King James Only?

By Dan Baxley

servant@yahshuaservant.com

King James Version only?  So what? What is the big deal? Hasn’t the King James Version been the standard for hundreds and hundreds of years, I mean since the Apostles of the Christ (joking)?  Doesn’t it make sense that the Creator would have only one Bible?  Why do we need all of those other versions anyway?  And if this is true doesn’t it make sense all those modern versions are an assault on the truth?  These questions are but the tip of the issue. And, forgive me for being, well, sarcastic in the above questions.

 I hope to show, by this study, a danger in accepting such a simple thought as “King James Only”.  Limiting the Words of God to a single version or translation is a diabolical plan by the unseen spirit world to actually discredit the Words of our Creator and Savior, YaHshua.

Perhaps some are unaware there is a movement circulating through parts of the Christian community promoting the "King James Only" doctrine and this is not something new, it has been around for sometime now, ever since the King James Version came into being as a matter of fact .  What is astounding is it is being held high as sound doctrine, proclaimed to be the only way to understanding the true “salvation” of the Living God.  All other versions are boldly proclaimed as the works of the Satan.  We are not talking about just any KJV, no, we are talking about the 1611 version, the original version, which has gone through several revisions.

Update 09/01/2011 -- Perry Stone in his book, Breaking the Jewish Code, pages 44-45, gives a very good report on just how exacting the Jewish scribes were in their duties of copying the ancient writings.  He points out how they counted the letters to make sure the total used corresponded with the text they were copying.  He lists the rules they followed in copying text and how it was reported the scribe would rise from the copy table and go wash his hands every time he came to the Name of the God of Israel before copying it.  The list of rules Perry outlines demonstrates the seriousness in the craft of the scribes and their adherence to accuracy.

Perry reports on the famous "Isaiah scroll", which is on display at the Israel Museum Jerusalem (http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/index.html), and this scroll when compared to the KJV, as Perry reports, "...they were both parallel..."  Astonishing and true, to a point, as Perry goes on to report, "...with the only exceptions being a few minor spelling differences and tense-oriented scribal errors."   I other word, it is accurate "except for these errors".  It is true, the Isaiah Scroll is the most complete copy of the Hebrew Scripture found to date and it does prove and accuracy of our modern day translations, not only the KJV, and has nearly put a stop to the incessant criticism  charging the Holy Bible is only a work of men -- which is true -- inspired work -- but the argument was the words of this book could not be trusted, historically, because men could not be trusted to report correctly.  The Isaiah Scroll proves them wrong as the errors are so minor in comparison to the modern day translations, which includes the KJV 1611, as to seem a miracle, and it is.  But without error, Inerrant, even the mistakes are inspired?  Hardly, and to suggest our Creator deliberately put errors on our way is totally wrong.  What man supposes to be an error and later finds to be true point to the fact the supposed error was not an error at all.

Perry goes on to tell us that even the spelling errors are inspired and that the Jewish rabbis discovered these supposed spelling and scribal errors actually turn out to be some kind of code and revelation not understood at the time.  Anyone not agreeing with this is called ignorant.  First we need to let common sense rule and proceed with caution.  What the Rabbis did not understand was the supposed errors which were not errors at all, it was merely something they did not yet understand.  There is a difference, between "error" and "supposed error".  Perry reports the Rabbis left certain errors in place because they did not understand them and why would they do that?  What is true is the Scribes and the Rabbis, in their fastidious approach to copying text, they assumed certain things written were errors but feared changing them not know what to change to due to a lack of understanding and to their credit did not take things into their own hand in certain cases.  You see, they did not understand certain things concerning the "plan" of YHWH and out of fear of making a "perceived error" worse they left the text as is.  This was only for those things they admitted being ignorant of.  When it came to errors they felt confident in they made changes to align with what they felt they knew.  An error that is not an error and proves to be truth, later, was never an error in the first place. 

It is the practice of some to call anything they do not understand as an error, or a mistake.  This happens when doctrine is set only to discover the doctrine is based on a proven error, or is proven to be a mistake.  Some will cling to the doctrinal error, unwilling to admit a mistake, to make the change to the truth. 

Another major point in what Perry Stone reports, which is not just his position, what he reports is an accepted and true view according to Jewish methods and scribal text, and this point made is that the scribes wrote in "consonants" only, meaning they did not supply "vowels" and so, when read, the "vowel" sounds had to be supplied by the reader when reading aloud or mentally in a private reading.

The missing "vowels" were added later and this is the twist, which Perry neglects to mention, the vowels were used to hide certain pronunciations, like the Name of the God of Israel.  We find this in the Jewish name for our Savior.  This name, Yeshua, has place a "vowel" (e) after the "consonant" Y and dropped the consonant, H, which the knowing reader is to supply mentally, but few do and most now merely leave the "H" out and continue mispronouncing His Name as Y eshua (Yes shua) as opposed to the original YaHshua -- some say, YeHoshua, either way the "H" is restored.  This is a huge example of good intentions going wrong, creating an error, concerning the truth of our Creator's true Identity and the Identity of our Savior, YaHshua.  When you see this you then see the great and terrible error of the KJV, especially the 1611 version which is nearly unreadable to the modern reader.  The 1611 has a major error and it concerns the true identity of our Savior.  The 1611 KJV tells us our Savior's name is "IESVS", later revisions, which are not to be accepted, change this to IESUS, and then again to JESUS.  Not one of these names is correct and if we are to believe Perry Stone and others claiming the 1611 KJV is identical with the original Hebrew then why do they use the bogus name JESUS when the 1611 plainly has it as IESVS? Go to these links for more on the Name of our Lord and Savior, YaHshua --  The Name Origin -- Original Name and Names do Matter

Please if you have never heard of this before, bare with me and continue reading because the day is coming when you will hear of this KJV Only movement and may even receive pressure to conform to this error.  Already the vast majority of Christians have accepted the bogus name, Jesus, in place of our Savior's birth name.   It is amazing how this false teaching has gained in popularity, as witnessed in Perry Stone's book and a many others claiming the KJV is the only "inspired" version, or suggests that, or lets you believe that.  Make no mistake, books like Perry Stone's can be beneficial in challenging out thinking and filled with good, useful, information and can be a great read, but we need to be on our guard in the slight of hand used by some to direct you into accepting something the masses may accept as fact but you, as a follower of YaHshua, must reject, uncover and be willing to expose.  You need to be aware and be prepared with an answer to this and other false teachings.  With a little forethought on the subject you should be able to protect yourself.  With the rest of this study I hope to encourage and help you do just that.

Modern Versions Are Bad?

  Articles have been written, pamphlets printed and books published demonizing “modern versions” of the Holy Bible and giving unquestioned loyalty to the King James Version Bible.  It is touted as being the only Holy Spirit Authorized Version.  It is claimed to be the only Bible Version God Almighty has “authorized” and to use of any other version is the work of the Devil.  I have heard preachers on internet radio puffed up in self-righteous indignation in the promotion of this evil idea and I will demonstrate this.  The very thing they accuse others of they are guilty and that is the distortion of the Word.  First, my friends, the King James Version was not "Authorized" by God but by King James.  You might say the KJV Bible is a "government" bible, commissioned by the government, paid for by the government, distributed to the churches by the government and deemed by the King as the only "Authorized" version acceptable to the government for readings on the Sunday Sabbath (more on this later).  We have today, teachers attempting to push the modern translations aside as works of devils and promoting a government issued bible as the sole work of the Living God.

The pride of these self-appointed linguist is in stark contrast to the attitudes I have seen among those involved in the work of translating the scriptures into modern language, or modern tongue, if you please.  Certainly I have had some strong words for the translators myself, but my gripe goes back to the “revisionist” and I personally see the King James Version as that, a “revision”, in fact it is a multiple “revision” – you will see why later.  For now let me give you a couple or three references from the ‘King James Only” camp that you might want to look up for yourself:

1.            God Wrote Only One Bible, by Jasper James Ray, copyright 1955-1970.  Published by The Eye Opener, Junction CityOregon.

2.            Bible Versions – Which is the REAL Word of God? By David B Loughran.  Copyright 1999 -- Published by DeaconBrothers, Scotland

3.            New Age Bible Versions, by G. A. Riplinger.  Copyright 1995 -- Published by A/V Publications, Virginia  (690 pages of misinformation, false logic, misconceptions and misdirection. A favorite of the conspiratorial TV preacher, Texe Marrs)

 I will not attempt to cover all of the material mentioned as the volume of information is not an indication of correctness and at times is used as an attempt to so inundate the reader in an attitude of, “it must be true, there is so much material”, when in fact the opposite is true ("Thou does protest too much" -- comes to mind).  So, for my purposes here I will use some quotes and examples from their material but in the end it will be logic and pure common sense that will prevail as their stance does not stand on Scripture but on the words and actions of men.  

KJV ONLY 1611 Edition

The beauty and elegance of the King James Version Bible cannot be denied, and boy is it hard to read, in fact, the original 1611 is near impossible for the modern reader to read let alone understand.  As eloquent as it may be, in its Shakespearean pattern,  it is not a version for today’s modern reader.  The modern reader may even disagree with the “beauty and elegance” statement finding it awkward and difficult or impossible to read nearly impossible to understand.  If you have never seen a 1611 edition I have presented an image of the first page of Matthew at the end of this article. 

Several “revisions” of the 1611edition have appeared down through the years which is problematic for those teaching the KJV Only concept.  I have a “word-for-word” reprint of the original 1611 and it is going back into reprint by popular demand.  To me this is like going back to button shoes, interesting, yes, and part of the history of the Holy Bible's progression to the improved translations we have today.  These new reprints of the 1611edition are virtually all "word revisions" attempting to make the KJV of 1611 a little more palatable.  Most in the Christian Communities are familiar with the 1982 revision. 

Revisions and more Revisions

Here is a brief record of the 1611 KJ revision:  From 1611 to the first revision of 1616, then 1629 followed by the 1638 revision and it does not stop there, another revision in 1762, again in 1769 and after this it really gets crazy with the 1881 New Testament revision, followed by 1885 then leading into the American Standard Version.  For the KJV the latest revision was in 1982, and, of course, there is the New King James Version attempting to update the KJV bringing it into the 20-21st centuries.  As you can see the need for revision of the original 1611 began right away, within 5 years, then again 13 years later and again, 9 years later. 

The major revisions most common among the Christian population is the 1881 (Westcott & Hort New Testament) but the KJV Only preachers and teachers would have us all revert back to the original 1611 edition based in an obsolete language far removed from present day English.  Why?  Because their position is that the original KJV, commissioned by King James, is really the only Bible the God of Heaven recognizes the only "inspired" words.  Let’s take a look at the dedication page of the 1611 KJV.  This "dedication" page is dropped from most newer printings of the KJV and is rarely mentioned by other translations -- in fact it is never mentioned.

The Epiftle Dedicatorie

Beginning with a little common sense let me quote from “The Epiftle Dedicatorie” of the 1611 Edition (in other words, "The Dedication" pages to King James) – I will present this quote just as it is seen in the original 1611 Edition, and please understand, this “dedication” page has been removed from the “modern” KJV -- you will see why.

Please note the spelling in the following is not in error.  The apparent misspellings are from the original, dating 400 years ago, was correct, for that time, and this leads to some interesting word types.

****

The Epiftlee Dedicatorie:

“TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTIE

 Prince, IAMES, by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith &c.

THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE,

Wish Grace, Mercie, and Peace, through IESVS

Christ our LORD.”

****

My Note: I will not quote the full two pages, except for this last paragraph as it gives you the flavor of everything before.  Again, just as originally printed:,,

****

“The LORD of Heauen and earth blesse your Maiestie with many and happy dayes, that as his Heauenly hand hath enriched your Highnesse with many singular, and extraordinary Graces; so you may be the wonder of the world in this later age, for happinesse and true felicitie, to the honour of the Great God, and the good of his Church, through IESVS Christ our LORD and onely Sauiour.”

****

The J has it

Isn’t it interesting How the “i” is used in place of the letter “J”.  The reason for this is, of course, the “J’ as we know it today did not exist as a consonant and was an "i" with a tail and eventually becoming a different letter with a sound of its own.  Some point to Martin Luther and his German translation as responsible for changing the name, Iesvs, to Jesus, because he used the "i" with the tail.  The problem with that is, however, the original translation of the KJV "authorized", the 1611, used the "i", following the Latin in this.  Later, it is my opinion, the name was changed by the English revisionist in order to make the break with the Roman Church even more certain.  Go to this link for more on this -- “Jesus is Not His Name”.

Common sense will tell you that there is a need for modern translations, or revisions, no one speaks old English anymore much less write it.  The letters have changed and in some cases dropped from word types we use today.  Notice the use of the “v” in place of the “u” and the “u” in place of the “v”.  See how the name of our Savior is presented, IESVS, not even close to His birth name, YaHshua.  This corrupted spelling of our Savior’s name is throughout the whole text of the original 1611 Edition and is only similar to the modern version of JESUS.  How do the KJV Only people answer this?  They don’t, they use the “revised” name of JESUS instead of the original 1611 IESVS.  Just from this alone I believe common sense will tell you what the truth is.  If you need additional help from the Spirit then pray about it.  Sometimes what seems so plain to one may not be so plain to another.  Certainly we are not all given the same degree of “discernment” at the same level, nor at the same time.  But I believe this is not really a matter of “discernment”.  Surely common sense must prevail here.  The Chinese do not speak Old English anymore than we do here in the United States.  There is most definitely a need for modern translations whether in English or Chinese.  What is the Savior’s name in Chinese?  Simple, it is the same as it is in English, YaHshua.

Ban the KJV?

No, of course not, and yes, everyone should have a copy, it is a wonderful version and a great achievement coming out of the dark ages.  Perhaps not a 1611 edition as it is very difficult to read. For bible study a modern “revision” of the KJV along side a good modern translation I believe is a good start toward studying the recorded Words of our Creator.  We should all give due respect to the KJV as it is really the culmination of many translations before it.  The KJV bible we have today, beginning with the 1611 edition owes its life to the works of men like Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Cloverdale, and Rodgers to name but a few.  Many gave their lives at the burn stake. Wycliffe was one of the first to buck the establishment and while he survived to die of natural causes, unlike many that followed after him, the religious powers of the day had his bones dug up and burned.  Government approved they were, yes indeed, the “Roman"Church leaders could reach into the grave to punish the innocent.  They didn’t get to do that while he was alive but they were not to be denied, burn him they would and they did.

 Now, who would do such a thing?  The established government approved religion of course, heady men frocked in their own righteousness given too much authority -- one would have to say they were drunk on the blood of the Saints, perhaps, acting like a crowd of drunken men they took pride in self-righteous revenge against any that dared say they were wrong or challenge their authority -- a wonderful seed bed for Satan to water.  

They, those men of religion, did not want anyone producing copies of the sacred word putting it into the common vernacular, on penalty of death -- can you imagine such a thing today?  Certainly they had to protect the purity of the Holy inspired word by keeping it out to the hands of the common reader, after all, what could the common, low people, make of it?  In their exuberance they murdered God fearing men for attempting to educate the public and undermining their precious authority.  Does this sound familiar?  I wonder what the KJV Only preachers would do if they had absolute power, as did the Roman Church in those days?  How big would their book burning fires be and how long would it be before they would be burning fellow Christians in those fires?  Believe me, I have listened to some of the sermons given by some of these KJV Only preachers and heard  "praise the Lord" shout outs from the audience as these men pounded the pulpit, literally, and verbally.

The Mother Church of Rome wanted to keep the holiness of the writings they possessed -- holy inspired words the masses could not possibly understand -- after all, they could hardly understand them themselves. They had the scriptures under lock and key to be read and studied by selected priest, after all these word were dangerous if allowed to fall into the wrong hands.  They, the Roman Church, owned nearly all of the ancient manuscripts and one of the only complete Bibles in Old and New Testaments, the Codex Vaticanus.  The Latin Language, you see, had been considered the holy language and must be protected at all cost.  Forget the languages coming to them from ancient sources are in Greek, or Aramaic or Hebrew, the Mother Church, by authority of the Pope (PaPa, of the Papacy or PaPa see?) would decide the fate of many that would go against her (him), refusing Latin as the language of angels and begin translating from the Greek and Hebrew into languages of the common people would result in the death penalty.  This attitude of a holy language, like the Roman Church of old, is still alive, found among the teachers of this false doctrine of Holy Language, carrying it on with the perceived holiness of the KJV.

The King James Version Bible has been "revised" several times, and still proves difficult for today's modern reader.  The Bible tells us that in the end days, "knowledge shall be increased" (Dan 12:4), that is a true prophetic statement.  No one can deny that in these modern days knowledge is increasing faster than anyone can track.  What this means for the King James Version, or should, is modern translations should be superior to that of the KJV.  Anyone holding to the KJV as being inspired above all other works must then answer the question as to which of the KJV "revisions" do they read and study?  The three main revisions of this work -- 1638, 1769, 1982?    Believe me, the original KJV of 1611 is nearly unreadable, it is hard on the eye and distracting in its odd appearance and spellings thus the need for revisions.  But, should the revisions have stopped?  There is a version of the KJV that is called the New King James Version (NKJV) that actually updates the old English style into the modern style of speaking while doing its best to maintain and preserved the “word for word” status assigned to the KJV. 

Let me recommend a very good book on this subject, by Donald L. Brake, "A Visual History of the English Bible" and as I review this Book for my readers I would like to quote from page 190 --

"It may be a surprising to learn that the King James translators did not work directly from the Greek and Hebrews texts.  The King James Version revised the many previous English versions and was guided by the Greek and Hebrew.  By now a fully developed philosophy of translation and emerged from previous work on translations.  Richard Bancroft, bishop of London, set the ground rules for the new translation.  Unlike Wycliffe, these men incorporated various established rules and principles for guiding the style and accuracy of their work.  Bancroft constructed fifteen translation principles to cover the work.  The first of these stated that the Bishops’ version would form the foundation Bible to act as the guideline and would be altered only when the truth demanded it. 

  It is well known today that the King James Version is not in modern English.  But neither did the translation of 1611 use the common language of its day.  The application of translation rule fifteen prevented the use of extensive modern language (the English used in 1611).  This rule lists the earlier English versions to be used when they agree and represent the original text.  They included Tyndale’s (1506), Matthew’s (1537), Coverdale’s (1535), the Great Bible (1539), and the Geneva (1560). 

Page 193, of this same work under the title, “Whatever happened to the original manuscript to the 1611 version?”  And the answer is --

“Could it be that it was destroyed in the great fire of 1666?”  Followed by – “Others believe the original “manuscript copy” was a fully annotated Bishops’ Bible rather than an actual handwritten copy.”  In other words, they do not know.

 It seems no one has a clue, but what is consistent is a fact most disturbing, or should be for the KJV Only preachers, there was no known original copy of the original production of the first KJV bible turned over to the printer.   It is assumed there must have been such a copy and most likely there was but it seems to be lost.  While the KJV is a tremendous work it is not God writing the Bible, it actually is a work being completed with a message for all mankind, held miraculously intact in spite of all the faults.

The genius of this is like that of “The Adversary” (Satan) being used to refine those chosen in each age to enter the Kingdom, the very being wanting to see mankind destroyed is himself used as a tool to perfect the saints.   Using the enemy to deliver the message and to reveal things hidden, for if Satan or devious men could see the hidden things clearly they would know exactly were to pollute word, but they are in the dark so men stumble around making mistakes and entering errors by accident and under the influence of Satan (the Adversary) our Savior’s Name gets changed over time but even Satan must wait to see what the future holds, he is only guessing.  You see, most of this confusion concerning the KJV is to cover the change made to our Savior's Identity.  He desires to have men worship him, or anything else seeming to be a god and most of all,  to call on any name but the original birth name of our Savior, the only Name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12) and to encourage men to call on a name that never existed in the first century.  The KJV is used as a cover for this astounding truth, that YaHshua is Savior, not Jesus and not Iesus or Iesous but YaHshua (Rom 14:11, Joh 3:18, Php 2:9-11), the KJV, of course, replaces the original Name of our Savior with the bogus name, Jesus (1611, Iesvs).

  While the KJV is a tremendous work and has stood the test of time, it is not God writing the Bible, it actually is a work being completed with a Message for all mankind held miraculously intact in spite of all the faults and interference from men.  The genius of this is like that of “The Adversary” (Satan) used to refine those chosen in each age to enter the Kingdom.  Imagine, if you can, using the enemy to deliver the message and to reveal things hidden, for if Satan or devious men could see the hidden things clearly they would know exactly were to pollute the word, they would not be able to help themselves, but luckily they are in the dark, so men stumble around in the dark making mistakes and entering errors by accident.  This, of course, give the Adversary, Satan, the opportunity to add his bit and it is a dozy -- under the influence of Satan (the Adversary) our Savior’s Name get changed, not changed really, but replaced. 

Still, the KJV Only people reject this. King James and only King James, attempting to press the 1611 version back into service.  Some accept the modern revisions of the KJV but others do reject these modern revisions, to their own harm and that of their followers, claiming the 1611 version is the only one to use as all others are of Satan.  When some, so called Christian leaders, take this position I do not have to wonder about who the wolves are.  If you are being duped by these types get away as soon as possible, they are not true servants, how could they be, they try to tell you our Creator is inspiring error, the KJV is not perfect and the 1611 version is less perfect than all other revisions.  You may as well go back to the Latin, or even the ancient Greek which no one uses today, and only a few scholars can read.  Even then the Latin and the Greek corrupt the Name of our Savior, a Name by which we must all be saved (Acts 4:12).  The idea that the Greek is an inspired language is the same as the claim Latin is the language of angels, or a holy language.  Both ideas are wrong and when taken as truth other error enters in and the denial of our true Savior is usually the result. 

The false teacher's position is plain, KJV Only, everything else is a Satanic plot -- ridiculous.  The exact same argument the Mother Church of Rome used to slay anyone for producing any translation other than in Latin, and then only by whom they approved.  Of course the MotherChurch finally capitulated and began to fight fire with fire, no, the other fire, the fire of words as the PaPacy began losing control over England.  The representatives of Mother Church burned as many as they could, believers and non-believers alike, all in the name of their god (Iesvs) but were unable to stop men such as Tyndale, whom they eventually caught and out of respect, first strangled, then burned at the stake. 

The fire of words would ultimately lead to the production of a translation into the English language  from the "Latin” – in 1582 a Roman Catholic New testament version published in Rhemes, France.  The Old Testament was published later around 1609 at Douy, France.  Both of these translations were drawn from the Latin Bible, held for so long as the only truly inspired Bible.  Ironically, the Latin Bible proved to be pretty accurate when compared to the, so called, inspired Greek, and why not, the Roman Church possessed some of the oldest, if not the oldest complete Manuscripts of complete Greek translations from which the Latin copies were made.  Also, this translation, the Rhemes Douy, drew on others before it also, such as, the English Geneva Bible and the Coverdale’s Regault, a French edition used in comparisons of their work, all in an attempt to demonstrate the accuracy of their Latin version to the English, which actually turned out pretty good.  Imagine all of those courageous men delivered to the burn stake by the very people that would capitulate and begin doing the same thing -- translating the Holy Bible into other languages.

It is difficult for me to understand this kind of thinking, then I remember, not too long ago I too had fallen into this trap, thinking the KJV, taken from the “inspired” Greek, had to be the inspired, Holy Spirit approved Scriptures -- It is beyond me, today, to continue in this confused line of thinking.  The idea the KJV has Holy approval and is inspired over other translations seemed plausible considering the doctrines I had accepted while affiliated with a Church group claiming divine inspiration itself – after all, the doctrinal issues being taught had the KJV as the center piece in support of their flawed teachings.  They, the group I once supported (not a KJV only) did not teach the other modern translations were of the Devil but they did play on words based on the KJV expressions and confused wording, in some cases, to teach pet doctrines.  They did accept and teach the KJV as a word for word straight from the Original Inspired Greek which, it turns out, is not true.  If anything the KJV is from many other previous translations, like that known as the Bishops Bible.

God of Israel Denied

The idea had never occurred to me that all other versions are of the Devil.  It never entered my mind then or now, but that is what these KJV preachers and teachers are stressing, and that is what sent my radar up.   My biggest eye opener came when I began to understand that all of the translations, save a couple of obscure versions, had abandon the use of the Holy Name of our Savior, mentioned earlier, and are, in fact, denying the true identity of the God of Israel, YHWH, replacing His Name with a title (LORD). 

Our Savior Denied

Lacking this information, changing, dropping or using titles as opposed to His given Birth Name, or replacing the Name of our Creator in the Hebrew Scriptures with a "title" effectively hiding His Name and going to great lengths to cover this truth up brought all of the translations, versions, and even the Greek writings (copies) into question for me.  I could see the error of accepting the false teaching KJV as the only Holy Inspired bible translation -- seeing doctrines based on obscure, hard to understand wording of the KJV, making it necessary for the student to rely on the teacher to explain it to you -- I could see that, but to ignore the Holy Name of our God and Savior?  Now, that is, or appears to be Satanic, and I hesitate to say that but what else could be the answer when all translations universally deny His Birth Name, even change His Name?  The modern translations diminish much of the KJV error but do nothing to correct the avoidance of His Name.  Go to this link for more on this -- Names do Matter

I did use the KJV as my main study bible but I was willing to use modern translations like the NIV as a helper and as the benefit grew I obtained several other translations to assist in the understanding of the KJV, I also used various dictionaries and word study guides.  One day I began to notice that all of the wording corrections and clarifications I had made in the borders of my KJV bible were all confirmed by the notes, and sometimes the literal translations, found within the margins of the newer translations.  Obviously it became apparent to my small mind that my study bible was inferior to the newer translations and study bibles -- I was playing catch-up. I had spent hours clarifying the wording and the meanings of the KJV by the use of all of the study aides provided for this translation, only to find those much smarter than myself had already done the work and had really made it much easier to read and understand in the process.  I was wasting my time.  Still, to this day, the bible study aides are use the KJV as the center piece and I am still using my KJV and the Commentaries and other works, like the Strong's concordance Dictionary in my studies as indispensable tools.

I must say, however, I had been using the KJV for so many years that in reading it my mind would automatically convert all of the "thees" and "thous" and other archaic words into modern, up to date, usage.  Gradually I began to wean myself off of the KJV and its many errors in language and away from dubious verses that had found their way into the pages of scripture from unknown sources.  In my studies I began to discover that notes from translators of the past had crept into the main text of the KJV, as some of the scribal margin notes ended up in the main body of text.  Okay, some of you might call that being inspired but I call it sloppy work but thanks to the modern translations much of this has been uncovered and made note of in their own notes.  We must remember, notes are not Scripture, they are only notes.

Let me give you an example of innocent tampering with the scriptures.  Before the KJV, Martin Luther, and others like Tyndale had spent years producing translations into their native languages, this, of course, as mentioned earlier, drove the Roman Church mad, so mad the authorities in that Church wanted to kill everyone that dared to make a common translation of the words of God -- These pioneers of biblical criticism, going against the Roman Church, would write notes in the margins of the translations they worked on.  (I do not feel the need to go into all of the historical points as these are easily accessed in any book on the history of the church in Europe, and in the numerous books on how we got the Bible – I will list a couple at the bottom of the page).  By the time the KJV bible came into production under the commission of King James as a government approved Bible, these scholars, used the translations of earlier works, and used many of the notes to aid in explaining what they thought the scriptures were saying.  These notes were later worked into the word to aide in understanding how and why the translator came to the translation of a particular verse, even to the point of adding his own belief on a particular subject, a biased opinion.  Later, when the “revisionist” were at work and some translators too, they incorporated many of these notes into the original text.  Some dubious worker, or workers, actually inserted doctrines of their own, right into the body of the text and it has taken years of biblical scholarship to search these things out and correct them, or at least to enter a foot note to alert the reader to the, sometimes, obvious error. Check out the forward found in many KJV bibles and you will see a comment concerning words and phrases placed in italic as an indicator this word or words is not found in the original.  That’s right not all of the words are from the original authors or found in previous version but is the attempt by the translators to make sense of what they are comparing among these previous versions into the English.  The KJV was not a translation from the so called original Greek.  The Greek and Hebrew were used as guides but were not the declared "word for word" some have bought into.  Comparing a couple of previous versions, the Bishops Bible and that of Tyndale one can see a nearly word for word from these two, especially the Tyndale version of the New Testament.  What do the KJV only people say in answer to this?  “That even the “errors” are “inspired” – what else can they say – what a justification for following obvious error, and how can you argue against such flawed logic?

Some examples of scribal error:

The teaching of the Trinity doctrine is based almost entirely on a bogus scriptural insertion – “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7 KJV)  -- this verse is not found in the inspired (so called) earlier Greek manuscripts.  It does not appear in any manuscripts before 1600.  Do you think the Holy Spirit waited that long to add additional inspired words?

Here is a note from the NIV:  k7, 8 “Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.  And there are three that testify on earth: (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

Another note from the NIV Study Bible:  “5:7 three.  The OT law required ‘two or three witnesses’ (Dt 17:6; 19:15; see 1ti 5:19).  At the end of this verse, some older English versions add the words found in the NIV text note.  But the addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16^th century.

This is the very thing that drives the KJV Only nuts and pushes them to slander the modern translations as the works of Satan.  How can you argue against such logic, you can't.  They see the NIV and other modern translations ferreting out the errors of the beloved KJV, and needing to defend precious doctrines they have been teaching their captives, pointing their crooked finger and in trembling voice proclaim, “See, the work of the Devil”.  None are so blind as those that will not see – the blind leading the blind I guess you could say.

Remember, the purpose of this article is not to argue with those convinced in the infallibility of the KJV but to help you, in the body of the Messiah, to be prepared when and if you run into this false teaching, or teachers with an answer, or at least to be forewarned.  They are very aggressive in their accusations and speak from a thoroughly righteous heart convinced of their own error to be true -- deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim 3:13).  The accusations they hurl among their people are the very things they are guilty of.

Here is another, much bigger, example of a major KJV error, found in Mark 16:9-20.  Please turn to your own Bible and read it.  Those verses are not found in the earliest manuscripts, nor any other ancient witnesses.  In other words, there is no evidence any of the early Church leaders ever quoted these verses.  If you read these verses as inspired truth then I ask you, when was the last time you picked up “deadly snakes” as proof of your conversion?  When did you last drink poison?  There is a lot wrong with these verses, but still, verse 15 has been quoted over and over as a command from the Messiah to preach the Gospel to the world.  Some one has pulled a real joke on unsuspecting, new babes in the Christ, first commanding you to go into all the world preaching the Gospel to every creature then saying, “and these signs will accompany those who believe, in my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all, they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” (Mark16:15-16)  This all flies in the face of what happens in Acts 1:3.  Notice in the verses of Mark, the Messiah is supposedly taken up into heaven but this is not according the Acts, no in the book of Acts we see our Savior still with the disciples and other believers for 40 days more.  Obviously there is a problem here as at that time His command to them was to wait in Jerusalem until Pentecost.  Also, the suggestions of signs in Mark 16:9-20 following the believer leads to "tempting the Lord your God".

Do you want to read the last command of our Savior?  Then go to Revelation 22:10-11 (recorded by the Apostle John around 90 AD) and see what the angel of YaHshua commanded.  This is a far cry from what we are told by all of the preachers.  Preachers, by the way, picking and choosing only those things of Mark 16, they are comfortable with, ignoring the snake and poison thing.  Yes, there are some small groups in the south that do practice such things, and some of them die and some don’t, being rushed to the hospital for salvation, they tempt God and some pay the price.  Judging by Mark 16 I would have to say they are the true believers, however, not Benny Hinn, not Billy Graham, not any of the preachers on TBN -- when was the last time you saw them handling snakes and drinking poison?  Common sense, remember, tells you that there is something wrong with those verses and on of the first things should be, there is no witness for the snakes and poison, only a few verses not found in any other manuscripts dating back to the first century. 

The source of such nonsense should be obvious -- Satan has his prints all over it.  Satan is an artist at telling the truth with just the right amount of lies.  Of course you could always put this to the test if you are a KJV Only supporter and believe that even this error is inspired by the Holy Spirit, or should I say Holy Ghost, as the original KJV says?  I would not recommend drinking poison, however, let alone handling deadly snakes, that would be foolish, indeed.

Authorized Version

Ever wonder why the KJV is called the “Authorized Version”?  Well, the simple fact is that the KJV is a governmental authorization of the printed Bible.  That is where it gets its name, King James Version.  There is some very disturbing history surrounding King James and it has been the work of some to twist history in an attempt to paint King James as a true man of God – after all, he did commission the production of the KJV Bible.  We do not need to get into the colored past of King James.  It is enough to know that if the government of today were to commission a panel of priests to put together a government approved Bible, paid for by the tax payers, a cry would go up that would be heard around the world.  The one World conspiracy buffs would have a field day.  Imagine, the Beast commissioning the writing, possibly the rewriting of the scriptures – well, that is just exactly what happened, the Greeks had their Bible, though in pieces except for the Codex Vaticanus in the possession of the Vatican (possibly the oldest, near complete Bible both OT and NT dating around 325 AD), and the Romans had their Latin versions, then English King approved, then later the other versions approved by the Roman government given the seal of approval, albeit against their will initially, then the KJV a government approved Bible.

The Bible, the Holy Scriptures is a miracle indeed.  It is amazing that through it all it has survived and still to this day contains the purity of the message of salvation.  You do realize our Savior, the Creator of all things, could easily have given us a flawless book, what then?  We would have the same arguments and the same critics.  Do you suppose a book that everyone could read in their own language telling of the way to Salvation through and by the Creator of all things and revealing the Heavenly Father to all believers that will listen would change the hearts of the critics, or the hard-hearted scientist of evolution?  Do you suppose the atheist would suddenly find faith?  And with this perfect book would you be able to explain it any better?  Isn’t it better we argue over an inspired message that has the hands of man all over it as opposed to trampling on a truly Holy book written from heaven?  We, my friends, would not be worthy of such a book so we have what we have and it is a miraculous book even at that.  The Bible becomes a lot clearer and better understood as time presses closer toward the coming of our Savior.  With each new revision comes a better understanding, removing the cloud of ignorance as the older versions are fine tuned.  Certainly Satan would have us living in the past, way in the past when he went about destroying the people of the Living God at will.  We may see that day again and while the first century believers had close acquaintance with the original message, giving them the strength to face the hardships of temptations, some eye witnesses, we in the closing years have a more perfect word delivered to us that we can rely on to be as close to the truth as we can get as human beings -- trusting then in a more sure word of our Salvation.

  So, there you have it, the KJV, as an historic translation, was and is not the final word in the Word. I finally quit making the correction in my own KJV as the work had already been done and continues to be done as more light is shed on the words spoken so long ago.  Now, I find, I spend more time studying the word and what is being said than on proof reading the text.   

This has led to my collecting as many differing translations as I can afford. In this something of a miracle happened, well not a miracle really but then again – I could plainly see the Message of Salvation in each and every translation I owned.  The message of the Old and New Covenant is intact in each and every translation I have examined. The Message of the Gospel is in every one of these translations – I cannot repeat that enough.  A "miracle", that's what I say.  Some, I admit, I like better than others and I do prefer the NIV Study Bible as my study bible. It is a bible I found at a thrift store.  I still use the KJV and several others.  Imagine, if you will, the Holy Bible being translated into Chinese, what a blessing that would be for the called ones in China and far removed from the KJV.  I saw one once and it is a strange looking thing and to think the Gospel message of Salvation is in the pages of that funny looking writing and it becomes ever so obvious the arguing over the KJV is ridiculous. 

Here are some links to sites on this subject if you wish more information:

 http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

http://www.kjvonly.org/

http://www.kjv-only.com/

My email: servant@yashuaservant.com

  From any one of these sites you will find everything you need for an in-depth study of this subject.

   I would highly recommend the book, by Donald L. Brake, A Visual History of the English Bible.