Is the King James Authorized Version the Perfect Word of God?
Man will worship anything but God. There are Bibliolaters, those idolaters who worship the Bible as though it was perfect because it is the "Word of God." They "search the Scriptures, thinking that in them they have eternal life, yet they are they which testify of the Lord Jesus Christ." They take the Bible to be "the final authority." I understand. Jesus quoted authoritatively from the authoritative Scriptures. The Scriptures were, and are, foundational. However, Jesus is the Rock. He is the One Who wrote the Scriptures, and of Whom the Scriptures testify (John 5:39).
Those who worship the KJV as being
the perfect Word of God are in error.
There are also those who believe only in the King James Version. They declare that all other versions but the KJV are corrupt or fall short in some way. Most of these declare that the KJV is perfect, to the letter, without error. There are preachers who declare the inerrancy of the KJV, take its every word, speak of the perfection and purpose of those words, and expand on their every nuance with great reverence and detail.
While I too believe that the present edition of the KJV, otherwise known as
the "Authorized Version," is superior to other versions in certain respects,
it is by no means flawless or perfect. Such a notion is the result of nothing
more than ignorance and pride, which serve to breed idolatry. I will prove,
in this writing, that those who worship the KJV as being the perfect Word of
God are in error.
As with many idolaters however, proof will not suffice. When Jesus raised
Lazarus from the dead, one would think that the people would be in awe and
great reverence. Some were, while
others went their way to devise a way to kill both Him and Lazarus, lest they
should lose their power and influence with the people. The mystery and contradiction
of iniquity are amazing.
KJV worshippers do not believe, and therefore do not admit, that they are idolaters. They think to be enlightened by the Spirit of God to appreciate the holy value of the KJV, and are therefore true worshippers of God and of Jesus Christ, of Whom the Scriptures testify, the KJV doing the "perfect" job of it. Here we will confront a few of these people, giving them evidence not only from legitimate reason, or from convincing historical record by men, but also and primarily from the Authorized Version itself. The last of these will reply to those who say, "Show me where the KJV is in error."
We are not original with these thoughts or many others. We merely "throw in our hats" with those gone before, who have found the same, one way or another. However, we can and do say that the Lord has revealed some things to us of this matter, and we are not primarily, if at all, dependent on our own reasoning and research.
Nothing physical can be wholly trusted
because nothing physical is perfect.
We will briefly mention some historical records about the forming of the KJV, and the characters of some of the translators. For those who cannot accept historical record as worthy evidence, if not proof, no matter how reasonable, convincing and factual, we will point out some "apparent inconsistencies." I call them "apparent inconsistencies" and not "errors," because truly, there are plausible explanations for some (not all) of what seem to be contradictions or errors in the KJV. We point out that the Apocrypha was originally included, and that certain passages included in the KJV were not included in the older manuscripts. Finally, there is the fact that diabolical false doctrine laces the KJV by the inaccurate translation of certain words from Hebrew and Greek to English.
Many accuse the Bible of contradiction, yet almost invariably, when confronted and required to give examples, these accusers are at a loss to prove their assertions. These accusations are but one of many excuses, to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the truth found in the Bible and ultimately, of course, of accountability to God. Being ignorant of the truth and of the Scriptures, they have no substance when challenged to prove their assertions. However, we are not of those who make unsubstantiated claims, or criticisms, if you will, of the Bible, and of the KJV in particular. We will give you substance.
We acknowledge the truth of what Napoleon was once to have said, "What is history but a myth agreed upon?" We know that we cannot rest our case on historical record alone. "Let God be true and every man a liar." For this reason we can only know the truth from God. Even that which is spiritually authoritative, founded in God, as is the Biblical record in
the original tongues as revealed by God, is not enough. Jesus said:
"It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life" (John 6:63).
The point made here is that nothing physical or of this physical realm can
be wholly trusted because nothing in the physical realm is perfect...nothing
at all, purposely so. This realm, the Bible says, is the realm of corruption
vanity. It is written:
Romans 8:20-25 KJV
(20) For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
but by reason of Him Who hath subjected the same in hope,
(21) Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
(22) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
pain together until now.
(23) And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption,
to wit, the redemption of our body.
(24) For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what
a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
(25) But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for
No, the Bible is not the Final Authority.
The Final Authority is God.
With this truth in mind, let us not place our highest trust in this realm at all, in the things which are seen, but in God, Who is above all, and Who alone is to be trusted and worshipped. We often have been attacked by Bibliolaters for declaring that the Bible, in whatever translation, is not the "final authority" but rather that God Himself is. They assume that because they heard of God and of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Scriptures, and because no other book is the "Word of God," that therefore "the buck stops" with the Bible.
They do not allow that it is God Who sends the preachers and writers. It is
God Who anoints them by His Spirit to speak and bear witness. It is God Who
inspired the writers to record the Scriptures, and some of the translations.
It is God Who opens the understanding of man to believe and to receive the
truth in Scripture.
They do not acknowledge the fact that many study the Scriptures,
the Torah, the Bible, zealously, yet are altogether ignorant of God, the
One of Whom the Scriptures testify. They do not acknowledge that while countless
millions possess a Bible, they live disinterested in, yea, contrary to, the
teachings in it, as though God and His laws and will for mankind did not
or even exist. Without God, the Bible is a dead book. Without the Bible,
God is still alive.
No, the Bible is not the Final Authority. I use capital letters this time,
because truly, the Final Authority is God, and God is the Final Authority.
The Bible, while it is God's record of His dealings with, and in relation to,
mankind, is not God. If it were, I could take God and trample Him underfoot,
or tear Him up and throw Him in the fire, and then where would we all be? Men
have done so with the Bible, countless times, but God is not dead, as some
have supposed. He still IS, and though the Bible were to be entirely erased
from existence, God still IS, and always will BE.
Men have worshipped the Bible as God, yet have not been delivered from their sins, otherwise they would not be in idolatry. They have superstitiously kept it as a holy object, dared not to write in it, set it in a special place in their homes, even on altars or in rooms of worship, and have suffered and perished in their sins nevertheless. Is the Bible worthy
of worship? Is the Bible (the most original manuscripts, KJV translation, or
otherwise) perfect? Is the Bible (the most original manuscripts, KJV translation,
or otherwise) God? The answer to these questions is "No." Can the Bible (the original manuscripts) be imperfectly translated? The KJV worshippers declare, of all other translations, "Assuredly so!" but "No" of the KJV. They are right on the first, and sadly, gravely mistaken on the latter.
If we trust the Bible, we trust ourselves to interpret
Can the Scriptures be twisted and wrested to the reader's own destruction?
The Bible says so (2 Peter 3:16), and surely we have seen it. Can God be wrested?
Does anyone care to try? Take one hundred persons, without
the Spirit of God, and ask them to give the meaning to a verse in
Scripture, and one can receive more than a hundred interpretations.
But herein lies our
hope: Take a thousand persons, with the Spirit of God, and
ask their interpretation, and they will tell you that it is God Who gives
the interpretation, that only
He can, and that only His interpretation is valid. They will all agree on
the interpretation, being of one mind, heart, and soul, because they live
and Christ lives in them. Therefore, we trust God and not the Bible.
trust the Bible, truly, we are trusting ourselves and our own understanding
and ability to interpret the Bible. If our trust is squarely upon the Savior
of all men, we are safe, in the truth, founded upon the Rock, Who is Jesus
Christ, God Almighty, and will interpret His Word as He intended.
God alone is to be worshipped because He alone is perfect. If one says the
KJV is perfect, then it follows that the KJV should be worshipped. If it is
perfect, the KJV advocates are right, but if it is not perfect, they are
in the grievous sin of idolatry. Is the KJV perfect? If so, the KJV is God,
formed by translators under King James I. Therefore, men have made God in their
image, purportedly with God's help. But is the KJV perfect?
SEVEN PROOFS THAT THE KJV IS NOT THE "PERFECT WORD OF GOD":
I) The UnChristian Character of the Translators
There have been several journalistic productions of the origin and making of the KJV translation. I appreciated God's Secretaries by Adam Nicolson. In his book, Nicolson, neither a detractor nor promoter of the King James as THE definitive Bible (he does not make a point of professing to even believe), paints a picture of the times and people that produced the translation. What emerges is a typical portrait of a kingdom of this world and its ways.
Those in power, who initiated and oversaw this work, sought above all else
to retain and expand their base, while those disenfranchised were perceived
as threats and put away if they would not compromise and support the establishment.
At least several of the translators, as representatives of the Church of England
(a first generation daughter of Roman Catholicism), proved their pedigree in
documented persecution of those who professed faith in Christ and met in His
Name outside of the official Church.
Is it a problem that those who produced the KJV also
Those persecuted were singled out for nothing more than not attending the official Church of England and for disagreeing with the "official" interpretation and practice of Scripture. Some of the persecuted fled the country; others were caught and hauled off to jail, some eventually executed if not recanting their beliefs. This was not only overlooked by those who, by and large, translated the KJV, but was overseen and perpetrated by some of the most prominent ones, as already stated.
Is it not ironic that those who idolize the KJV today would have found themselves
persecuted by those very people who brought them the KJV, if they lived in
those days, if they were not Anglican or Episcopalian? Those who today consider
the King James perfect in every way as the all powerful Word of God need only
look to the Episcopal or Anglican Church, and the British monarchy, which spawned
it, to see the "perfect" fruit it produces.
Is it a problem that those who produced the King James Bible also persecuted Christians and those who did not agree with their claim to absolute temporal and spiritual power? It is on more than one count, but certainly it is a problem for those who claim these men produced a perfect Bible. How can such a tree produce heavenly perfection? It is not possible. Consider, is this the record or legacy of the authors of Scriptures? Did Paul persecute the heathen or wayward Christians? No, but as Saul the Pharisee he persecuted true believers, even to death.
Were the translators intelligent, learned men, able to work well with the languages involved in translation? It appears so. Did their diversity and sometimes conflicting interests help keep them in check, producing a more neutral and transparent work? I think so. But such skills and circumstances only go so far. As we will shortly show you by the Scriptures themselves, there was not perfection of translation and presentation of the original writings here.
II) Preceding Translations and Unoriginality of the Authorized Version (KJV)
My, how we can contradict ourselves! We all declare that the most original copy of anything is the most authentic. So then what is so "authentic" about the KJV? Is it the most original translation, as far as translations go?
While the KJV was published in 1611, several translations had already been
published, in the English language, for several centuries. In 1582 was the
Douay English version, by the Catholic Church. Before that was the Bishop's
Bible in 1568. Before that was the Geneva Bible in 1560, said to be a very
scholarly work, and for many years, a popular Bible in England. Before it was
the Great Bible in 1539, to which many people flocked to churches to hear its
reading. Before it was the Matthews Bible in 1537. Before that was the Coverdale
translation in 1535, dedicated to Henry VIII by Miles Coverdale, a friend of
There were several translations before
the KJV ever appeared on the scene.
Preceding Coverdale's was William Tyndale's translation. It is recorded that Tyndale was "an early and courageous reformer and was determined that the English common people should have the Bible in their own tongue. Persecution made it impossible for him to do his work in England, so he crossed over to the Continent where his New Testament translation was issued in 1525 and the Pentateuch in 1530...Tyndale was a ripe Greek scholar and had access to the Greek text of Erasmus and other helps which Wycliffe did not possess. Moreover he had a fine command of accurate English, which left its impress upon all later versions. He was martyred before he completed the Old Testament but it is generally thought that he left the material which later appeared in the Matthews Version."
Before Tyndale was John Wycliffe, who lived from 1320 to 1384. It is recorded that he "was a great English scholar and Bible student, who conceived the plan of translating the whole Bible into common English. He first translated the New Testament about 1380." The present day world Bible translators bear his name in his honor.
So there were several translations before the KJV ever appeared on the scene. Of the KJV, it is recorded that "the Bishop's Bible was the basis for this version, but the Hebrew and Greek texts were studied and other English translations consulted with the view of obtaining the best results." Is the KJV greater than its basis? In the minds of many, in certain ways it is, but to perfection?
III) The Constant and Several Changes to the KJV
I have taken the above quotations from my Thompson Chain Reference [King James] Bible, the Fourth
Improved Edition, published by B. B. Kirkbride Bible Co., Inc., Indianapolis,
Indiana, USA, copyright 1964. Previous editions were in 1908, 1917, 1929, 1934,
Now how, I ask, can that which is perfect, be improved upon? Or is it now perfect, as the "Fourth Improved Edition," of 1964? If perfect, why would they expressly diminish its quality by describing it as merely "improved"? Why would they not say that it is the "Perfected Edition"? Is not the "improved" designation a tacit acknowledgment that more improvement is possible, likely, or even necessary? If it can be improved upon, how then is it perfect? If it is now perfect, who made it so? The revisers? The printers? Why did not the translators do a perfect job, seeing further revisions corrected errors, some blatant? Can imperfect men make something perfect? If so, how many times do they get to try, and how many times have they tried?
Where in the KJV
does it say that only the KJV is the true or perfect Bible?
If God inspired and used these men to make it perfect, as some would declare (which He can do), did He fail to move men to do it with the previous editions? Are all readers of the previous and imperfect editions of the KJV spiritually shortchanged because they were not reading a perfect translation? Were the English forced to be without a proper Bible up to 1611? Did God fail to get a perfected translation to them? If so, do we trust a perfect God after all? Who is to judge if they finally, if ever, get it right? Presumptuous KJV idolaters?
What about the Germans, the French, the Russians, Spaniards, and all the others? Was Luther's German translation, which preceded the KJV, "perfect"? If not, why not? And perhaps the best question to ask is, "Says who?" Many of those who fervently claim to believe the Bible, boldly declare that they only believe and preach what the Bible teaches, nothing more and nothing less. "If it isn't in the Bible, we don't preach it and don't you believe it!" they declare. Tell me, those of you who think this way: Where in the KJV does it say that only the KJV is the true or perfect Bible, the only one (at least in the English language) perfected and anointed of God? Where? "If it isn't in the Bible (KJV), don't believe it"?
Be warned, you KJV fans; I will be pointing out the inconsistencies I and countless others find in your reasoning, and in the KJV Bible, those I find being from the "Fourth
Improved Edition." Though we appreciate the KJV, notwithstanding its error, God has revealed the error to us, and has shown us that He alone is perfect.
IV) The Apocrypha and Errors in the Original Published Copy of the King James Version
Now, if the KJV were the most original English translation, let us take a
brief look at just how perfect it originally was. Fall, you KJV idolaters,
not in worship to the KJV, but in your worship of it. Your
hour has arrived.
I would assume that most of those who think that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God do not believe, therefore, that it should contain the Apocrypha, which presently it does not include, but which the Catholic Bible includes. If that is so, are those same people aware that the
original KJV included the Apocrypha?
Will you tell me that in its inception,
the KJV was not perfect, but has become perfect since? How
so? At what point? By what criteria? Are you aware that the KJV has had tens
of thousands of errors,
that revisionists have met over the centuries to correct those errors, and
that many have been corrected, but many still remain to this day? Are you
aware that each improved edition is different in statistics and words to
Will you repent of your idolatry, fleeing fornication?
For example, did you know that one edition printed 20 years after the original
KJV missed one small negative, though important, word in the Seventh Commandment?
It red: "Thou
shalt commit adultery." That's right! Some immediately knew it as
the "Wicked Bible," and not God's at all! Small wonder, huh? When one scholar
(F. Scrivener) tried to collate all editions of the King James in circulation
in the 1800's he found more than 24,000 variations between them!
"KJVolaters," what do you have to say for yourselves? Will you be as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists, who, with leaders and false prophets failing in their prophecies of specific times of the coming of the Lord and of the end of this world, marched on regardless, with chins up and chests out, though with tails between their legs, ignoring the failure, and instead explaining away their error?
Will you repent of your idolatry, fleeing fornication, as the KJV you worship
rightly declares you ought to do, or will you hurry to take the body of the
Son of God you crucified down from the cross to make way for the Sabbath you
keep in His honor? Not repenting, you will become hardened, and you will seek
to justify yourselves. Of such, Jesus said:
"You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).
V) The Many Apparent Inconsistencies Found in the Present-Day King James Authorized Version
Let us review but a few of the many, though less serious, "apparent inconsistencies" in
the KJV translation:
1) Luke, in Acts, records the following: "Then sent Joseph, and called his
father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore
and fifteen (75) souls" (Acts 7:14).
However, the record in Genesis is this: "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore
and six (66); And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two
souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore
and ten (70)" (Genesis 46:26-27).
2) When Paul was converted on the
road to Damascus, did those men with him hear a voice, seeing nobody, or did
they see something but hear nothing? Concerning
the apostle Paul's testimony, Luke recorded: "And the men which journeyed with
him stood speechless, hearing
a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9:7).
However, when Paul recounts what happened to him years later, he said: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard
not the voice of Him that spake to me" (Acts 22:9).
Notice that Luke in one place records that the men stood speechless, but in
another, he records Paul to declare that they fell to the ground. Which is
it? We can argue that details are not important, which is true in a certain
respect, but is it perfection to have differing reports? Perhaps they did both
stand speechless and then fall, or fell and then stood speechless. But did
they both hear a voice and not hear a voice?
Are there blatant errors of details and statistics,
or is there only perfection?
3) While all records show that Peter denied the Lord three times, it is questionable
as to when the cock crowed, or how many times Peter would deny before it crowed
once or twice:
"Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for My sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The
cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied Me thrice" (John 13:38).
"And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before
the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice" (Mark 14:30).
"And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he
denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went
out into the porch; and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began
to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. And he denied it
And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art
one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. But
he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And the
second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said
unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he
thought thereon, he wept" (Mark 14:66-72).
4) "The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred
twenty and two" (Nehemiah 7:17).
"The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and
two" (Ezra 2:12).
5) Are there blatant errors of details
and statistics, or is there only perfection, as KJV advocates count perfection?
"And Joab gave up the sum of the
number of the people unto the king: and there were in
Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and
the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. And David's heart
smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD,
sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away
the iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly" (2 Samuel 24:9-10).
"And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a
thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah
was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. But Levi
and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable
to Joab" (1 Chronicles 21:5-6).
Are you content to continue your worship without
Perhaps there is an explanation for the discrepancy. Let me ask you this, "KJVers": If the record of people, their names, and numbers are so important that God would include all these in His Bible (after all, He could have included so many other things), then why the confusion if the KJV is perfect?
6) Here is another matter to ponder, one which is not merely statistical,
but for which there is a simple answer. Here it is:
"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved
David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah" (2 Samuel 24:1).
"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel" (1 Chronicles 21:1).
Which was it, the Lord, or Satan?
7) Now David was presented with a choice of punishment for his deed. In Samuel,
"So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven
years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou
flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three
days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return
to him that sent me" (2 Samuel 24:13).
But in Chronicles, we read:
"So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee either three
years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy
that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days
the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying
throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word
I shall bring again to Him that sent me" (1 Chronicles 21:11-12).
One says "seven years' famine" while the other, "three years' famine." Which was it? Would David's choice have been different had he known the famine would be only three and not seven years?
8) Saul began to reign when he was yet a young man (I Samuel 9). He reigned
40 years. The following says that in the second year of his reign, his son
Jonathan "smote the garrison of the Philistines."
"Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin: and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent. And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear" (1 Samuel 13:1-3).
Ask yourself: How old was Jonathan? How old was Saul when he "begat" him? Can you explain? Are you content to continue your worship without explanation?
9) "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she
bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter
of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite" (2
"But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife" (1 Samuel 18:19).
Was Merab, Saul's older daughter, Adriel's wife, or was Michal, the younger daughter his wife? It was not both.
Is the perfection of the KJV being
examined too closely for comfort?
10) Here is another KJV mark of perfection for KJV perfectionists:
"And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem" (1 Kings 2:11).
"And on this manner did Absalom (David's son) to all Israel that came to the king for judgment: so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel. And it came to pass after
forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay
my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron" (2 Samuel 15:6-7).
David was 70 when he died. Would you care to explain that one to me?
Am I nitpicking? Perhaps. Or is the perfection of the KJV being examined too closely for comfort? Perhaps you have explanations. I am willing to hear them. I have no doubt that there are explanations, valid or otherwise, for many of these things we find perplexing or contradictory in the Scriptures.
Understand, many of these errors are not just in the KJV, but also in other
versions of the Bible. The point of this article, however, is about the KJV
not being perfect, informing those who would worship it that, not only are
there errors, but also tares planted by the enemy, which we will get to later.
Let us try a few examples that might seem somewhat more serious, seeing that they are in the gospels, the central portion of Scripture, particularly of the New Testament, focusing on the earthly life of the Lord, and that there are differences between the gospel writers:
A. One Demon-Possessed Man or Two?
Matthew 8, Luke 8. I find that Matthew was often seeing double. He writes the following:
Matthew 8:28-34 KJV
(28) And when He was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes,
there met Him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding
fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
(29) And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with Thee, Jesus,
Thou Son of God? art Thou come hither to torment us before the time?
(30) And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
(31) So the devils besought Him, saying, If Thou cast us out, suffer us to
go away into the herd of swine.
(32) And He said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into
the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down
a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
(33) And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told
every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
(34) And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw
Him, they besought Him that He would depart out of their coasts.
Now Luke describes the same incident, with same circumstances surrounding it, but he differs with Matthew on a point. Luke says there was only one such
man possessed of devils:
Luke 8:26-39 KJV
(26) And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against
(27) And when He went forth to land, there met Him out of the city a
certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither
abode in any house, but in the tombs.
(28) When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before Him, and with a
loud voice said, What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of God Most High?
I beseech Thee, torment me not.
(29) (For He had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes
it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he
brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
(30) And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because
many devils were entered into him.
(31) And they besought Him that He would not command them to go out into the
(32) And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and
they besought Him that He would suffer them to enter into them. And He suffered
(33) Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the
herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.
(34) When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told
it in the city and in the country.
(35) Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found
the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus,
clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
(36) They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of
the devils was healed.
(37) Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought
Him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and He went up
into the ship, and returned back again.
(38) Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought Him that he
might be with Him: but Jesus sent Him away, saying,
(39) Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto
thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great
things Jesus had done unto him.
B. One Donkey or Two?
Like I said, Matthew seems to see double. Let us examine the record of the Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a
donkey or donkeys. Here is Matthew's record:
Matthew 21:1-7 KJV
(1) And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto
the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
(2) Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway
ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her:
loose them, and bring them unto Me.
(3) And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of
them; and straightway he will send them.
(4) All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
(5) Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek,
and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
(6) And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
(7) And brought the ass, and the colt, and
put on them their clothes, and they
set Him thereon.
How does one sit on two animals at once? Mark and Luke solve that problem quite easily. They record that there are not two animals, but one. Mark writes:
Mark 11:1-7 KJV
(1) And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the
mount of Olives, He sendeth forth two of His disciples,
(2) And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and
as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never
man sat; loose him, and bring him.
(3) And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath
need of him; and straightway he will send him hither.
(4) And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in
a place where two ways met; and they loose him.
(5) And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing
(6) And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them
(7) And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments
on him; and
He sat upon him.
Luke 19:29-35 KJV
(29) And it came to pass, when He was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at
the mount called the mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples,
(30) Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your
entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and
bring him hither.
(31) And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him,
Because the Lord hath need of him.
(32) And they that were sent went their way, and found even as He had said
(33) And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them,
Why loose ye the colt?
(34) And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
(35) And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the
and they set Jesus thereon.
This apparent inconsistency is found
in the "perfect" KJV.
Both Mark and Luke record only one donkey. The prophecy fulfilled in this
event comes from Zechariah:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold,
thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding
upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" (Zechariah 9:9).
Hebrew expression often uses the repetition. There are many such examples in Scripture. Zechariah was not prophesying that there were two animals. He was saying twice what was referring to the one same animal. Matthew did not seem to take it that way, while Mark and Luke did. So was it one or two?
Matthew attributed to Jeremiah a prophecy that Zechariah gave:
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;" (Matthew 27:9)
Search Jeremiah and you will not find those words. Here they are and where:
"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear.
So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver" (Zechariah 11:12).
Whether this is Matthew's fault or the copyists is not the issue. The issue
is that this apparent inconsistency is found in the "perfect" KJV.
But can we now backpedal for a moment, and consider that the KJV is perfect
after all, in that its flaws and apparent contradictions of the statistics
(not of truth) were purposed? Let me tell you why we find these inconsistencies,
discrepancies, or errors in the Bible. I suppose that God could have had a
perfect Bible if He so willed, but He planned it this way, with flaws, to assure
man that he is foolish in worshipping anything in this world, anything that
is seen, as though it was perfect, and to ensure that man would look to Him
directly, Who alone is perfect and worthy of all worship, for solace, comfort,
security and very life, which He is.
That being said, we would then be forced to allow, or at least consider, that
the similar benefit of doubt must be accorded to other translations. Moreover,
if imperfections are a sign of perfection, other translations would shine
in glory compared to the KJV, not only in the insignificant details or statistics,
but also in very doctrine. Now there we must draw the line. False doctrine
is false doctrine, and not to be considered "the Word of God."
C. One Man or Two at the Empty Tomb?
Here is a passage that can be more easily explained, I suppose. Nevertheless, it is there, and this time, Luke seems to be the one seeing double. Mark records:
"And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a
young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they
were affrighted" (Mark 16:1-5).
Luke's record: "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two
men stood by them in shining garments" (Luke 24:1-4).
The Bible does contradict
itself, but there is an answer. Jesus Christ is the Answer.
Does it matter if there was one man or two? Does that take away from the veracity of the Scriptures? Not for me, because I believe, and therefore errors in minor statistics and details will not move me.
These matters do not take away from the foundational, experiential truths.
For those nitpickers who refuse to believe, any excuse will do. However, for
those who trust the Bible as their savior, they may suffer disillusionment
when finding that what they trusted, as they trusted it, is found unworthy
of their kind of trust. Yes, if you must be a nitpicker, a faultfinder, the
Bible DOES contradict itself, but there is an answer to that dilemma, I assure
you. Jesus Christ, of Whom the Scriptures testify, is the Answer. As He said:
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39).
In other words, He said, "Your faith in the Scriptures will get you nowhere. You look to them for life, but I am where you ought to be looking. I am the Life. They testify not of themselves, but of Me."
They thought to have believed the Scriptures, they thought that Jesus was
contradicting the Torah, and they killed Him. Today, we have so many, calling
themselves Messianics, who think they believe the Torah, and to obey it, but
they have no clue, not a clue of the One Whom they profess to worship, that
is, Yahushuah HaMashiach, the Lord Jesus Christ. They kill Him every day, in
vain worshipping Him with their lips. That goes for KJVolaters as well, though
I allow that they rarely know it. After they read this paper, I hope they will
know it, confess, and repent.
Is the KJV perfect? How so? Did God err? Could He not make up His mind or remember whether it was one or two donkeys, or one or two men at the empty tomb? If so, is HE perfect? Or did the copyists get it wrong, or the translators, or the printers? Whatever the case, we may have a misunderstood definition of the word, "perfect" here. Can we trust Webster to give us an honest, and "perfect" definition of "perfect"? Here is his definition:
"Complete in all respects; without defect or omission; sound; flawless; in a condition of complete excellence, as in skill or quantity, faultless; most excellent; sound, entire, absolute, comprehensive, whole."
Seeing that word meanings change over the years, perhaps what was once deemed perfect is no longer perfect in today's standards, or vice versa. Therefore, we must ask those who believe the KJV to be perfect to give us their definition of the word. May it be perfect, so that we may have a perfect understanding. With our perfect understanding, we may all get to worship the KJV as well, perhaps perfectly.
King James will not save you; only Jesus Christ can.
Please understand, those of you who read this and falter in faith, given these discrepancies, that these are merely statistical mysteries, be they errors or not. Regardless of how many demon-possessed men there were, or how many donkeys there were, or how many thieves railed on Jesus, or how many souls came to Egypt, the spiritual truth remains. Jesus delivered people, entered Jerusalem, it being necessary that as a prophet, He die there, and was crucified with the wicked. Jacob and his family did go to Egypt, where a family (with however many members) did become a nation.
Put your trust not in statistical details, for which there can be explanations,
though error as well, but in the Living God, Who IS. If you falter in these
matters, it is because you do not have the true faith, for which we, as His
servants and brothers, earnestly contend. King James will not save you; only
Jesus Christ can.
VI) False Doctrine and Tampering in the KJV Translation
Let us now take a look at matters in the KJV that are of a more serious nature, in that they contradict the foundational doctrines and truths of the Scriptures as a whole.
A. The Angel at the Bethesda Pool
In the gospel of John, it is recorded:
"In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had" (John 5:3-4).
Let me ask the ardent KJV fans some questions regarding this passage. Do you
believe the story here? Have you never wondered about the strangeness of it?
Does God dangle the carrot or play ‘cat-and-mouse’ or tease the
weak and helpless? Does He take pleasure in watching physically handicapped
people awkwardly trying to jostle their way to the pool to get healed, where
only the fastest one wins?
Has not this copyist done harm? Yes, he has, both
to himself and to his readers.
Did you know that the words from "waiting for the moving" in verse 3, and
all of verse 4 are not found in the more original manuscripts? This was a piece
of superstition inserted by some unbelieving scoundrel or ignoramus. It is
the stuff of a carnal perception of Jesus Christ.
It is the stuff of Lourdes, Fatima, and Catholic occultish heresy.
Consider God’s character, if you know anything of Him. Would He do such
a thing? Does He display similar cruelty and callousness anywhere else in Scripture?
This is a contradiction of the basic testimony of the Scriptures concerning
the character of God.
Yes, He judges; yes, He destroys; but He does not toy with men, He takes no
pleasure in the death of the wicked, and He is no sadist.
Several translations omit the portion of verses 3 to 4. The NIV commentary
says, "Verse 4 was doubtless inserted by a later copyist
to explain why people waited by the pool in large numbers." The copyist
did not heed this admonition found in both Old and New Testaments:
"Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6).
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2).
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).
Has not this copyist done harm? Yes, he has, both to himself and to his readers. Nevertheless, we are all tried. As Paul said to some saints:
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (1 Corinthians 11:19).
Think about it, you who think the KJV to be perfect. This threefold (heavenly) admonition is only there because the possibility exists that one can add
or take from His Word. Any possibility for evil that
has existed has been fulfilled, according to the purpose and wisdom of God
Who creates all things (Isaiah 45:5-7) and has subjected all to vanity (Romans
Now here's a “Catch 22” if there ever was
one! The Bible is to be believed as the Word of God. This Word of God warns
against adding to, or subtracting from, its words. Which means it is possible
to do, otherwise it is a vain warning and the Bible is not perfect after
all. So then men, disregarding the solemn admonition of the Bible, add to
it or subtract from it, and we, by God's grace and discernment, must now
watch out for imperfections in a perfect Bible.
Stop being unbelieving fools; repent!
If we were to grant you that the KJV is supposed to
be the Perfect Word of God, how could you deny that
words could be added to, or subtracted from, the Bible (any translation,
KJV included), as it warns against such?
Bible proves itself reliable in counsel because men have, in fact, altered
it. Ah, the Lord is the only escape route here, is He not?
KJV'ers, your own preferred version declares your
folly! Do you not contradict yourselves, saying the KJV is the Perfect Word
Take that passage of John 5 in context of the entire Bible testimony. Be honest. "Examine
yourselves whether you be in the faith." Stop being unbelieving, idolatrous fools;
repent; begin to believe the Lord Jesus Christ, and not some fictional character,
some angel of light coming in His Name!
B. The Three Witnesses of First John
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there
are three that bear
in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in
one" (1 John 5:7-8).
Did you know that the latter part of verse 7 and the first part of verse 8
were not found in any Greek manuscripts before the 16th Century? (The words
were not originally there are those in red.) That portion
is said to have come from the Latin copies and the Catholic Vulgate.
My NIV commentary says, "At the end of verse 7, 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 16th century."
If that is so, where does the KJV get off in its "perfection," adding to the
original Word of God? Are the translators justified? If your answer is "yes,"
then you must allow that the Catholic Church may also have the right to include
the Apocrypha and its “sacred traditions,” and change the Law of
God, as they did in changing the Sabbath to Sunday, when the Bible gives no
support whatsoever for this.
The passage ought to read:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" (1 John 5:7-8).
Is the King James Bible perfect? I don't think so.
What is wrong with the added doctrine in this instance? Plenty. It is the
preaching of a triune
God, a doctrine of the Catholic Church inherited from
pagan mythology. It is a carnal description
and understanding of God that serves the power and tyranny of man.
only one Lord, one God, one faith, one baptism. To break God into three individuals
is a tactic that dilutes and destroys His singular authority and majesty.
In the ensuing confusion, power is transferred to corrupt man, the self-appointed "keeper
of the secrets" of God. Corruption and death follow. And this is in your "perfect" Bible.
Now we come to additions in the Scriptures found in the KJV that are not authentic,
though no record exists disputing them, to our knowledge. Nevertheless, we
have proven these to be apocryphal by the Scriptural Record Itself.
C: The Two Thieves
Here is one occasion where Matthew saw double, but with the agreement of
"Likewise also the chief priests mocking Him, with the scribes and elders,
said, He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel,
now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in
God; let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him: for He said, I am the Son
The thieves also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same
in His teeth" (Matthew
“Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with
the scribes, He saved others; Himself He cannot save. Let Christ the King of
Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And
they that were crucified with Him reviled Him” (Mark 15:31-32).
Yet while Matthew and Mark report that two thieves were crucified with
the Lord, and both railed on Him, Luke has a very different version:
"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying,
If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him,
Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this
man hath done
nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when Thou
comest into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today
be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:39-43).
Obviously we have two completely different reports coming from
three witnesses, with not just a disagreement in the number of
thieves, but the
lone testimony of a repentant thief bearing witness to the diabolical
doctrine of deathbed conversions. Read how the story in Luke
is wrong and falsely
to the Scriptures, leading to this false doctrine that men use
to serve themselves:
The Book of Luke Corrupted – A
Deathbed Conversion Tale.
D: Lazarus and the Rich Man
Here is a Scriptural episode that has no numerical controversies or blatant
errors, yet is rife with antiScriptural notions and teachings. It was undoubtedly
planted by unscrupulous men, just as the enemy of whom the Lord spoke planted
tares among the wheat. The ignorant and unsuspecting will not know the difference,
but it is for the Lord’s sheep to learn to discern. Read how this imperfection
appears in the “perfect” King James Version: The
Rich Man and Lazarus – A
VII. False Translation - The Greatest Harm of the KJV
A. Easter or Passover?
Just how inspired is the KJV as the perfect Word of God when we have this in it:
“And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people” (Acts 12:4 KJV)?
This is no innocent error. It has
its roots in the assimilation of pagan festivals.
The word translated as “Easter” is the Greek word, "pascha," which means “Passover.” In every other instance where this word appears in the KJV New Testament it is correctly translated as the “Passover” (26 times). Yet even this one error here destroys the notion of inerrancy for the entire KJV Bible.
Furthermore, this is no innocent error. It has its roots in the assimilation of pagan festivals by the Catholic Church for the sake of increasing their subjects and temporal power. “Easter” is the pagan celebration of the vernal equinox, held in honor of, and named after, the fertility goddess Ishtar, or Ashtoreth, the “Queen of Heaven.” It is a commemoration of the renewal of carnal life, which is why it is connected with rabbits and eggs. It is altogether an abomination before God, and is particularly evil when substituted for the Feast of the Lamb of God Who laid down His life to take away the sins of the world.
Here is what the same KJV Bible reports, correctly, should be done versus what the translators had chosen to do:
“Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 12:2-4 KJV).
While the KJV gives glory to a pagan goddess, KJV Bibliolaters condemn all other translations as in error and not of God. Here are some translations that render the word "pascha," "Passover" or "Pesach," as it should be: The American Standard Version (ASV), BBE, EMTV, GNB, GW, HNV, ISV, LITV, MKJV and MRC. (This is not an exhaustive list, and we are not saying that these translations are altogether superior to the KJV.)
B. Aion, Everlasting, Eternal
Perhaps the greatest harm of all that the KJV and other translators have committed is in their translation of the Greek word "aion" to "eternal" or "everlasting," in the sense that we use those words, that is, "time without end, ever."
In other words, ten trillion years from now, if there is an "everlasting hell," and I go there, I am only beginning my stint; I will never escape; I will never be with God, ever. The plain truth is that the word "aion" does not mean an indefinite span of time. It is an age, and "aionian" is "age-lasting," or "to an age." The Hebrew word "olam," translated "everlasting" is also obscured in its true meaning. Many are the examples where "everlasting" does
not mean what we think, or how we use the word today. This, from an article
by Gary Amirault:
"Now let's discover how long the 'eternity' REALLY is in many leading 'selling' English translations:
Sodom's fiery judgment is 'eternal' (Jude 7)--until--God 'will restore the
fortunes of Sodom' (Eze. 16:53-55).
Israel's 'affliction is incurable' (Jer. 30:12)-until--the Lord 'will restore health' and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17).
The sin of Samaria 'is incurable' (Mic. 1:9)-until-- Lord 'will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria.' (Ez. 16:53).
Ammon is to become a 'wasteland forever' and 'rise no more' (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27 --until--the Lord will 'restore the fortunes of the Ammonites' (Jer. 49:6).
An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's
congregation 'forever'-until--the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3).
Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were 'everlasting', that is -until-- they 'were shattered' Hab. 3 3:6).
The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an 'everlasting' priesthood (Ex. 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).
Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple 'forever' (1 Kings 8:13), that is,--until the Temple was destroyed.
The Law of Moses was to be an 'everlasting covenant' (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was 'done away' and 'abolished' (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God 'made the first old' (Hebrews 8:13).
The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a 'perpetual'-- until-- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13).
God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah 'forever'-until--the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);
Egypt and Elam will 'rise no more' (Jer. 25:27)-until--the Lord will 'restore the fortunes of Egypt' (Ez. 29:14) and 'restore the fortunes of Elam' (Jer. 49:39).
'Moab is destroyed' (Jer. 48:4, 42)-until--the Lord 'will restore the fortunes of Moab' (Jer. 48:47).
Israel's judgment lasts 'forever'-until--the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isa. 32:13-15).
The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells
us that a bondslave was to serve his master 'forever' (Exodus 21:6), that
"Here then is absolute proof from the Scriptures themselves that an aion is an AGE or a PARTICULAR PERIOD OR INTERVAL:
• There was time BEFORE the aions (I Cor. 2:7, 'BEFORE
the eons'). Therefore, NOT eternal.
• God MADE the aions (Heb. 1:2, 'MAKES the eons'). Therefore, NOT eternal.
• There were aions in the PAST (Col. 1:26, 'hid FROM eons'). Therefore, NOT eternal.
• This PRESENT age is called an aion (Gal. 1:4, 'the PRESENT wicked eon'). Therefore,
• This PRESENT age will come to an END (Mat. 24:3, 'The END [or conclusion] of
the eon'). Therefore, NOT eternal.
• There is coming another aion AFTER this present aion (Luke 18:30, 'the eon
TO COME'). Therefore, NOT eternal.
• There are, in fact, coming multiples or FUTURE AIONS (Eph. 2:7, 'the ONCOMING
AIONS'). Therefore, NOT eternal.
• Some aions are even contrasted with OTHER AIONS (Eph. 3:21, 'the eon OF the
eons'). Therefore, NOT ETERNAL.
• All aions will come to all their ENDS (I Cor. 10:11, 'the CONSUMMATIONS [plural]
of the eons [plural].' Therefore, obviously not possible to be eternal!!
Now there is Scriptural proof. We don't need Webster's Dictionary and we don't need Strong's Lexicon. The Scriptural usage of the words 'aion' 'aions' and 'aionios' prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Greek 'aions' are NOT English 'eternities.'
[It has been said that] the Hebrew 'olams' NEVER, EVER
mean 'age.' That statement is NOT Scripturally true. Numbers 25:13 speaks
of the priesthood of Aaron,
and we read this: 'And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant
of an EVERLASTING [Heb. 'olam'] priesthood....' We now know for a Scriptural
FACT that this priesthood was NOT 'everlasting,' but rather lasted for an 'age'--a
long period of time having a beginning and an ending. We see in the book of
Hebrews that this very priesthood NO LONGER EXISTS! The temple is gone and
the tribe of Levi is gone. And so, it was an 'age-abiding' or 'eonian' priesthood,
not an 'everlasting' one."
The word "hell" falls
short when one studies the Greek and Hebrew words.
Another word we find in the KJV translation that is limiting, if not offensive
to understanding, is the word "hell." The
translators used the one same English word for three different words in the
original tongues...Tartarus, Gehenna, and Hades (Sheol in Hebrew). I have learned
that oftentimes several English words can fall very short of expressing even
one word in the Greek or Hebrew. Here, one English word presumes to take on
three at once! The true meanings are then hidden.
The purpose of the translators
of the Amplified version was to attempt to address that problem that occurs
not only with this case but in much of the translating. They tried to expand
on the essence of the original language words. For example, while the KJV
uses the simple word "believe," which has a simplistic meaning to us today, not
one that sufficiently informs us of what kind of belief is required for salvation,
the Amplified expresses the Greek meaning of it as, "to cleave, trust, rely
How many people have I heard say, "I believe in Jesus"? But what are they
saying? What do they mean? Do they truly cleave to Him or are they simply saying
they believe He existed and is the Son of God? What a vast difference there
is between the two meanings, a difference between life and death, no less!
Truly, the simple word "hell" falls short for us when one studies the Greek
and Hebrew words, the essences of which we have been "gravely" short-changed
by the English translation:
As defined by Strong's Analytical Concordance, the Hebrew word, "sheol": "the world of the dead, including its accessories and inmates, grave, hades, hell, pit."
The word, "Hades": "unseen, the place or state of departed souls, grave, hell."
The word, "Gehenna": "the valley of Hinnom, a valley in Jerusalem, where they burned refuse and carcases, used figuratively as a name for the place or state of everlasting punishment." (Keep in mind the proper meaning of "everlasting.")
The word, "Tartarus": "the deepest abyss of Hades, to incarcerate in everlasting torment." (Keep in mind the proper meaning of "everlasting.")
We see that there is more to "hell" than the KJV is letting on, as there is with "everlasting." How do we explain this? The translators knew their languages well. Why would they do this?
Is the King James Version perfect? It
is for you to choose what you will believe.
Here is one explanation: King James' ambition and motive was to unify England,
which in his day was divided and fragile along social, ethnic, geographical,
religious and political lines. History records that he wanted to compromise,
not elucidate or clarify. He wanted to preserve his own position as king. He
sought, therefore, to please the Catholics, the religious hierarchy of the
Church of England, the more moderate of the religious reformers (known then
as the Puritans) and the government, and to mollify all actual and threatening
He instructed the translators to keep his intentions in mind. They
in turn sought to maintain the status quo, supporting the standard interpretation
of "everlasting torment," which interpretation magnified the authority of the government/state church. A fate too horrible to fathom awaited those who offended or resisted, so all were better off if they complied without question!
Frankly, I have appreciated the KJV, in that it seems for the most part to allow interpretation and meaning to be discovered, rather than having the meaning strictly expressed and defined, as do some other translations. Using committees composed of translators from various factions as a means to maintain the "peace" through compromise and consensus seems to have allowed the truth to speak for itself. This is the essence and "genius" of the KJV.
Other translations, pursuing a single line of thought and doctrine, are often
not correct in the essence of the meanings of the words as originally intended.
At least the KJV has not always imposed interpretation, which has value. However,
it has also obscured meaning, and has preserved pagan doctrine, "Christian" so-called, as has been demonstrated, to the extent that people believe diabolical lies as though gospel truth, the primary one being that of "eternal torment."
Jesus says He is the Omega. The KJV says, "Hell" or "the Lake of Fire" is the Omega.
So is the King James Version perfect? I have given you evidence and argument to the contrary, established by "two or three witnesses," one of those being the Scriptures themselves to establish truth and justice. It is for you to choose what you will believe. God grant us all to know the Truth and to walk in it.
Earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints by those who worship the Lord Jesus Christ, and only Him,
Victor Hafichuk and Paul Cohen
It is a strange thing, but common and true, that many worship the Bible rather
than its Author. Men have chosen to adore the literal Word of God instead of
the One of Whom it is recorded in the Gospel of John that He is the Word (God)
made flesh. “If the Bible is the Word, and Jesus is the Word, then the Bible
is Jesus,” goes the logic. The King James translation happens to have the most
obsessive following of this sort. In this writing we answer the spurious arguments
of one given over to this form of idolatry.