top of page

Things You Did Not Know About KJ Bible!

When I found Jesus in the 70s, I went to a Bible House store and a King James was placed in my hands. My immediate exclamation was "Oh, it looks like Shakespeare, I can't understand it!" The girl was wise and said "I know what you need - a RSV (Revised Standard Version) Do you like this?" As she handed one to me. I've had an RSV for 10Yrs, a NASB (New American Standard Bible) for 10 Yrs and a NIV (New International Version) for 10 Yrs, followed by a NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) and a NLT (New Living Translation) since 2000. Plus reading Multi Translations Online (the internet) in 2014-2018 and have benefited much! Try BibleHub.Com and BibleGateWay.Com I've also had a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance since the 80s with all the original Greek and Hebrew words numerically listed and Verses in English alphabetically arranged for reference. In addition to this, I have the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Bible Study Volumes (in English) by Spiros Zodiates since the 90s but trying to read a King James Bible somewhat confuses me. Can any of you relate with that? Here, I am about to share some things I recently discovered about the KJB/KJV King James Bible. When looking for the Date (1604-1611) I found out it was written in Shakespeare's Language, who was a Poet and Play Writer at that time. That became the modern contemporary language in England of that Day and is referred to as Shakespearean. It stayed in vogue for 400 Yrs but the Church has not moved on in much of the preaching. Even though lots of preachers have moved on since NIV (New International Version) came out, many have not - they religiously persist with the King James Version and have 'dug their heels in'. You can't change them. And they keep referring to the Holy Spirit with that KJV title - I think that's so disrespectful, I never call him that! SHALL WE GO? Although the original texts of the Bible were inspired by God and are without error, the same cannot be said for later copies of the texts or translations made from them. Translators are human, and many have allowed their own religious biases to influence their work. King James Bible And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. English Revised Version And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. Holman Christian Standard Bible After the arrest, he put him in prison and assigned four squads of four soldiers each to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover. Weymouth New Testament He had him arrested and lodged in jail, handing him over to the care of sixteen soldiers; and intended after the Passover to bring him out again to the people. Another mistake in the King James and New King James versions is in 1 John 5:7-8.The latter part of verse 7 and first part of verse 8 did not appear in the Greek texts for the first 1,000 years after the Scriptures were completed. Around the year 500 this portion appeared in the Latin version known as the Vulgate. Apparently monks who copied the Greek New Testament text in the 14th or 15th century added this verse from the Vulgate. The verse from 1 John 5:7 should read, as hundreds of the oldest Greek texts and most modern translations read: “In fact there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are in agreement” (Revised English Bible). This refers to the witness of Jesus Christ being the Son of God (1 John 5:5). Weymouth New Testament For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Resources Refuting King James Onlyism King James Version (1611)‎: ‎Holy Ghost New King James Version (1979)‎: ‎Holy Spirit WORLD and AGE One of the most important mistranslations in the KJV is inside the New Testament with the phrase “end of the world”. In each case in the original Greek the word there for “world” does not trace back to “κοσμοσ” (cos-mos), which is their word for “world”. Every single instance the original Greek word was actually “αίων” (ah-KHEE-own), which is their word for “age”. Some might say it can mean world but let’s look at the gospel of Matthew. Four times the phrase “end of the world” shows up, again all were “αίων” in Greek. But some other times the word “world” in Matthew cosmos is used. Why would Matthew use different Greek words if he meant the same thing? Answer: he didn’t mean the same thing. He meant “age”, so he used “αίων”. What makes this so important is it shows there is no end of the world. If you look at Matt. 24:3, the disciples ask Jesus for the signs of His return and the end of the age. If you take that to heart and read Revelation 20, then you can make sense of it. When Jesus returns, that ends this age and begins a new age that will last a little over a thousand years. Without knowing Jesus’ return ends this age, Rev. 20 cannot be made sense of. The Gideon’s corrects those mistakes. KENITES and CAIN Another mistranslation that might be the most important, and there is no way this one was accidental. In Numbers 24:21,the word “Kenites” was correctly translated, but in verse 22 “Kenites” was mistranslated. I have contended that Kenites were of the line of Cain and this proves it. The original Hebrew word for “Kenites” was actually “Cain”. If you read those verses, you will see it’s conclusive that Kenites were of Cain. It proves it 100%. This mistranslation could not be innocent. Imagine if everyone knew that the Kenites came from Cain, it would enlighten many! JESUS and YESHUA Jesus wasn’t our Lord’s real name. Jesus is the English pronunciation of the Greek version of the Hebrew name Yeshua (or Y’shua). Y’shua means “God saved”. If you took Y’shua and directly translated it to English, it would be Joshua. I heard this many years ago from a Christian Bible Teacher, he was spot on about many things. Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water. John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law. Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc. From Angel Fire Besides that, sorry to have to inform those who don’t know (many do) Easter and Christmas have pagan origins, that’s why they are so mixed, and it goes deeper than that. Also, Sunday is the day of the Sun God…….the Roman Emperor CONSTANTINE was NO Friend of Christianity as some believe: The worst thing that could have happened to Christianity was to CHANGE God’s Institution into a State Institution. It was then,The Church waned in Power! Hence, much of the corruption we see to this Day. That all commenced in 300AD. That’s right, 300Yrs After the Early Church and has to do with the Apostate Era of the Church, Popes replacing CHRIST as Head of His Church. Ephesians says “Christ is the Head over ALL things pertaining to His Church”……….NO Man can TAKE that Role. When the Greek says PASSOVER it means Passover! And when it says HOLY SPIRIT it means Holy Spirit! I never did like that KJV term, I find it very disrespectful. The Spirit of God is HOLY……..Ghosts denote Evil, not Holy! Think about that. More about it in this article. DID YOU KNOW? Because of the Changes in Meanings of many English Words since 1600s: 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted as the times have changed through the years! Most evangelicals—who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith—prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation! I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those ‘mountains. ’ We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world that is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. From Bible Org KJV WAS NOT THE FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Some King-James-Only Christians believe that the King James Bible was the first English translation of the Scriptures. This belief, however, is incorrect. John Wycliffe’s Bible was translated from Latin into English and hand copied in the 1400s. In 1526, almost 100 years before the KJV was first published, William Tyndale’s English translation of the Greek New Testament was printed. A decade or so later, full English Bibles began to be printed. First came the Coverdale Bible (1535-1537) which used Tyndale’s NT, as did the Matthew Bible (1537). Then came Richard Taverner’s Bible (1539), closely followed by the Great Bible (1539-1541). The Geneva Bible (1556-1560) was published by and for Calvinist Puritans. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was based on the Great Bible and edited by Church of England bishops, partly, in response to the Geneva Bible.The Douay Rheims Bible (1582-1609) was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than Hebrew and Greek, for the Catholic Church.[1] THE TRANSLATORS OF THE KJV 1611 WERE UNTRAINED IN KOINE GREEK. Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament, but the KJV translators of the New Testament were scholars of Classical Greek and were unfamiliar with Koine Greek. Some believed that the Greek language of the NT was a unique, Spirit-inspired dialect.[6] It was not until the late 1800s and early 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyrus documents were discovered, many written in Koine, that we could begin to understand the language more fully.[7] Unlike the translators of the KJV, present day translators of the New Testament are scholars of both Classical and Koine Greek. CRITICISMS OF RECENT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS A criticism of newer translations is that some words and phrases, and even a few passages, that are included in the KJV, are absent in newer translations. These are not omissions. Rather, these words and phrases are additions in the Textus and Receptus and KJV. These additions are absent in the more ancient Greek manuscripts. Most modern translations still acknowledge the traditional additions in some way: in margin notes, in footnotes, or they are printed in a different font, etc. (More about the additional verses in the KJV here.) The King James Version is an excellent translation, but many of the recent English translations are better. I mostly read the New Testament in Greek, but the English Bibles I use, roughly in order of preference, are the Common English Bible (CEB), the New International Version (NIV 2011), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the King James Version (KJV). Most of the other, better-known English translations are fine too. It is most important that we read a Bible that we can understand. The New Testament was originally written in common, everyday Greek—a language that almost everyone in the Roman Empire (the world of the New Testament) could easily understand. We need modern English translations of the Bible that modern audiences can easily understand. Found Info HERE SOME DEFECTS ILLUSTRATED In Daniel vii., 9, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down," it should be exactly the reverse—were set up. In Matt. vi., 12, instead of "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," the reading should be, "as we also have forgiven our debtors" the thought being, that the petitioner should not ask forgiveness for himself until he has already forgiven others. In Matt. x., 23, "When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another," should read "flee ye into the next" thus conveying not merely the idea of going to some other place, but to the next town, and so on until they had proclaimed the gospel everywhere. In Mark ix., 22, 23, where the father, asking for the healing of his son, says, "If thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us," the Authorized Version makes Jesus reply, "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." But the approved text reads, "If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth." This form expresses surprise that the question of ability should be raised at all, when to the believer everything is possible. From Bible Researcher KJV ONLY Argument: The original KJV in 1611 AD when it first came out had no marginal notes.

  1. This is simply blind faith gone to seed!

  2. A statement based on wishful thinking without any proof and contrary to all known facts!

  3. The very first KJV had marginal notes. TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT THEM!!!

These marginal notes were added by the publishers and did not originate with the inspired translators.


  1. As if the publishers would have the knowledge to make such judgements of alternate manuscripts.

  2. As if the Translators would have silently allowed the publisher to confuse the readers after the Holy Spirit had told them which reading was authentic.

  3. The translators made clear reference to the need of the marginal notes in the original preface

  4. Click here to read it for yourself!

The original translators preface was not written by or authorized by the translators but was inserted against their wishes by the publishers. 1. As ridiculous as it is unfounded and without proof! 2. The last gasp of a dying false doctrine! The fact is, the marginal readings are NOT THE WORDS OF GOD and the TEXT IS. The translators did not KNOW that they were being guided to translate His word correctly, that much is certain. Just because they wrote in the margins doesn't mean the text is not accurate!

  1. Incredible!!! Imagine this. The KJV translators specifically dispel any notion that they were specially guided by God in the preface, but didn't know that what they wrote in the preface was wrong. God was inspiring their choices of manuscripts!

  2. Unanswerable question: "If the translators died not knowing they were inspired, HOW DID YOU FIND THIS OUT"???

From Bible CA Questions for "KJV only" advocates: Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769. What Bible would KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible. (they claim). Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV? If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant! If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation,why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language? If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers? Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates! If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it? When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct? In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible when reading? Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation) Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation? Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples.Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words) Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God? Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions where none exist? Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54) How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"? How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated? Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"? Is the KJV "scripture"? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16] WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18? Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed? Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from? Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611? Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"? What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist]. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604? Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible? If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23] If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement? Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16? Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19? Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"? Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek] Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? Not Likely!

From Bible CA KJV translates... and Textus Receptus actually says... "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)

Комментарии


bottom of page