I have a lot of people ask me about this pretty frequently. The truth is, I haven’t had a very strong answer other than “well, because we believe the King James Version to be the infallible word of God.” I have been researching for the last several weeks to bring you not only my reasons, but my evidence behind my reasons for choosing to be King James only. I realize how strange it is to hear someone say they only believe in using one version of the bible, and you probably have never heard that before. Before 2013, I hadn’t either. Have I used other versions in the past? You bet! In researching, though, I have come to believe that the King James Version is the absolute closest text we have to the original manuscripts and I believe it to be fully inspired by God. Now, before you exit out of this post and say to yourself “all versions have been translated” know that you’re exactly right! They have ALL been translated by people who aren’t God. Stick with me, though, please. I’m not in any way trying to force my beliefs on anyone, nor do I expect the world to agree with me. I mean, I’m a Christian so I’d say that means about 99% of the world already disagrees with me. This will be a long one, but I really encourage you to read all of it. If you doubt me, please, by all means, let me know where you believe me to be wrong and let me try and back my claims. Then after that, I encourage you to do the research on your own.
For reference purposes the following abbreviations will be used in this post:
KJV – King James Version
NIV – New International Version
NASV – New American Standard Version
RSV – Revised Standard Version
NRSV – New Revised Standard Version
At any point where you read “newer versions” I am talking about the above + all other versions besides KJV.
Now that I’ve rambled for an hour let’s get started. Let’s start with the facts. Because everyone loves a good dose of cold hard truth at the beginning of any discussion.
1) Newer versions of the bible are copyrighted and published by major publishers. The KJV is not copyrighted and the original KJV translators did not receive profit for translating.
2) Because the newer versions are copyrighted, there MUST be word changes in the editions that alter even basic Christian doctrines.
3) The KJV has the fullest central doctrines of our Christian faith (Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation, – 1 John 5:7 – Trinity removed, 1 Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:5-6 – Deity of Christ attacked. I will discuss the salvation attack further in the post).
4) Contrary to popular claims, the newer versions are actually HARDER to read than the KJV (Research has been done to prove this using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicators. The KJV is actually on a 5th grade reading level. I won’t be going into this in detail, but I encourage you to look into it).
5) There are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today. It is a well-known fact that the vast majority of these support the KJV.
6) Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared.
7) The NIV alone removes 64,576 words from the KJV. Which is the equivalent to about 30 complete books of the Bible.
Do I still have you? If so let’s keep going. At this point I’m going to show you ONLY SOME omissions and changes to the bible that you will find in the newer versions. There are honestly hundreds of thousands and I could never list them all here. Let’s start with Jesus Christ. In 1 Timothy 3:16 of the KJV you will read “GOD was manifest in the flesh.” Pretty easy to understand, right? It clearly states who was in the flesh. In the new versions (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc.) it says “He appeared in a body.” Big deal. I appeared in a body the day I was born just like you did. The KJV is clear about it being GOD who was manifest in the flesh. That’s one of the most important things we learn as Christians – that Jesus is God in the flesh. So why take away from that? Secondly, newer versions take out the blood. In Colossians 1:14 the KJV reads “In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins.” The newer versions read “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Why take out the precious blood of the lamb? WE ARE ONLY SAVED BECAUSE OF THAT BLOOD.
Another issue is that the newer versions contain wrong information. In Mark 1:2-3 the newer versions read “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way – a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” It is NOT written in Isaiah. That specific verse is found in Malachi 3:1 and in the KJV correctly reads: “As it is written in the PROPHETS.” Another lie is found in the new versions about David & Goliath. We all know the story; against adversity, David slays the giant Goliath. Right? Well not according to the new versions. The new versions tell us in 2 Samuel 21:19 “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregiim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.” David, who? (Disclaimer: through more research, I actually found that this was SUPPOSED to read that Elhanan slayed Goliath’s BROTHER. Okay, good. But if that’s the case then why has this never been corrected?).
One of the bigger changes that really gets to me is found in Isaiah 14:12. The verse is talking about Lucifer aka SATAN. If you choose to read the newer versions, you will not find him referred to by Lucifer…like ever. Instead you find things like in Isaiah 14:12. The KJV reads “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!” And the new versions read “How you have fallen from heaven O MORNING STAR.” Okay, doesn’t sound like a big deal, right? WRONG. Check Revelation 22:16 – the “morning star” IS JESUS CHRIST. Who in their right mind okay’d this slip up? There is NO reason or basis for that change. The Hebrew word for star is kokab, and it is nowhere in Isaiah 14:12.
Hell is not mentioned in the newer versions…anywhere. By that I mean it is not mentioned by name. These versions tend to mention it by calling it “grave” or “death.” For example in Psalm 9:17 in the KJV you will find “The wicked shall be turned into HELL” and the in the new versions you will read “The wicked return to the GRAVE.” How silly and meaningless. We ALL return to the grave, but we do not ALL turn into HELL. Honestly? Many times hell will be changed into the Greek word “Hades” or the Hebrew word “Sheol” (see Matthew 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31, etc.). Yet the newer versions are “easier to understand?” Tell me, when’s the last time you studied ancient Hebrew and would automatically know what the word Sheol meant? Mmmhmm… On that note, if they’re going to use the “easier to understand” Greek or Hebrew words, why not change Heaven to its Greek word “ouranos?” Hello? Bueller? My last argument on the hell subject is this major one: take a look at Isaiah 14:15 in the KJV. You will read “Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL.” We’re talking about Lucifer here. If I must remind you newer version people, LUCIFER IS SATAN. The newer versions of this verse read “But you are brought down to the GRAVE.” THE GRAVE? Man, what a deal Lucifer gets with the newer versions! Hell, or the grave?
Alright. NOW do I have your attention? If you’ve made it this far and are curious, angry, or interested, then I’m a very happy Bible Believer right now. If I have you, great! Let’s keep going. We all know the Lord’s Prayer. If you don’t, find it in Luke 11:2-4. The KJV reads “Our father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” Now please keep reading for the newer versions. They are all the same, but for research purposes, I am reading directly from the New International Version (NIV) “Father, hallowed be thy name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.” Um hello? No father in Heaven, nothing about his will, and no deliverance from evil? I’ll make one brief comment about this and that is this: Occultists and books such as The Dogma and Ritual of High Magic (satanic rituals, okay?) ADMIT that occultists use the shortened version of the Lord’s Prayer (from the new versions translations) to pray to Lucifer. Let me say that again, THEY USE THE NIV VERSION OF THE LORD’S PRAYER FOUND IN LUKE 11 TO PRAY TO LUCIFER. If you paid attention up there, you would find 14 words taken out that relate to Heaven. Because I mean, if you’re praying to Lucifer, you have to send those prayers south, not up to Heaven. Now YES you have the Lord’s Prayer appear in Matthew that has not been changed as much as Luke. HOWEVER, there are corruptions. For example: verse 13 is completely omitted in the newer versions. This includes the phrase “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever.” I mean why would Satan want the kingdom to go to Jesus Christ, anyway?
MMMK. Now that that’s settled let’s talk about all of the verses missing from the new versions. You read that right. THE NEW VERSIONS TAKE OUT WHOLE VERSES. Never noticed? Me either until recently. But take a look at Acts 8:37. The KJV reads “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Back story: if you don’t know this verse, it’s talking about a eunuch (aka slave) accepting salvation and wanting to be baptized – an important part of our salvation. So let’s take a look at what it says in the new versions shall we? Go ahead and turn there now. Go on, turn. Oh wait…that’s right. We can’t read this in the newer versions because IT ISN’T THERE. ZIP. NADA. ZERO. It’s missing. This is one of the best verses on salvation through Jesus Christ and it’s been taken out. Let’s look at another: Check Matthew 18:11 in the KJV “For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.” This verse is also missing in the newer versions. Others that have been taken out include Romans 16:24, Mark 11:25, Acts 15:34, Luke 23:17, Acts 28:29, John 5:4, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, plus many more. In fact, the NIV completely removes 17 verses. The RSV removes 25. The NASV removes 17. The NRSV removes 18. Those are just a few. I could honestly go on all day with these changes and this blog post would be too long. If you want more examples please leave a comment asking. I would be happy to share all of them with you. I also have a tract I would be happy to send you as well.
Moving right along with this post, we will now discuss where these bible translations (INCLUDING THE KJV) come from. I think the problem with our generation is that people believe that the new versions are simplified versions of the KJV. I always thought that myself. It is believed by many that the KJV is the “original” and that the new versions are simplified (only not really) versions of the KJV. NOT THE CASE. The KJV comes from one set of manuscripts and the new versions from an entirely different set. I’ve heard it argued time and time again that the newer versions are based on better and older manuscripts since the King James was written. Dr. Sam Gipp writes in his book on the matter “The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today” (The Answer Book, Gipp, p. 110). There’s not only that supporting evidence, but most of the recent discoveries SUPPORT the King James. It is WELL DOCUMENTED that 90-95% of ALL readings agree with the King James Bible. A lot of people (preachers included) will argue that the new versions are based on “the original text.” Well um, big problem there. There are no such thing as the originals. We don’t have the originals. They’re long lost. The fact is that the majority manuscripts agree with the KJV, and disagree with the new versions. So what are these manuscripts? Where did they come from? Let me elaborate.
There are three families of manuscripts that our bibles are based on. You have the Byzantine/Antiochan, the Alexandrian, and the Western. The Byzantine is considered the Universal Text and is testified by the vast majority of manuscripts. The Textus Receptus comes from this text type. HOLD ON. Textus Receptus? Holly, you didn’t discuss that. Pause for a brief message:
The Textus Receptus was the Greek manuscript of which we were given the New Testament in the KJV. I should mention that the Old Testament came from the Masoretic Hebrew text (the same text Jews use for their bible). So yes, the NT was translated from Greek, the OT from Hebrew. Capisce? Good.
The Alexandrian is the Local Text manufactured in Alexandria, Egypt. There is NO historical evidence that this text was or ever has been accepted or used by the Christian Church. This text ONLY exists in a small group of manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus being the prime examples) yet it is the parent of EVERY new Greek text and every new bible translation since 1881. Let’s review that litte note okay? THIS TEXT HAS NEVER BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CHURCH, BUT YOUR NEW VERSION BIBLE IS PARENTED BY THESE MANUSCRIPTS. Your new version was translated using these UNACCEPTABLE manuscripts. I’ll go ahead and add (this is historically supported so try me) Hold for another brief message:
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (yes, Vatican – Catholic church) are two of the 50 Greek scriptures copied for Constantine (yes, the Roman Emperor in the 4th Century AD) by Eusebius in 331 AD. Eusebius did not hesitate to introduce material from the Apocryphal writings, traditions, and other available sources. These manuscripts have been discarded by scholars due to their incorrectness. In fact, these manuscripts only account for about 2% of existing manuscripts. I will also add that both were found in Catholic churches (One in a monastery). Not just that, but, the Sinaiticus was found in the trash can of the Vatican. YEP. That is all. Back to your scheduled viewing.
MMMK. Lastly you have the Western family. The “supposed” Western text was noted for its tendency to ADD to the Byzantine text. Its primary example is the Manuscript D, AKA Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. There are so few witnesses for this text that is has been determined that this text type is simply an abstract production of the 3rd century. It has been listed as an invalid witness of the text of the original autographs. Before you call me a contradiction because I noted above that we have no originals, the Byzantine manuscripts are the CLOSEST to the originals. You have to remember that our bibles were written THROUGH Prophets, Saints, Apostles, and men via scribes, slaves, etc. So yes, they will be different. HOWEVER, the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts agree with the KJV of the bible and disagree with the newer versions. Back on the same page? Good. As you were.
Looking back at these manuscripts, you will find that it is argued that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Alexandrian) are more valid because they are older. While they are the oldest, most complete manuscripts available, they are that way because they have always been considered corrupted. Because of this they were not widely used, thus making them more preserved. There are older translations (such as the Old Latin translations) that are older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that agree with the Textus Receptus and the KJV. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus don’t even agree with each other. For example: Matthew 24:35 appears in the Vaticanus but not the Sinaiticus. There are several verses that appear in one and are not in the other. They also differ in word choice. If they don’t even agree with each other, how can they be expected to agree with the Greek text? The fact is they don’t. In fact, they disagree with 99 out of 100 percent of the Greek texts. Had they been highly valued they would’ve been far less preserved than they are today. They wouldn’t have been lost in the library of the Vatican for so long.
I will leave the manuscript talk at that. Please, please, please research it on your own. Not only is it helpful, it’s SO interesting. I have truly loved learning all of it over the past year. I could honestly go on and on about this forever, but I will leave you with all of this information for now. I realize my opinion got in the way at several points in the post but please know aside from my angry outbursts, everything in this post is research based, and has evidence to back it up. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you have and I will be more than happy to respond.
I hope this answers some questions for my friends and family who’ve asked me over the last year why we elect to be KJV only and attend a KJV only church. More than that, though, I hope this opens some eyes and hearts to research what you’re reading. I believe with all of my heart that the KJV is the inspired word of God and that it is the truest version we have. I would never tell someone to get rid of their bible version or to pick up and follow me. I only ask that you look into the research and more than that, into the word of God for answers.
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12