KJV is Corrupt
KJV is Corrupt

KJV is Corrupt

What is the King James Version?

The King James Version (KJV), Originally known as the Authorized Version, is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England completed in 1611 under the sponsorship of king James of England, Ireland, and Scotland.[1] In January 1604, King James convened a conference, where the translation was conceived in response to the use of the Geneva Bible by the Puritans[2], a faction of reformers from the Church of England.[3] Instructions were given to the translators intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The translators were not allowed to add marginal notes like the Geneva Bible had.[4] King James cited two passages in the Geneva where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles of divinely ordained royal supremacy.[5]

English Bibles prior to KJV

William Tyndale translated the New Testament and published the first printed Bible in English in 1525.[6] Tyndale subsequently revised his New Testament based on advancing biblical scholarship published in 1534.[7] Tyndale had also partially translated the Old Testament but before it was finished was executed on the charges of heresy for having translated and published the bible in the common language. Despite this, Tyndale’s work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.[8] In 1539, Tyndale’s New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for the Great Bible. This was the first “authorized version” issued by the Church of England during the reign of King Henry VIII.[9] Later when the English Bibles were again outlawed, reformers fled the country and established an English-speaking colony at Geneva Switzerland.[10] These expatriates undertook a translation that became known as the Geneva Bible.[11] This translation, dated to 1560, was a revision of Tyndale’s Bible and the Great Bible and was based on the original languages.[12]

After Elizabeth I took the throne in 1558, the monarchy and the Church of England had issues with both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible, especially that the Geneva Bible did not “conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy”.[13] In 1568, the Church of England responded with the Bishops’ Bible, a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva version.[14] While officially approved, the Bishops’ Bible failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age.[15]

Geneva Bible – principal rival and motivation for the KJV

The Geneva Bible proceeded the King James Version by 51 years[16] and was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the 16th and 17th centuries, which was published from 1560 to 1644 in over 150 different printings.[17] As a product of the best Protestant scholars of its day, it became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers, thinkers, and historical figures of the time. The Geneva Bible was the primary Bible of 16th-century English Protestantism and was used by William Shakespeare,[18] Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan, author of The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678).[19] The Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible with them on the Mayflower to Plymouth in 1620.[20] In fact, the religious writings and sermons published by the members of the Plymouth colony suggest that the Geneva Bible was used exclusively by them.[21] William Bradford cited it in his book of Plymouth Plantation.[22] The Bible every Puritan family had in their home was not the KJV of 1609 or 1611, but rather the Geneva Bible.[23] The Bible’s popularity was greatest, therefore, wherever a strong Protestantism prevailed. Thus, the Geneva Bible was the preferred Bible of the Puritan clergy in England, Scotland, and America at the time.[24]

The Geneva Bible was a notable development from previous Bibles. It was the first Bible to use chapters and numbered verses. The primary reason it became the most popular version of its time is the more than 300,000 marginal notes included to explain and interpret the scriptures for the common people. It is these very study notes that were considered to be a threat to the monarchy.[25] While the Geneva Bible was the preferred Bible of Anglican and Puritan Protestants during the Elizabethan Age, King James I disliked the Geneva Bible and expressed his views at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 saying, “”I think that of all, that of Geneva is the worst.”[26] He felt strongly many of the annotations were “very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits…” In all likelihood, he saw the Geneva’s interpretations of biblical passages as anti-clerical “republicanism”, which could imply church hierarchy was unnecessary. Other passages appeared particularly seditious – most notably references to monarchs as “tyrants.”[27] It was feared that the need for a king as head of church and state could be questioned. James had been dealing with similar issues with the Protestant religious leaders back in Scotland, and he wanted none of the same controversies in England. Also, if annotations were in print, readers might believe these interpretations correct and fixed, making it more difficult to change his subjects’ minds. [28]  

Since the Geneva Bible was a political threat to his kingdom, King James commissioned and chartered the new Bible translation that would be to his satisfaction to be known as the Authorized Version – authorized to be read in churches. Instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops’ Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops’ Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.[29] Rather than being an original inspired work, the KJV was motivated by suppression of the truth in rendering various passages in a way that was favorable to the established monarchy and religious order of the time. In stark contrast, John Adams, the second president of the United States, wrote: “Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it most respect.”[30]

Influence of Latin and the Catholic Rheims New Testament

The Authorized Version exhibits more Latin influence than previous English versions. [31] Several of the translators had academic stylistic preferences and some admitted to being more comfortable writing in Latin than in English. The prohibition against explanatory notes also had an influence on this.[32] Where the Geneva Bible might use a common English word and describe its particular application in a marginal note—the KJV tended to exhibit technical terms from Anglicized Latin. Despite the instructions to use the Bishops’ Bible as a base text, the New Testament of the KJV is especially influenced by the Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators had also attempted to find English equivalents for Latin terminology.[33]

For the New Testament source text, the KJV translators primarily used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[34] which also present Latin texts. Moreover, the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. There are approximately 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza’s Greek text, and rather maintain the wording of the Bishop’s Bible and other earlier English translations.[35] Other readings were traced to the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus or corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot.

Although at least 80% of the KJV New Testament text is unaltered from Tyndale’s translation, the KJV borrows significantly from the Latin Vulgate[36] and the Catholic Rheims New Testament. While adopting readings form a wide variety of 16th century Greek manuscripts, the KJV also adopted several dozen readings that were in no printed Greek text. In these cases, the English of the KJV English derives directly from the Latin Vulgate.[37] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads “one-fold” following the Latin Vulgate whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, “one flock”. Since the KJV is supposedly, translated from original languages, it may be alarming to some that numerous words and phrases in the KJV were from the Latin Vulgate and not any Greek Manuscript.

The KJV as divine inspiration

It has been suggested by some KJV only adherents that those deciding to use Latin rather than Greek sources were divinely inspired.[38] Some go as far to state that the KJV is a “new revelation”, or “advanced revelation” from God.[39] A common argument among KJV only advocates is the presumption that if God provides truth through scriptural revelation, God must also ensure a preserved transmission of the correct revealed text. Their presumption of providentially preserved transmission gives them the assumption that Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the Greek autographs.[40] This is counter to modern textural criticism which has demonstrated that the texts were corrupted over centuries of transmission and have given us a systematic approach to evaluating what is likely the original reading in providing both a restored critical text and a critical apparatus for identifying significant variants.[41]

Although some King James only folks think the KJV the translators, were divinely inspired, the translators themselves did not.  They wrote, “The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the writer the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets.”[42] Later they wrote that “all truth must be tried by the original tongues, the Hebrew and Greek.” Accordingly, the King James translators believed that the authority of Scripture was in the original manuscripts of the original languages.

The KJV translators thought that that other English Bibles were inspired, even the poorest translations considering that they wrote, “Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest (worst) translation of the Bible in English is the Word of God.” This indicates that they believed that every translation was the inspired by God, no matter how inferior the translation. They also believed it was the mission of the translator to continually update the language, not because God’s Word is outdated, but because English changes. That is why the King James translators immediately started to revise the 1611 edition and came out with another in 1613 and another in 1629. The KJV translators wrote, “We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation… but to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” This implies that they regarded prior translations as good including that of William Tyndale, Coverdale and others. The translators saw themselves as imperfect and said, “neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done” and they advocated using a variety of translations saying, “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.”[43]

Interpretive bias and stylistic variation in the KJV

As opposed to the Geneva bible which is more consistent in rendering the same word into the common English equivalent, the King James translators employed various English words depending on their interpretation of the contextual meaning. While the translators stated in the preface that they used stylistic variation, finding multiple English words or verbal forms in places where the original language employed repetition, in practice they also did the opposite; for example, 14 different Hebrew words were translated into the single English word “prince”.[44] In cases where they should have used the same English for the same word in the original language, they did not. But also, when they should have used a greater variety of English equivalents corresponding for multiple words in the original language, they also did not.  

Inclusion of the Apocrypha

The Apocrypha are noncanonical books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible and was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D.[45] Many of these books are called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church. It has been argued that the Apocrypha should have never been included since Protestants reject it as Scripture. The inclusion of the Apocrypha is an indication that KJV’s should be questioned as being God-inspired. For example, Tobit 6:5-8 has a reference to magic and is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. 2 Maccabees 12:45 teaches purgatory. Although the 1560 Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, it was separated from the rest of Scripture and contained almost no marginal notes. Many later editions of the Geneva Bible did not contain the Apocrypha.[46]

KJV not an instant success

Initially the King James Version did not sell well when it competed with the Geneva Bible. The first and early editions of the King James Bible from 1611 lack annotations, unlike nearly all editions of the Geneva Bible up until that time.[47] Without extensive notes, the KJV was cheaper to print. The early growth of KJV in England was further facilitated by market manipulation whereas Geneva Bibles could only be imported into England with a large tariff and the KJV was authorized to be printed in England at low cost.[48] King James additionally took the step of prohibiting printing of new editions of the Geneva Bible to further entrench his version.[49]

Although published in 1611, it was not until 1661 that the Authorized Version replaced the Bishops Bible in the Epistle and Gospel lessons of the Book of Common Prayer. It never did replace the Bishops Bible in the Psalter (a volume of the book of Psalms for liturgical use). As the KJV grew in popularity, there remained some among scholars, clergy, and the common people, who still used the Geneva Bible, complaining that the meaning of the Scripture could not we well grasped without the annotations of Geneva Bible.[50] The Geneva notes were actually included in a few editions of the King James version, even as late as 1715.[51] Oliver Cromwell, preferred the Geneva Bible, when in 1643, he issued ‘The Soldier’s Pocket Bible’ to his troops – a 16-page pamphlet made up of extracts from the Geneva Bible. Not until 1769, when major revision of the KJV was released with revised spelling and punctuation, did widespread public perception change to the point of recognizing the KJV (Authorized Version) as being a masterpiece of the English language.[52]

Summary comparison with the Geneva Bible

The following table comparing the KJV with the Geneva bible serves to illustrate why the KJV should not be so highly regarded.

Geneva Bible of 1599

King James Version of 1611

Inspired by the Protestant Reformation

Resulting from Counter-Reformation motivations

Favored by the common people, Puritans, reformers, and the American colonists

Favored by the English Monarchy and Clergy

Bible of those seeking religious freedom

Bible of those seeking religious authoritarianism

Bible of enlightened writers including Shakespeare, William Bradford, John Milton, and John Bunyan

Bible of 17th century Anglican clergy

Utilized Common English

Utilized Anglicized Latin

Text is minimally interpretive (Greek words are translated more consistently using the common English equivalent)

Test is highly interpretative (various English words are used in different places for the same Greek word)

Extensive footnotes

Minimal footnotes

Succeeded because it was endeared by the people

Succeeded because of forced adoption, market manipulation and banning of the Geneva Bible

Textural corruption of the KJV

Over the centuries, as scribes copied and edited the New Testament manuscripts, additive interpolations crept into the manuscripts and various modifications were made in favor of Christian orthodoxy.[53] [54] Modern Scholars estimate of the number of non-spelling variants amount New Testament manuscripts in the range of 200,000 to 750,000.[55] [56] [57] While most of the variants are inconsequential, many of them are of a theological significance [58] The KJV embodies the fullness of corruption before the discovery and analysis of a wider body of early textural witness that occurred over the last few centuries.[59]

A number of verses in the King James Version of the New Testament are not found in modern Bible translations. [60]  Scholars generally regard these now omitted verses as verses that were added to the Greek texts.[61] The criterion for the editorial decision for excluding these passages was based on whether the tangible evidence indicated the passage was likely in the original New Testament text or was a later addition. This is in keeping with the principle of critical editing, as articulated by what Rev. Samuel T. Bloomfield wrote in 1832, “Surely, nothing dubious ought to be admitted into ‘the sure word’ of ‘The Book of Life’.” [62]

The KJV contains 26 verses and passages that are omitted or boxed in modern translations which are not likely original. These verses include Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 20:16, Matt 23:14, Mark 6:11(b), Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 4:8(b), Luke 9:55-56, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3-4, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, Acts 13:42, Acts 15:34, Acts 23:9(b), Acts 24:6-8, Acts 28:29, Rom 16:24, and the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8.[63] With respect to the long ending of Mark (16:9-20), there is strong reason to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels, as it has been stated by a notable critic, “According to the judgement of the best critics, these two important sections are additions to the original text from the apostolic tradition.” [64]

The KJV also exhibits orthodox corruptions in which verses were changed in support of Trinitarian theology. Twelve examples of theologically motivated corruptions in the KJV include Matthew 24:36, Mark 1:1, John 6:69, Acts 7:59, Acts 20:28, Colossians 2:2, 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 2:16, Jude 1:25, 1 John 5:7-8, Revelation 1:8, and Revelation 1:10-11.[65]

The source New Testament Greek texts used to produce the KJV were mainly dependent on manuscripts of the late Byzantine text-type.[66] With the more recent identification of much earlier manuscripts, modern textual scholars most carefully consider the evidence of manuscripts which belong to the Alexandrian family as earlier witnesses to the original text.[67] 

Erasmus and Comma Johanneum

The 16th Century Greek text Novum Instrumentum omne compiled by Desiderius Erasmus, later known as the Textus Receptus, was a major influence over the King James Version. [68] [69] Erasmus was a Catholic priest, and, unlike Luther and Calvin, never left the Roman Catholic church.[70] His third edition of 1522 was based on less than a dozen Greek manuscripts dating from the 12th to 16th centuries.[71] In some cases, Erasmus introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text although his Greek source texts did not contain them. Erasmus and other composite Greek texts associated with the Textus Receptus exhibited the cumulative effect of scribal changes over at least a millennium and vary widely with the earliest manuscripts dated within the first five centuries after Christ.[72] [73]

Erasmus came under fire that the first and second editions of his 16th century Greek text lacked part of the 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Johanneum), used to support Trinitarian dogma, while several Latin manuscripts had it. When questioned about this he stated that he had not found it in any Greek manuscript and, in a response to other opponents, further stated that this was not a case of omission, but simply of non-addition. He showed the even some Latin manuscripts did not contain it. [74] [75] With the third edition of 1522, the Comma Johanneum was added to his Greek text with the total number of changes being in 118 places with respect to the second edition.[76] Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum, because he felt bound by a promise to include it if a manuscript was found that contained it. After a single 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus) was that contained it, he decided to add it although he expressed doubt about the authenticity of the passage.[77] [78]

Mistranslations in the Authorized Version of 1611

Not only did the KJV translators rely on source manuscripts not then accessible to early-17th-century Biblical scholarship,[79]  there are also many differences in the Old Testament as compared to modern translations. These differences are a result of an inaccurate understanding of ancient Hebrew vocabulary and grammar by the translators. An example is that in modern translations it is clear that Job 28:1-11 describes mining operations, while this is not evident in the KJV.[80] Indeed, the King James version contains numerous mistranslations; especially in the Old Testament where the knowledge of Hebrew and cognate languages was uncertain at the time.[81] A commonly cited error is in the Hebrew of Job and Deuteronomy, where Hebrew word meaning wild-ox (likely aurochs) is translated in the KJV as unicorn (Num 23:22; 24:8; Deut 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psa 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa 34:7); following in this the Vulgate unicornis and several medieval rabbinic commentators.  Only in one place did the translators of the KJV note the alternative rendering, “rhinocerots” in the margin at Isaiah 34:7.[82]

On several occasions a Hebrew descriptive phrase is mistakenly interpreted as a proper name (or vice versa); as at 2 Samuel 1:18 where ‘the Book of Jasher’ properly refers not to a work by an author of that name but should rather be rendered as ‘the Book of the Upright’ (which was proposed as an alternative reading in a marginal note to the KJV text).[83]

In Jeremiah 49:1 The 1611 KJV read “why then doth their king inherit God”. This is an error which should read Gad and is corrected in modern translations.[84] Another blatant error, made by translators of the King James Version, is found in Acts 12:4, where the word Easter is used. In the original Greek, this word is pascha and refers to Passover, not Easter. Passover is a biblical festival mentioned in Exodus 12:11, Leviticus 23:5, Matthew 26:2, Matthew 26:17 and elsewhere in the Scriptures. In the New Testament of the KJV Greek word for Passover used is usually translated correctly as “Passover,” except in Acts 12:4, where it is erroneously rendered Easter.

KJV vs. Aramaic Peshitta

George Lamsa in translating the Bible from the Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta, identified numerous errors in the King James Version that are associated to misidentification of Hebrew words.[85] Grammatical difficulties exist, particularly in a language like Hebrew and Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew spoken by Jesus) where a single dot above or under a letter radically changes the meaning of a word. The lines in a manuscript can be crowded for lack of space and a dot placed above one letter may read as though it were placed under a letter in the previous line. An example given is the only difference in the words learned man and stupid man is a dot, over or under the word. Additionally, some letters resemble one another especially in manuscripts. Some of the most important mistranslations were due to the confusion of letters and words.

The following cases show the similarity of words and letters and how some of the mistranslations were handed down from one language into another. Based on this evidence, some believe the ancient Hebrew text was lost, and the Peshitta is the only text through which we can ascertain the ancient Bible text. 

Deuteronomy 27:16

Peshitta: Cursed be he who reviles his father or his mother…

KJV: Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother…

 

Deuteronomy 32:33

Peshitta: Their venom is the venom of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

KJV: Their wine is the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps.

2 Samuel 4:6

Peshitta: And behold, they came into the midst of the house; then those sons of wickedness took and smote him in his abdomen…

KJV: And they came tither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib …

Job 19:18

Peshitta: Yea, even the wicked despise me; when I rise, they speak against me.
KJV
: Yea, young children despised me; I arose, and they spake against me.

 

Job 29:18

Peshitta: Then I said, I shall become straight like a reed. I shall deliver the poor and multiply my days like the sand of the seas.

KJV: Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand

 

Psalm 144: 7,11

Peshitta: Stretch forth thy hand from above; deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of the ungodly.. Deliver me from the hand of the wicked, whose mouths speak vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood.

KJV:  send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of the great waters, from the hand of strange children… Rid me and deliver me from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood.

 

Ecclesiastes 2:4

Peshitta: I multiplied my servants …

KJV: I made me great works …

 

Isaiah 10:27

Peshitta: … and the yoke shall be destroyed from your neck because of your strength.

KJV: … and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.

 

Isaiah 29:15

Peshitta: Woe to them who act perversely to hide their counsel from the Lord; and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who sees us? And, Who knows what we do corruptly?

KJV: Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they  say, Who seeth us? And who knoweth us?

 

Jeremiah 4:10

Peshitta: Then I said, I beseech thee, O Lord God, surely I have greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem; for I have said …

KJV: Then said I, Ah, Lord God! Surely thou has greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying …

 

Ezekiel 32:5

Peshitta: And I will scatter your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your dust;


KJV
: and I will lay thy flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with thy height.

 

Obadiah 1:21

Peshitta: And those who are saved shall come up to mount Zion to judge mount Esau …

KJV
: And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau …

 

Micah 1:12

Peshitta: For the rebellious inhabitant is sick of waiting for good; for disaster is come down from the Lord to the gate of Jerusalem.

KJV: For the inhabitant of Maroth waited carefully for good; but evil came down from the Lord unto the gate of Jerusalem.

 

Habakkuk 3:4

Peshitta: And his brightness was as the light; in the city which his hands had established shall he store his power.

KJV: And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power.

 

Misattribution of Hebrews to Paul

The KJV title of Hebrews is “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews” which is erroneous.  Although there might be a Pauline association with Hebrews, later church tradition mistook Pauline association for Pauline authorship.

Clement of Alexandria (ca. AD 150–215) thought the letter was written by Paul in Hebrew and then translated into Greek by Luke.[86] Origen (ca. AD 185–253) said the thoughts are Pauline but suggested someone else made short notes and wrote up what the apostle taught and said.[87] Origen passed on the tradition that either Luke or Clement of Rome was the writer, but he remained noncommittal on the identity of the author. Most scholars believe Origen was agnostic about the author since he wrote, “But who wrote the epistle, truly only God knows.”[88] Tertullian (ca. AD 155–220) suggested that Barnabas was the author indicating there was no inclination in the early centuries in the West to ascribe the letter to Paul.[89] The majority of New Testament scholars today believe Paul did not write Hebrews. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther shared this judgment.[90] Even centuries earlier in the fourth century, the church of Rome did not believe Paul wrote Hebrews, possibly retaining a latent memory of the actual author.[91] The rejection of Pauline authorship of Hebrews is a long-standing position in church tradition.[92]

Pauline authorship should be rejected based on internal evidence. In Paul’s 13 letters he identifies himself by name, thus the absence of a name in Hebrews renders it doubtful that Paul wrote the letter.[93] The book of Hebrews itself indicates an author other than Paul since the style, except for the closing verses (13:18-25) is unlike any other writhing of Paul’s that have survived.[94] The most persuasive argument is the way the author refers to himself in Hebrews 2:3, stating that the gospel was confirmed “to us” by those who heard the Lord announce salvation.[95] Paul frequently made the point that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ and that the Gospel was confirmed to him directly. This would thus disqualify Paul as the author of Hebrews.

The poor readability of the KJV

Compared to modern translations the KJV has very poor readability. It uses archaic language that modern readers have difficulty in understanding. Because the meaning of various passages is often vague to modern readers, the KJV is often favored by sects who impose particular meaning to and derive doctrines from ambiguous passages. Elizabethan English is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to Christians. There are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language, i.e., suffer, filthy lucre, quick, lunatick, wax, charity, gay clothing, etc.[96] Also many words have a different meaning in modern use than they did when the King James Version was written. In the KJV the word ‘advertise’ means ‘tell,’ ‘allege’ means ‘prove,’ and ‘conversation’ means ‘behavior’, ‘communicate’ means ‘share,’ ‘take through’ means ‘be anxious,’ ‘prevent’ means ‘precede’, ‘meat’ is a general term for ‘food,’ and ‘anon’ and ‘by and by’ translate Greek words which mean ‘immediately’.[97]

The misuse of KJV today

The KJV is the ‘official’ translation of the Orthodox Church in America and is used liturgically for a whole generation of American Orthodox”. The King James Version is also one of the versions authorized to be used in the services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.[98] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues to use its own edition of the Authorized Version as its official English Bible. Adherents of the King James only movement also consist largely of members of evangelicals, fundamentalists Baptists churches and members of the conservative holiness movement.[99] These groups, by using an outdated and flawed translation, remain alienated from Biblical clarity as have been facilitated by textural criticism and modern scholarship.

Mormons have endorsed KJV as it serves their purpose to exalt the Book of Mormon (BOM). In the book of Acts, there are three accounts of the Apostle Paul’s conversion experience. Seemingly, as it is worded in the KJV, there are contradictions between these accounts of his salvation experience (Acts 9:7 cf. 22:9). They use this seeming contradiction to discredit the Bible as a means to exalt the Book of Mormon. This is a clear example of how the KJV’s obscured wording enables particular groups to propagate erroneous conclusions[100] as the critical review of 1763 stated, “Many false interpretations, ambiguous phrases, obsolete words and indelicate expressions … excite the derision of the scorner.”[101]

Other Christians in smaller fundamentalists sects often have a misplaced attitude of superiority based on identifying themselves with the KJV translation – one that they cannot even understand, but want all others to also read, who will also be misguided. What emerges is a kind of Gnosticism in which particular sect leaders may read speculative meaning into various passages and forward a new or strange “revelation.” On the contrary, the King James Version is corrupt and flawed it is not a version that should be used in the modern day.

KJVisCorrupt.com

Citations

[1] Wikipedia contributors, “King James Version,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Version&oldid=1013280015 (accessed March 22, 2021).

[2] Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. P. 435. New Haven, Conn: Yale University PressISBN 0-300-09930-4.

[3] Hill, Christopher (1997). Society and Puritanism in pre-revolutionary England. New York: St. Martin’s Press. ISBN 0-312-17432-2.

[4] Daniell 2003, p. 439.

[5] Daniell 2003, p. 434.

[6] Daniell 2003, p. 143.

[7] Daniell 2003, p. 152.

[8] Daniell 2003, p. 156.

[9] Daniell 2003, p. 204.

[10] Daniell 2003, p. 277.

[11] Daniell 2003, p. 292.

[12] Daniell 2003, p. 304.

[13] Daniell 2003, p. 339.

[14] Daniell 2003, p. 344.

[15] Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. p. 186. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-84747-7

[16] Metzger, Bruce (1 October 1960). “The Geneva Bible of 1560”. Theology Today. 17 (3): 339–352. doi:10.1177/004057366001700308

[17] Herbert, AS (1968), Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, London, New York: British and Foreign Bible Society, American Bible Society, SBN 564-00130-9.

[18] Ackroyd, Peter (2006). Shakespeare: The Biography (First Anchor Books ed.). Anchor Books. p. 54. ISBN 978-1400075980

[19] 1599 Geneva Bible

[20] Greider, John C. (2008). The English Bible Translations and History: Millennium Edition (revised ed.). Xlibris Corporation (published 2013). ISBN 9781477180518. Retrieved 2018-10-30. Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower […] brought with them copies of the Geneva Bible of 1560; printed in Geneva by Roland Hall.

[21] “The Mayflower Quarterly”The Mayflower Quarterly. General Society of Mayflower Descendants. 73: 29. 2007. Retrieved 2018-10-30. This Geneva Bible, one of the Mayflower’s precious books, belonged to William Bradford.

[22] https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/the-geneva-bible

[23] https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/the-geneva-bible

[24] https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/the-geneva-bible/the-1560-geneva-bible/

[25] https://genevabible.com/product/geneva-bible-patriots-edition/

[26] Wikipedia contributors. (2021, April 20). Geneva Bible. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 06:59, May 17, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geneva_Bible&oldid=1018975232

[27] Ipgrave, Julia (2017). Adam in Seventeenth Century Political Writing in England and New England. London: Taylor & Francis. p. 14. ISBN 9781317185598.

[28] Wikipedia contributors. (2021, May 11). King James Version. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:19, May 17, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Version&oldid=1022673429

[29] Wikipedia contributors. (2021, May 11). King James Version. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:19, May 17, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Version&oldid=1022673429

[30] https://genevabible.com/product/geneva-bible-patriots-edition/

[31] Daniell 2003, p. 440.

[32] Daniell 2003, p. 440.

[33] Bobrick 2001, p. 252.

[34] Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1884). The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives. p.60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on 2008.

[35] Scrivener 1884, pp. 243–63

[36] Daniell 2003, p. 448.

[37] Scrivener 1884, p. 262.

[38] Edward F. Hills, King James Version Defended!, pp. 199-200.

[39] White, James (1995), The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Minneapolis: Bethany House, p. 248ISBN 1-55661-575-2OCLC 32051411

[40] Edward F. Hills, King James Version Defended!, pp. 199-200.

[41] Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, OUP New York, Oxford, 4 edition, 2005 (p87-89)

[42] https://www.thenivbible.com/is-the-king-james-version-the-only-divinely-inspired-version/

[43] https://www.thenivbible.com/is-the-king-james-version-the-only-divinely-inspired-version/

[44] “400 years of the King James Bible”The Times Literary Supplement. 9 February 2011. Archived from the original on 17 June 2011. Retrieved 8 March 2011.

[45] https://www.kingjamesbible.me/Apocrypha-Books/

[46] https://www.goodnewsforcatholics.com/bible/question-when-was-the-apocrypha-removed-from-the-bible.html

[47] KJV: 400 Years (Issue 86) Fall 2011″.

[48] Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University PressISBN 0-300-09930-4.

[49] Wikipedia contributors, “Geneva Bible,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geneva_Bible&oldid=1018975232 (accessed May 18, 2021).

[50] https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/the-geneva-bible/the-1560-geneva-bible/

[51] Herbert, AS (1968), Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, London, New York: British and Foreign Bible Society, American Bible Society, SBN 564-00130-9.

[52] “400 years of the King James Bible”The Times Literary Supplement. 9 February 2011. Archived from the original on 17 June 2011. Retrieved 8 March 2011.

[53] Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, OUP New York, Oxford, 4 edition, 2005 (p87-89)

[54]  Bart D. Ehrman, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament”, Oxford University Press, New York – Oxford, 1996, pp. 223–227.

[55] Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, OUP New York, Oxford, 4 edition, 2005 (p87-89)

[56] Eldon J. Epp,Why Does New Testament Textual Criticism Matter?,” Expository Times 125 no. 9 (2014), p. 419.

[57] Peter J. Gurry,The Number of Variants in the Greek New Testament: A Proposed Estimate” New Testament Studies 62.1 (2016), p. 113

[58] Bart D. Ehrman, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament”, Oxford University Press, New York – Oxford, 1996, pp. 223–227.

[59] Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, OUP New York, Oxford, 4 edition, 2005 (p87-89)

[60] Wikipedia contributors, “List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations,” Wikipedia, The Free  Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations&oldid=1010948502 (accessed March 23, 2021).

[61] Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-84747-7.

[62] Samuel T. Bloomfield, The Greek New Testament (first ed. 1832, Cambridge) vol.2, page 128.

[63] Wikipedia contributors, “List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations,” Wikipedia, The Free  Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations&oldid=1010948502 (accessed March 23, 2021).

[64] Philip SchaffA Companion to the Greek New Testament and the English Version (1883, NY, Harper & Bros.) page 431.

[65] Bart D. Ehrman, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament”, Oxford University Press, New York – Oxford, 1996, pp. 223–227.

[66] Metzger, Bruce M. (1964). The Text of the New Testament. Clarendon. pages 103-106, 216-218

[67] Wikipedia contributors, “Textus Receptus,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textus_Receptus&oldid=1007768105 (accessed May 18, 2021)

[68] Wikipedia contributors, “Textus Receptus,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textus_Receptus&oldid=1007768105 (accessed May 18, 2021).

[69] Wikipedia contributors, “Novum Instrumentum omne,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novum_Instrumentum_omne&oldid=1007766164 (accessed May 18, 2021).

[70] The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carson, 1979, Baker Book House, p. 74

[71] Wikipedia contributors, “Novum Instrumentum omne,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novum_Instrumentum_omne&oldid=1007766164 (accessed May 18, 2021).

[72] Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, OUP New York, Oxford, 4 edition, 2005 (p87-89)

[73] Metzger, Bruce M. (1964). The Text of the New Testament. Clarendon.

[74] Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005) [1964]. “Chapter 3. THE PRECRITICAL PERIOD. The Origin and Dominance of the Textus Receptus”. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 146. ISBN 9780195161229.

[75] Tregelles, S. P. (1854). An account of the printed text of the Greek New Testament; with remarks on its revision upon critical principles. Together with a collation of the critical texts of Griesbach, Schloz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with that in common use. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons. p. 22. OCLC 462682396.

[76]  Tregelles, S. P. (1854). An account of the printed text of the Greek New Testament; with remarks on its revision upon critical principles. Together with a collation of the critical texts of Griesbach, Schloz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with that in common use. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons. p. 26. OCLC 462682396.

[77]   Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005) [1964]. “Chapter 3. THE PRECRITICAL PERIOD. The Origin and Dominance of the Textus Receptus”. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 146. ISBN 9780195161229.

[78]  Erasmus, Desiderius (1993-08-01). Reeve, Anne (ed.). Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: Galatians to the Apocalypse. Facsimile of the Final Latin Text with All Earlier Variants. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, Volume: 52. Brill. p. 770. ISBN 978-90-04-09906-7.

[79] Daniell 2003, p. 5.

[80] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie (2002). History of the Bible in English. P. 145. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press. ISBN 0-7188-9032-9.

[81] “Errors in the King James Version? by William W. Combs” (PDF). DBSJ. 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 September 2015.

[82] “BibleGateway – : Einhorn”biblegateway.com.

[83] Wikipedia contributors, “King James Version,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Version&oldid=1013280015 (accessed May 18, 2021).

[84] https://www.petergoeman.com/errors-in-king-james-version-kjv/

[85] Lamsa, George. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern ManuscriptsISBN 0-06-064923-2.

[86] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.1.

[87] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.13

[88] This is my translation of Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.14.

[89] Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989)

[90] https://blog.logos.com/who-wrote-hebrews-why-it-may-not-be-paul/

[91] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.3.5; 6.20.3

[92] https://blog.logos.com/who-wrote-hebrews-why-it-may-not-be-paul/

[93] https://blog.logos.com/who-wrote-hebrews-why-it-may-not-be-paul/

[94] https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-book-of-hebrews

[95] https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-book-of-hebrews

[96] https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm

[97] The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carlson, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 101,102

[98] The Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church: Canon 2: Of Translations of the Bible Archived 24 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine

[99] Wikipedia contributors, “King James Only movement,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Only_movement&oldid=1022499940 (accessed May 18, 2021).

[100] https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm

[101] The Critical Review, 1763

KJVisCorrupt.com