the early church. So to be against the Jews is to be against them. I don’t subscribe to the notion that God has finished with the nation of Israel due to their rejection of Christ as the Messiah, replacing them with the Christian church. I take a historical-grammatical approach to the bible wherever possible, which leads me to read the plain meaning of many Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom of God coming to Israel as yet to be fulfilled, in Christ’s millennial kingdom on earth after the tribulation period has ended.

      Next, I noticed people are encouraged to interpret Scripture “through and in the Church” (see page 1761 “How to Read the Bible”).
      We are encouraged to submit our individual opinions to “the Church” (biblical commentaries from the Church Fathers, etc). This contradicts the Bible’s teaching that the Holy Spirit alone (impressing us through the Word of God) is to be our guide in matters of faith and doctrine:

      “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie,
      and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
      (1 John 2:27)

      Commentaries can be very helpful and inspirational but I believe they must always be subordinate to what the Word of God reveals to each believer through their reading of the Bible, not the other way around I believe.

      Just my two cents.

      Thanks for bringing this study bible to my attention. I hadn’t previously heard of it so was agnostic on it.

      God bless. 🙂
      Naomi

      • I have read it extensively and I have seen no anti-Jewish comments in it at all.

        I think the commentary is great because it gives you quotes from the church Fathers. It is the same thing as any other study bible, except the quotes are by and large really old.

        It is an Orthodox Study Bible, so you definitely run into the Eastern Orthodox take on Sacred Tradition, but that doesn’t scare me at all. In fact, I have found it helpful to be challenged by their views.

      • It’s a praise if the Orthodox Study Bible doesn’t contain anti-Jewish sentiments. I haven’t read it myself, only the preview on Amazon, so remain agnostic (with concerns) on it.

        For me the emphasis on Tradition over private interpretation of the Scriptures (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) is an issue as I would not be confident that I would remain challenged, but uncorrupted, by such teachings. Even the best of men, and commentators, get it wrong sometimes. As Paul says in Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” This was the reason King James wanted to revise the Reformers’ Geneva Bible, as it contained commentary and margin notes that he felt were over-riding God’s Spirit through the Word and threatening his kingship.

        But if you find this particular study bible helpful and that it builds your faith without undermining it, then that is also a praise. Perhaps I need to get hold of a copy for research purposes.
        I’ve got several versions of the bible in my house for that very reason. I love the truth and enjoy looking into matters of faith and doctrine.

        Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss this.

        God bless.
        Naomi

      • No Problem, Naomi!

        Just think about what you are saying:

        “For me the emphasis on Tradition over private interpretation of the Scriptures (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) is an issue as I would not be confident that I would remain challenged, but uncorrupted, by such teachings. Even the best of men, and commentators, get it wrong sometimes.”

        Do you trust your own interpretations over Godly and learned followers of Christ who have gone before you? Surely you are not saying that the Holy Spirit only aides you?

        There is safety in consensus. One of the important rules of Bible interpretation is to check your conclusions with others who have wrestled with the text. If I have come to some new and novel conclusion…surprise, my interpretation is wrong and should be abandoned.

        I remember listening to a pastor say “I don’t read commentaries, or any kind of reference works, because the Holy Spirit teaches me. I don’t need to listen to what any man has to say about the Bible.” We were at a pastors luncheon. I shot back, “Then I am sure you don’t have a problem when the people you pastor take the same attitude and don’t listen to a word you say on Sunday?” He did have a problem with that!

        Christianity did not start with us, there are 2000 years of church history, filled with men and women who faithfully followed Jesus. We don’t need to be afraid that their lives, stories and understanding of what it means to follow Christ is going to corrupt us. Read their words and you won’t be corrupted, you will be challenged to follow Christ more fervently. I know that has been my experience.

        See you next time!

      • I should clarify my earlier comments. I do of course agree that there is safety in consensus, that’s one of the reasons I go to church. To hopefully hear sound doctrine preached so that I don’t go off on a tangent in my reading! 🙂

        I also closely follow the writings of Christian authors who support a plain-meaning interpretation of the scriptures such as CH Spurgeon, AW Tozer, Paul Benware, Dr Renald Showers, etc, etc. I read widely though mostly from a conservative Christian perspective as that is my faith. I do follow blogs of Christians whose theology I don’t always agree with as I know that God’s grace works within every denomination so I will have brothers and sisters in Christ from a variety of backgrounds. I may not always agree with what is posted but I try to encourage people in their faith nonetheless. Often I learn new aspects of my faith that I otherwise wouldn’t have considered if I were in this journey alone, as you quite rightly pointed out.

        Where I have a concern is with the anti-Semitism of many of the early Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, hence I treat their commentary with caution. They often subscribed to replacement theology (in my view, incorrectly believing the Church has become “spiritual Israel”), which lead to some pretty ugly statements about Jews, such as the following from Chrysostom:

        “The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and an abyss of perdition.”…”I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason.” (From “The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism” by Malcolm Hay)

        I hope you enjoy the rest of your night: it must be quite late where you are, though it’s just mid-afternoon here where I am.

      • That makes more sense to me, and I knew that was where you were coming from. The best part of blogging, in my opinion, are the conversations we can have!

        Every great man of God had flaws. David was a murderer and an adulterer, but we still read the Psalms he penned. Calvin was a murderer as well, but people don’t hold that against him, because he was fighting for the faith as he understood it.

        I wouldn’t throw out the early church Father’s simply because of some of their views about the Jewish leaders of their days. They too were fighting for their faith, and the synagogue leaders were leading the charge.

        “I also closely follow the writings of Christian authors who support a plain-meaning interpretation of the scriptures such as CH Spurgeon, AW Tozer, Paul Benware, Dr Renald Showers, etc, etc.”

        That is interesting. You admit that you closely follow the writings of others. You probably have never thought about it like this, but you do follow the traditions and interpretations of other believers. We all do. The difference between how you and I do this and how those who hold to Sacred Tradition do it is that we can always change our minds and go with some new interpretations. They can’t.

      • Amen to this: “…you do follow the traditions and interpretations of other believers. We all do. The difference between how you and I do this and how those who hold to Sacred Tradition do it is that we can always change our minds and go with some new interpretations. They can’t.”

        That is the key I believe. The Bereans were commended for checking everything Paul preached to them against the Word of God (Acts 17:11). If something didn’t add up, they weren’t going to believe him. That’s what I try to do too, check even what my pastor preaches against the scriptures and what other reliable Christians have thought down through the ages. I believe this is what you’re saying you do too. Good point.

  2. Good article Naomi. I personally love the KJV, but I certainly am not one of those who would say a person is some raving heretic if they read another; I uses quite a few translations myself quite a bit. The Bible I carry and use for general reading is still the KJV though. Good job. Bless you.

    • Hi Wally,

      Thanks for your encouragement. I also use the KJV for reading and prayer (though I have other bible versions for comparison).
      This was the bible I inherited from my beautiful grandmother Mary, whose character was so unbelievably patient and kind that she
      helped draw me to the Lord without preaching a word.

      I’m not dogmatic on the issue of salvation with regards to bible versions. I remember being highly receptive to God’s Word as a little girl and all my parents read to me was an illustrated children’s bible, though from memory it was strongly Word-based. This bible was one of the many tools God later used to bring me to saving faith in Him.

      And while it’s possible to be a fine, theologically sound Christian using various bible versions, I have some concerns that the doctrine
      in the more modern versions is ever leaning towards salvation by works, which can confuse and deceive people who are unaware of this.

      Here are some interesting comparisons of differences between the NIV and KJV:

      Mark 10:24 KJV
      Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

      Mark 20:24 NIV
      Jesus said again, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

      The KJV is saying that it is hard for people who trust in riches (instead of in Jesus) to be saved while the NIV states that salvation is a difficult matter regardless. This tilts the meaning of this entire passage away from the free gift of salvation toward (hard) works – one step closer to the false doctrine of Roman Catholicism, which believes in salvation by a combination of faith, works and sacraments.

      Another example:

      1 John 4:3 KJV
      And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist.

      1 John 4:3 NIV
      But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

      Notice that the NIV leaves out “Christ is come in the flesh.” This is a concern as confessing this fact is vital for saving faith.

      There are many other examples but I’ll just point you to an article that may be helpful:

      http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/comparison.asp

      This is a very interesting issue and one that requires much time, thought and prayerful research. I’m still in the process of doing this, having recently had a reader send me several ascerbic comments denouncing the King James bible as hopelessly “corrupt.”

      God bless you too Wally. 🙂
      Naomi

  3. Hi Naomi, I have e-mailed you I hope you receive it let me know if you don’t.

    We are in agreement on quiet a few things and yes the K.J.V is the closest to the original as confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has less of man’s errors and has not had Scripture added or deleted.

    Yes I’m like a Berean too but I don’t go to a man or a woman for conformation, although I do very much enjoy their sharing God’s Truth, with whatever way they use to do so, it gives us Unity. But I always go to Jesus our only Teacher who is leading me into all Truth and knowledge. I asked for and received God’s wisdom and empowering, we are not born with them and we cannot fully understand God’s Truth in His inspired words without them, they are His heart thoughts, His guidelines, His motivation, His all consuming Love and will for us… (1Corinthians2:9-16) can I be deceived No! I can’t be but I do recognise deception. True Anointed Teachers and Evangelists share God’s Truth not their own and we are warned that worldly study wearies the soul.

    Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

    James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

    Luke 11:13 ….. how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?

    I would also like to affirm Naomi that I never encourage others to follow me but to follow Jesus, if a Congregation is not listing to a Pastor Preach than there is no empowering of The Holy Spirit, God uses the foolishness of Preaching but we need to test the spirit of whoever seeks to teach us, just because they believe something to be True does not make it so as we see with all the different Denominations.

    The Holy Spirit does not say one thing to one person and something different to someone else if they contradict and it was because of this that I questioned the contradictions I was hearing through Sermons, Devotions, books, Tapes and Videos and because of a lot of the error and contradictions on the Internet including from well known Theologians and Evangelists etc differences do matter we are to be of one mind not divided. We can read 6 books and not one will have God’s Truth in all details, sad but True and it’s the same with Blogs.

    I have condensed here, Naomi, Lol but seriously if you would like more detail and more Scriptures I will leave links for you but it would be very profitable to hold onto the Scripture you shared below and the others I have added.

    “But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man/woman teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is Truth, and is no lie,
    and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27)

    Matthew 23:8-10 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. And do not be called Teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. NKJV

    Colossians 2 :2 -3 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in Love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

    1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is True, and we are in Him that is True, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the True God, and eternal life.

    Psalm 32:8I will instruct you and teach you in the way you shall go. I will guide you with Mine eye.

    Matthew 10:26-28 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops (KJV)

    Christian Love in Christ Jesus – Anne.

    • HI Anne,

      “Yes I’m like a Berean too but I don’t go to a man or a woman for confirmation…..But I always go to Jesus our only Teacher who is leading me into all Truth and knowledge. I asked for and received God’s wisdom and empowering, we are not born with them and we cannot fully understand God’s Truth in His inspired words without them, they are His heart thoughts, His guidelines, His motivation, His all consuming Love and will for us… (1Corinthians2:9-16)
      can I be deceived No! I can’t be but I do recognize deception.”

      Every believer that I know, says the same thing, except for the part about not being able to be deceived.

      The church is totally divided denominationally, and mostly all of her leadership says that they go to the Scriptures and God for the truth and have received it. But that can not be true, can it? As you say, and correctly I might add:

      “The Holy Spirit does not say one thing to one person and something different to someone else ” ( To contradict himself)

      How do you explain this if believers can not be deceived? We are warned in scripture to not be deceived by the Master himself:

      And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them.

  4. Of all the doctrines in theology, of all the issues facing the Christian Church, of all the controversies in religion, nothing is more important than the foundation of Christianity, The Bible.

    ‘Hath God said’ was not only the very first question asked in the Bible, it is the first utterance of Satan witnessed. When scripture says “for we are not ignorant of his (Satans) devices” (2 Cor 2:11), the questioning of the words of God should have been paramount in the thoughts of the Christian Church. But all throughout history men have placed MAN as the final authority; tradition, scholarship, majority opinion, other versions, commentaries etc as only some examples.

    Today we have the Bible completely hidden in a sea of obscurity (over 450 versions in English, no other language is suffered with such confusion, why?). No longer is the Bible the FINAL authority in every word. With this plethora of conflicting versions of ‘The Word of God’ it is not unexpected to see the majority of the Church confused on this issue. Though “Heaven and Earth” have not yet past away, it seems that in the minds of the vast majority of Christians, many of Gods words have. If we claim we trust in Jesus, yet we don’t take his words seriously, who are we really trusting?

    Imagine if what was held for the majority of the last 400 years by the common Christian was held today, that the King James Bible was the very perfect word of God for the English speaking people; Imagine if we held to one book as we are charged to hold to one faith; imagine if we all spoke the same thing only because we believe God literally meant what he said and said what he meant; “Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my WORDS shall not pass away”

    The King James Bible cannot simply be the BEST version of Gods words, if it is then we have a problem. This book can’t merely be the best translation of Gods words in English, if it is only that then the problem remains. The AV of the scriptures can’t simply be the best PREFERED version either, for then we truly risk entering the realm of Idolatry. If The AV of the Bible is not the very perfect word of God in the global language of today, then what we think of Christ words (The words of The Word) needs to be modified by our perceptions. In the end WE become the FINAL Authority, just like Eve immediately after that subtle Satanic deceit!

    I am certainly aware of the many questions people would like to have answered concerning this book, but the first questions must be directed toward how we understand the Word of God considering his promise to preserve his words; does preservation presume possession? If so, where is it? If not, how can we trust him?

    I am one of those that believe the AV to be the perfect word of God for the English speaking people, I believe it is without error and every word is placed exactly where it is on purpose. I have asked all the questions (well, most of the questions) that goes through the minds of those that think otherwise and have enough settled about my understanding of the Lord; his character, his promises, his power and his wisdom, to trust him at his word.

    Yours sincerely Edi.

    • Thanks Edi for this helpful and, I believe, biblical comment. I have found it thought-provoking and helpful, I am sure others who come to this site will too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s