Print Friendly

Answer to an Apologist for Worship of the KJV

I, Victor Hafichuk, reply to you, James Melton, and your paper, which declares the perfection of the King James translation of the Scriptures. I will address your error and prove that your thinking and assertions are faulty and idolatrous. I encourage you, James, and others, to read a paper we have already written against the notion that the King James is the “perfect Word of God,” entitled Is the King James Authorized Version the Perfect Word of God? That document addresses the arguments of your paper, and more.

You write: “There are many good works that one can read on the authority of the King James Bible, and this particular effort offers nothing really new. However, it does attempt to explain the issue in a simple and brief manner for all to understand. Over the years I have learned a great deal about this issue, and I believe that a truth worth learning is a truth worth telling.

Many preachers and teachers across our land talk about “preferring” and “using” the KJV, but I haven’t heard them speak much about BELIEVING it. Many prefer it and use it, because that’s what their congregations prefer and use, but they do not BELIEVE it to be the infallible words of God. They are taught in college to USE, PREFER, and RECOMMEND the KJV, but they are NOT taught to BELIEVE it. Most “Christian colleges” teach that the King James Bible is only a translation, and that NO translation is infallible. Consequently, the average minister today uses a Book which he doesn’t even believe.

The words in the above paragraph are revealing. They are the sure testimony of one whose faith is not, or not only, in Jesus Christ, but in the Bible, in this case, the King James Version. How many times must we remind people of the meaning of the words Jesus spoke to people like you? Hear Him:

“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life” (John 5:39-40).

Those to whom He spoke thought they believed the Scriptures. That is because they thought that in them they had eternal life. James, you appear to believe the same way. If so, it must then follow that these words also apply to you:

“And ye have not His word abiding in you: for Whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not” (John 5:38).

I will speak to all, and not only to you, James. One can understand the reasonable logic as to the difference between acknowledging the worth of something and actually believing it. You apply such logic here. However, you expect us to give the Bible the faith due to the Lord Jesus Christ by placing the Bible on an equal footing with Him. This act of idolatry is in part justified by the unreasonable logic, and in the mistaken belief, that the Bible is Jesus Christ, in that the Bible is referred to as the Word of God and John refers to Jesus as the Word. “If the Bible is the Word, and Jesus is the Word, then the Bible is Jesus,” goes the logic. Those who believe as you then devote themselves to the KJV specifically, with spurious arguments that follow, and which I will address.

You write:

Now, I thank God that I don’t have that problem. I don’t have to play make-believe with anyone about the word of God. I believe it. I believe the King James Bible is the preserved and infallible words of God. It doesn’t merely “contain” the word of God: it IS the word of God. I’m absolutely sure of it, and I’d like to give a few reasons why.

How sure man can be of error! The JW’s are sure that Jesus Christ is not God. The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that the book of Mormon is inspired of God. The Catholics believe that it is the one and only true Church of God. Certain Pentecostals believe that unless one speaks in tongues, he or she has not been born again. On and on march the sure ones, side by side, each sure of divers and conflicting matters. In Is the King James Authorized Version the Perfect Word of God?, we declare and prove that the letter of the KJV is not the “perfect Word of God” as you and others claim. We will now address the twelve reasons you put forth as to why you believe as you do.

You write:

Here are twelve reasons how I know that the KJV is the word of God:

God Promised to Preserve His Words

Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ” . . . . His truth endureth to all generations,” and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God’s WORD is truth.

These words state very clearly that God’s preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.

The words of a Bibliolater have been spoken. You, James Melton, do not realize that God has certainly preserved His Word in those who are formed in His image, in those who are born again by and of His Spirit. Consider the very words used in the Scripture you quote, which tells us that His words are “as silver tried in a furnace of earth.” Is it the Bible, or mankind, that is tried and refined in His fire? Do not the Scriptures also say that we, the saints, have this treasure in earthen vessels? Surely these words apply to His work in man. In the Spirit, I, as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Spirit of God, am the Word of God. I expect you and many others might consider that to be blasphemy, but the Bible you idolize declares that very truth:

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2 KJV).

If He is the Word, and we shall be like Him, as members in particular of His Body, created in His image, then is it so wrong to conclude that we will be the Word of God? Are not the sons to be as the Father? Does not the KJV (and other versions) declare that we are His brethren? Read:

“For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Hebrews 2:11 KJV).

Besides, God’s Word is spoken to His servants and sons everyday. God manifests Himself. As He is “preserved” (constant, without beginning or end), so is all that He speaks in the myriads of ways that He speaks. He is not contained by, or restricted to, a leather-bound book called “The Holy Bible, King James Authorized Version,” with onionskin paper and red lettering identifying the words of Jesus. The very thought is akin to blasphemy.

You continue:

You say, “But ALL translations are God’s word, not just one.” That’s impossible, because the various translations contain different readings, and God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). Besides, if all of the versions are the word of God, then where are the “corrupt” and “perverted” versions that we are warned about in II Corinthians 2:17 and Jeremiah 23:36? If everyone is innocent, then where are those who are said to be GUILTY of subtracting from and adding to the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19)? God wouldn’t have warned us about Bible perversion if it wasn’t going to be a reality. According to the scriptures, there must be a single Book that is the word of God, and there must be MANY which are involved in CORRUPTING the word of God.

Fallacious argument. Firstly, it is to the truth that error can be added, because the three admonitions of Scripture speak of adding to the true. If the KJV is the true, would it not follow that the error is added to the KJV? Secondly, many versions came not only after, but also before, the KJV. Were none the “true Word of God”? Are you prepared to declare that all peoples and Anglo-Saxons in particular were without the Word of God before King James commissioned his 1611 publishing? If you argue that we had the manuscripts, who was able to read them? Did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Wycliffe and others not have the Scriptures because they preceded King James? If God did not “preserve His Word” before King James, how is it that people believed in Jesus Christ for 1600 years though the KJV was not available to them? What versions will you concede were the true and perfect Word of God before 1611? What about the Bishop’s Bible, for example, which was used as groundwork for the King James? Or are you saying that none were saved during all those centuries?

You write:

Now, if the Authorized Version isn’t the infallible word of God, then WHAT IS? There has to be a Book somewhere in “all generations” which is God’s word; so what book is it?

Who said anything about a book having to be infallible? Does the KJV itself declare that there is a book that is the infallible Word of God? Why must God be forced to preserve His Word in one book? Who rightly said He should or did? One will find no such statement in any Bible, not even the KJV, though KJV Bibliolaters will read their preferences into it.

You write:

Those who “use” the new versions believe that these are good and reliable translations, but they do NOT believe these to be INFALLIBLE translations.

How true! While we believe the Word of God, which comes not only by inspiration of the Bible in various versions, but by personal encounter with Jesus Christ, the Word of God, we do not believe in the infallibility of any translation or any creature. However, we do believe in the infallibility of God’s Word, so that when the truth is spoken at any time, in any way, in any version, it is infallible.

You say:

However, I know MANY people who believe the King James Bible to be an infallible Book. Why? Because they know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK.

I agree that many people believe the King James to be an infallible book. There are many KJV Bibliolaters. While they “know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK,” they are ever so mistaken. I pity the Germans, the Italians, the French, the Russians, the Japanese, Chinese… They do not have the “ONE TRUE BOOK.” Must they first learn English, archaic English at that, before they can ever receive salvation? “One True Translation”? Explain to me, then, the thousands of believers persecuted and killed by religious bigots and idolaters throughout all history since Christ walked the earth. Explain to me how Tyndale died a martyr’s death for his work in translating the Scriptures into the English language, long before King James. Explain to me how the Hebrew and Greek texts served to save people from their sins unto faith in Christ. Explain to me how Luther came to faith, justified by faith, as explained in Scriptures other than the King James, and effected the Reformation, nearly a century before the King James existed. Explain to me how you would have received the Word of God before 1611. Explain to me how that the translators of the KJV persecuted believers to the death. Explain many things, Mr. Melton, if you wish to defend your idolatrous worship of King James and his fallible works.

You write:

He promised to preserve His words, and we believe that He has done just that. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). If His words didn’t pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.

You have not known the Lord, or if you ever have, you have forsaken Him, taking on another god, as good as the KJV is. You equate the KJV to God, seeing how you deem it to be infallibly His Word. Because God’s Words never pass away, must it mean that they are merely preserved in a man made book, in English writing? God is far bigger than that, James.

You continue:

The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS,” according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king’s name was “James,” which is the English word for “Jacob,” whom God renamed “Israel,” because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

There have been many kings, in many countries, of many tongues. Solomon did not specify English kings, nor kings in recent centuries. His words were written twenty-six hundred years before King James. Was Jesus King of all kings or only of the one who commissioned the publishing of a translation of Scripture? Was there a king in Germany when Luther translated the Scriptures for his people?

You make a big deal of James’ name. Are you familiar with the historical record of James and his character? I wonder how glowingly you would speak of him if you became aware of James’ reputation? I will not get into that subject, but I encourage you to do your homework and become somewhat enlightened about that whereof you speak and which you worship.

You write:

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God’s form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.

These reasonings are foolish, the machinations of a contradictory, idolatrous mind. James, do you expect us to believe that England has ever been a theocracy, a nation ruled by God? Did the Germans receive an infallible translation of the Word of God in their language under a king? Or the French, Italians, Spaniards, Chinese, Danes, Russians, and others? Did the Japanese receive the infallible Word of God in their tongue under their emperor, who was supposed to be the incarnation of God?

Webster defines a theocracy as “the rule of a state by God or a god; government by a person or persons claiming to rule by divine authority; a country governed this way.” My definition of a theocracy is the nation of Israel of old, wherein God ruled by His prophets and kings. I have seen no other nation ruled directly by God in that manner. Many claim to be “Christian” nations, but are they? Is the US not a theocracy simply because it does not have a monarchy? Is England a theocracy because it does have a monarchy? Was Japan a theocracy because it had an emperor who claimed to be God? What happened to Hirohito’s country by a war he provoked? What happened to him? What about the Ayatollah Khomeini and his rule by religious dictatorship? Many were the kings in the Old Testament. Were they therefore theocracies? Or were they godlier than those nations that were not “theocracies,” or that had no king?

Is it not true that God is God over all nations, be they “theocracies,” democracies, autocracies, dictatorships or what have you? The KJV says so. Must He have a monarchy claiming to be ruling by the authority of God in order to have an infallible Bible?

You continue:

Because It Has No Copyright

The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV’s without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight-hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.

I fail to see how the absence of a copyright makes something perfect or the “infallible Word of God.” While it is true that other translations have copyrights, the logic is faulty. It is like saying that my spiritual writings are infallible words of God because they are not copyrighted while other writings are. On the other hand, many other translations do not have copyrights, like the Geneva, Bishop’s, Tyndale or Coverdale. Did Luther’s translation have a copyright?

You write:

The new “bibles” are the work of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The term “Authorized” has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long. The fact that it bears no copyright allows printing ministries throughout the world to print millions of copies each year for the mission field. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it has no copyright.

You mention “the new bibles.” You do not mention those preceding the KJV. Why not? Men have “authorized” many things, in religion and government. Men have produced many things under monarchies. Men translated the KJV, and if you were to research the lives of several of these men, you would find that these were not all Spirit-filled men, not by a long shot. As to copyrights, you acknowledge that the original printer of the KJV had a copyright in order to protect his capital layout investment. Is that not why printers today have copyrighted their translations?

You continue:

Because God Always Translates Perfectly

The words “translate” and “translated” occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is “only a translation.” Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul’s kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What’s the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

The logic must follow that milking a cow can be perfect if God is involved in the milking, that a road can be built perfectly, that a garden can be grown, that a language can be spoken, that a war can be fought, that two wars can be fought, that three wars can be fought, that three (or thirty or three hundred) translations “CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.” The question is: “Where is He involved, and by whose judgment?” Is it not true what the Scripture says (by KJV or many other translations), that by Him all things consist, and that He works all things according to the counsel of His will? Are not all the gold and silver His, and the cattle on a thousand hills, as well as the hills, and the nations wherein are those hills, nations that are as a drop in a bucket to Him, those which He raises up and brings down at will?

You continue:

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE “ORIGINAL GREEK” ISN’T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord’s leadership (Jn. 16:13).

You say, “Most of them (scholars) have quenched the Holy Spirit in their own lives.” Does that mean all but those who translated the KJV? Do you know? Did God “assist” the KJV translators? Is He expecting a “perfect work” by merely assisting? Should He not be doing the work and letting the translators do the “assisting”? Would there be perfection if fallible men “assisted”?

You continue:

The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through “holy men of God” (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: “. . . . because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . “

I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because God is very capable of using anyone He pleases as His very own instruments of righteousness in order to preserve His word.

Yes, God is capable. Yes, all men are but instruments, in all things, for by Him, and to Him, and for Him, are all things. The same can be said for Coverdale, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Luther, and many other translators who each helped pave the way, some with their lives, that the Word of God might be made available to others. The KJV translators, on the other hand, were men who not only did not lay down their lives to bring forth the Word of God for others, but also took the lives of those who loved and preached the Word of God, contrary to the conventions of the hierarchical and high-minded theologians who translated the KJV. Speak of irony! James Melton, are you aware of the characters of many of the translators? Are you aware of many things concerning the KJV? Will you read our paper Is the King James Authorized Version the Perfect Word of God?? Will you learn, and repent of your error?

You continue:

Because It Produces Good Fruit

The Lord Jesus said that every good tree will bring forth good fruit, and we can know them BY their fruits (Mt. 7:17-20).

God had the KJV translated for the purpose of bringing forth fruit, and it has been very obedient to the call. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than questioning its authority.

Billy Graham is said to have led many more millions to Christ, and he has not been a purist KJV believer. What do you do with that, James? Those saying such great things of Billy Graham are wrong, however. I know of people who do know the Lord, and it was not by the instrumentality of the KJV that they know Him. Those who have drawn great crowds, with or without the KJV, are not necessarily producing good fruits. Why do you not mention Billy Graham? I wonder if you believe Graham to be a man of God. I wonder if you know that Billy Graham has used other translations. If you know that Billy Graham does not use the KJV, then I have little doubt that you do not consider Billy Graham a true man of God. I know Graham is not, but not because he does not always use the KJV. Are you steering clear of this “pickle”?

Those faithful to God do keep His Word, and His ministers preach His Word, but it does not necessarily mean that they preach from the KJV translation. James, shame on you and your shameful idolatry, and that in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ! “Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me….” Are you trying to tell one and all that one cannot even speak to others about God or spiritual matters without using the strict wording of the KJV or even the archaic English? Logic would seem to demand that you do so with your reasoning. If so, you are out of line in all your speech here, if expressing anything of truth, seeing as truth is confined, according to you, to the KJV, it being “perfect.” If perfect, it must also be complete, must it not? If Jesus is the Word, and the KJV (or any other translation) is the Word, and the Bible subsequently is Jesus, then the Bible must be expressive of Jesus Christ in totality. How can it be perfect otherwise?

James, you write:

The KJV produces good fruit. I was led to Christ with a King James Bible. Nearly every Christian I know was led to Christ with a KJV. Why? Because it produces good fruit.

You are saying that you are good fruit. I question it altogether. I see an idolater. How is that good fruit? I think you are saying, in your self-righteousness and delusion, that one cannot know the truth but by the King James Bible. If limiting God to the KJV is not idolatry, then truly, I do not know what is.

As to other Christians you say you know, how can you judge who are true and who are not true Christians, being in the dark yourself, and measuring them by your carnal standards?

You write:

The new translations produce EVIL fruit. The modern perversions of scripture are producing infidels who do not even know what the word of God is, much less where to find it. The new translations produce spiritual babies who are totally incapable of discussing Bible doctrine. The new versions produce NEWER versions, which produce MONEY for the publishers, and I Timothy 6:10 tells us that the love of MONEY is the root of all EVIL.

Again and again you expose yourself for the infidel you are, notwithstanding your conversion by a King James translation. I do demonstrate to you that you do not know Who the Word of God is. You do not know Him. All you know is the King James Authorized Version. That is your “Jesus,” which is “another Jesus,” though it testifies of Him. I will and do gladly discuss Bible doctrine with you. Yes, I have been instructed through the instrumentality of the King James, but knowing the Lord Jesus Christ, I solemnly declare to you that He is not known solely by or through the KJV. I know others who also know Him, my fellow minister in Christ, Paul Cohen, for example, who also would gladly “discuss Bible doctrine” with you, yet not “Bible doctrine” so much as the Father’s doctrine. The Pharisees had Bible doctrine too, but they did not know His doctrine, because they were not doing His will. So with you. You are prepared to discuss “Bible doctrine” but you do not know the Lord’s doctrine because you are an idolater. He said:

“My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself” (John 7:16-17 KJV).

On the “other side of the coin,” you attribute the deplorable spiritual states of others to those translations you call ungodly. That is because you focus on the Bible as God. Is the KJV alone responsible for a true conversion to Christ? No. Are other translations alone responsible for delusion or distraction from Christ? No. God is the Savior, not the KJV, and the condition of sin is at issue here. The matter is an internal and not an external one. As a believer, you ought to know that, but you do not know it because you do not believe on the One Who must reside with or within those who believe. If you knew Him, you could not possibly speak the way you do, and promote other gods as you do (as good as they may be, such as the KJV), unless in grave darkness as a believer. Consider that Abel, Seth, Enoch, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Abraham, Sara, Lot, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, Leah, their sons, the twelve patriarchs, and so many others had no Bible at all, yet they believed.

When Jesus Christ first appeared to me, I had not red a KJV, but I had been reading a Douay (Catholic) translation, Apocrypha and all. When brother Paul Cohen came to believe, he had been reading the New American Standard, and later the “Jerusalem Bible,” another Catholic version. Are there doctrinal errors in those? Yes, there are! Would I recommend them? No. But God kept him and me and led us into all truth. His grace prevailed over the works of men. We sought the truth and received. Now we speak and address error, as here with you. James, you need to repent, turning from the idols you have set up in your heart, and turning to the One and True God, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave His life for you, and Whom you spurn with your error.

You continue:

The Holy Spirit doesn’t bear witness to the modern translations, but He DOES bear witness to the King James. I’ve always believed the KJV to be God’s word, even before I was saved. No one ever told me to believe this, but the Holy Spirit just bore witness to the King James–not the others.

These are all merely opinions, James, subjective observations and judgments. Truly, you contradict the very Scriptures you worship, in that they declare that there is no witness of the Spirit to anyone until they have repented and been converted. Please show me where in any version of the Scriptures God will point an unbeliever to the King James. Contrary to your claims, here are some things the Scriptures declare (I will quote the KJV, though other translations say the same):

“Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth” (John 9:31 KJV).

Will God bear witness to, or communicate with you as a sinner?

“The Spirit itself (should be “Himself,” and not “itself,” by the way…another KJV problem) bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (Romans 8:16 KJV).

I can tell you what you were experiencing, if anything, before you “believed.” You were hearing the KJV preached by religious people, and you equated the KJV to God and to true religion. The KJV is eloquent, masterful, and poetic in expression. These things you mistake for godliness because you have never known true godliness. You have known only religion with all its formality and finery of language, ceremony, tradition and practice. If the KJV is the Word, and Jesus is the Word, and therefore you equate the KJV with Jesus, then consider the beauty of the KJV (notwithstanding its errors and apparent inconsistencies) with this description of Jesus Christ by Isaiah:

“For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:2-4 KJV).

Yes, the KJV has been criticized and attacked, but it has also been applauded as a singular masterpiece of English literature (and so it is), as well as worshipped by many such as you. You cannot have it both ways, James.

You continue:

After being saved, I spent several years of my Christian life not being aware of the big debate going on these days between King James Bible believers and New Age Version believers. The whole time I believed only ONE BOOK to be God’s word, and even then I was suspicious of the new versions, although no one had told me to be. When I discovered that over eighty percent of the “Christian” schools in our nation do not believe the KJV to be the word of God, I was shocked.

I appreciate the KJV, although I use other versions. I appreciate it as the Word of God, and not only “use, prefer, or recommend” it, although I do not “prefer” it at all times, as you can readily see by our writings. I prefer modern language usage, not “modern” or “New Age” thinking. I prefer accurate translation, which often I can receive from other translations while not from the KJV. I hate many of the wordings from other translations. They are indeed the product of carnal and unbelieving minds. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. However, I recognize the God-ordained fallibility of the KJV as well, and by the grace of God, I do not worship it. Again, read our document Is the King James Authorized Version the Perfect Word of God?. In that writing, you will have a difficult time refuting that which we have to say contrary to KJV idolatry. Reasonably speaking, you will have an impossible time.

You ask:

How is it that one comes to believe the KJV naturally, but must be EDUCATED OUT of his belief in it?

What does the Scripture say, James? “This is the work of God, that you believe on the King James Version,” or “on the One (Jesus Christ) Whom He has sent”? Does it say, “That if you believe in the King James Version, and believe in your heart that God has raised it up, you shall be saved,” or “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9 KJV)?

You ask:

Why is it that King James believers are accused of following men when GOD is the One Who led them to believe it? Why do opponents of the KJV accuse us of following men, when THEY are the ones who allowed MEN to talk them out of believing the KJV?

While I do not accuse you of following men, I do say that you are following your own heart. Those using the KJV or any other translation can be following men or they can be following God, but you do not believe that because you have limited God to the King James. That is idolatry…limiting God to anything physical, even as the Israelites represented God with a golden bull (something man-made), or worshipped the serpent on the brazen pole (something God-ordained). Better you should burn your KJV and scatter the ashes to the four winds! Could you bring yourself to do it? Would I be accused of Satanism at the suggestion? Would your conscience accuse you of deicide?

You write:

The KJV produces good fruit, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it like no other book in the world. It’s easier to memorize than any new version, and the beautiful old English language gives the reader the impression that he is reading a Book very different and far superior to the rest. It reads different because it IS different, and it IS different because it has a different Author. We shall know them “by their fruit“, and I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because it produces GOOD fruit.

We have discussed these matters already. You give speculation and subjective reasoning and argument, presuming you are good fruit. While I will not and cannot argue that many who read other translations are not believers, I also perceive that many who “believe on” the KJV are not believers either. You yourself may know of people who publicly proclaim the perfection of the King James Bible and who read it, but who do not appear to be Christian. How do you explain the embracing of Jesus (in the form of the KJV) while denying Him in all their ways? You need repentance, James. In your ways and thought, you are not GOOD fruit. It is self-righteous, arrogant and presumptuous of you to say so, even if you do so indirectly.

You continue:

Because the King James Translators Believed They Were Handling the Very Words of God

One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version. These men didn’t believe they were handling “God’s message” or “reliable manuscripts.” They believed they were handling the very words of God Himself. As I Thessalonians 2:13 says, they “. . . . received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe“.

“Let God be true and every man a liar.” Do you believe everything you read? Obviously not. You only believe the King James. Have you red the word “revised” or “improved” in your KJV? Do you believe that word as well? It is in your KJV. Why was your KJV revised or improved? How was it improved if perfect to begin with? How was it made perfect if not perfect at first?

I do not doubt that some of these men believed they were handling the Word of God, even as they were using the “Bishop’s Bible” as a primary source to do so. The men presenting the KJV to His Majesty, James, were anxious to please him. Look at the introduction again and find that he was not entirely worthy of the words they spoke to him. There is flattery and undue reverence; some call it sycophancy. Study the history and characters of these men, King James included, and see if he is worthy of their flatteries and praises. Awaken from your ignorance and cease preaching lies, James. “Flee fornication; keep yourself from idols” saith the KJV. You worship it, yet do not believe its spiritual and godly substance, even as the Jews worshipped the Scriptures but crucified the One of Whom the Scriptures testified.

You write:

Like the serpent of Genesis 3:1, modern translators approach the scriptures in skepticism, saying, “Yea, hath God said?” This was the first recorded sin in the Bible, and it still runs rapid through the hearts and minds of most scholars and new version promoters.

There is no doubt that some modern translations and translators do not acknowledge the Divinity of Jesus Christ, or believe the miracles, or that He was raised from the dead. I will not defend other translations against the KJV. My only contention is that no translation is worthy of worship due to God alone. Has He made His will known by the Scriptures? Yes, He has, as well as in other ways (discussed). Are the Scriptures divinely inspired and authoritative? Yes, they are. However, they are so only as representing the Spirit and will of God by the Spirit and power of God. There are human errors and human tampering of which we must beware, and with which we must contend. God is gracious and when He reveals Himself to us, we will know the difference between truth and error, and between good and evil. The KJV is not impervious to the wiles and foibles of men, as good as it may be in comparison to any other literature, regardless of how many have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ by its instrumentality. It is not the Bible that saves, but the Truth as granted by God through faith, found not only in the Bible, but in many places, yet from The One Source.

As an aside, is the serpent’s questioning of God a sin? If so, was there death reigning before Adam and Eve sinned?

You write:

God has always allowed such people to be DECEIVED because of the IDOLS in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1-9; II Thess. 2:10-12; I Kings 22). A man who lacks faith in God’s word is in no condition to translate it. This eliminates every revision committee in the past one hundred years, because these committees have consisted mostly of highly educated men who were heady, high-minded, and proud, thinking that their intelligence qualified them to tamper with the pure words of God.

James, all you need to do is read some history of the men who translated the KJV. Most did not believe, and several fit your personality description above to a tee. Nevertheless, you would debate that point. You must also acknowledge that you do not really know that all modern translations were written by unbelievers.

You write:

The KJV translators were not like this. Their scholarship FAR EXCEEDED that of modern translators, yet they remained humble and allowed God to use them in order to produce an infallible masterpiece. They didn’t set out to “judge” and “correct” the word of God. Their purpose was to translate God’s word for the English speaking people, as they were told to do by their appointed king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because the KJV translators believed it themselves.

Those are all your assumptions, contrary to Scripture you purport to believe! By these words, you prove your carnality and worship of men and men’s works. You have determined their characters and their motives, contrary to the Biblical testimony, KJV or otherwise, and contrary to historical record. How so? How is it that in your wisdom, you have made these judgments without any godly foundation, even contrary to God’s Word? It is so because your heart is not right with God. God says to not trust man but James says, “I can trust him.” God says, “No man is good,” and James says, “The KJV translators are good,” and furthermore, adding sin to sin, you say, “I am good because they were good.”

You continue:

Because the King James Translators Were Honest In Their Work

The critics of the KJV enjoy making a fuss about the words in italics, which were added by the translators, but the argument is entirely unnecessary and unfair.

The italic words in the KJV actually PROVE that the translators were honest in their work. When translating from one language to another, the idioms change, thus making it necessary to add certain words to help the reader grasp the full meaning of the text. When the KJV translators added such words they set them in italics so that we’d know these words were added, UNLIKE we find it in so many new versions today, which do NOT use the italics.

Besides, no one has ever PROVEN that the italic words are not the words of God, because no one has “the originals” to check them with. In fact, we know for sure that the translators were led by the Holy Spirit to add at least some of the italicized words.

One good example of this is found in II Samuel 21:19. When the translators came to this verse in the Hebrew text, they noticed that an exact translation would give Elhanan credit for slaying Goliath, but we know from I Chronicles 20:5 that he actually slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath. So the KJV translators added the words “the brother of” to II Samuel 21:19. If the Lord had not led them to do so, then II Samuel 21:19 would contradict I Chronicles 20:5 (as it DOES in the New World Translation!).

Are we not advised by the wise to interpret portions of the Bible by the rest of the Bible? Are we not able to determine missing words by context? Of course! (I could have written, “Of course, we are” but we know it was not necessary. We also know that the words “we are” are implied.) These men simply followed logical principles that are known to unregenerate but knowledgeable and skilled men. Again, trying to use these examples only tells us that you, James, cannot differentiate between the soulish and the spiritual, between man’s ability and God’s spiritual power. That is because you do not know Him.

You continue:

Another fine example is I John 2:23. The last half of the verse was missing at the time, but the KJV translators inserted it anyhow (in italics), feeling that it was necessary. This naturally disturbed many people, but since that time new manuscripts have been found which CONTAIN the last half of I John 2:23. The translators were RIGHT in adding the italicized words.

Or can it be that they knew of other manuscripts with these words but decided to use italics because they were not sure if these words were specifically written originally? James, do you know, or is it that you have elevated these men to a status not deserved?

You continue:

One last example of the Holy Spirit’s guiding influence on the KJV translators is found in Psalm 16:8, which says, “I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.” As you can see, the words “he is” are in italics. According to many scholars they should be omitted, but according to the Apostle Peter they should NOT be omitted. Peter quotes Psalm 16:8 in Acts 2:25, and he USES the italicized words! How did the translators know this if the Lord didn’t lead them?

Again, those words can readily appear to be implied, as I have pointed out. Nevertheless, I would not argue that these men, at least some of them, were given wisdom of God to accomplish their task. I would not argue that point at all, in spite of what these men were like in character. God is ever in charge of all men. My contention is that the KJV is not perfect or infallible, as you declare.

You continue:

The italics in the King James Bible are the marks of an HONEST translation, for no one added these words to mislead us, or to change the word of God. They added the words to help us, and they set the words in italics so we’d know they were added. That’s honesty. I know the KJV is the word of God, because the translators were more honest in their work than any of the modern Bible translators.

You cannot make that blanket judgment, James. For such a comparison, you have no foundation in truth. If I am wrong, give me the facts. Give me Scripture. Give me revelation to substantiate your claims.

You cite another weak reason for your argument:

Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV

The new versions do not compare themselves with each other, because they’re too busy comparing themselves with one Book–the King James Bible. This fact alone proves that there is something very special and unique about the KJV.

Why does everyone line up in opposition AGAINST the King James Bible? Why not attack one another? That’s easy: Satan has no desire to divide his own kingdom (Mt. 12:26). His desire is to discredit the word of GOD, not himself; so he attacks only one Book, God’s Book, the KJV.

I have heard of many comparisons with many Bibles, and have made many myself. While I do not worship the King James Bible, neither do I line up against it. I know that to be true of other believers as well. Yet even if all did compare other versions to the KJV, reason and logic fail to show how this is proof of the KJV being perfect or very special in the sense that you think it is. It is special as an excellent piece of English literature. It is special in its translation for the most part, I readily grant you, but to say it is “the perfect Word of God” as it presently stands, James, is unreasonable. It is idolatrous.

You continue:

Those who oppose the KJV are unsure of themselves, for they have no Final Authority; so they despise those of us who DO have an Authority. They’re unstable, insecure, dishonest, and very inconsistent. They’re all TERRIFIED of One Book, the KJV, and they’ll stop short of nothing in their efforts to rid the Body of Christ of that Book.

I know the KJV is the word of God, because it’s the standard which all others use for comparison.

We are not of those who oppose the KJV but we are of those who oppose the idolatrous worship of it. We hear so many who worship not only the KJV but the Bible, in whatever form, declaring that the Bible is the final authority. We solemnly declare that God Himself, the Author of the Holy Scriptures, is the Final Authority. There is nothing unstable, insecure, dishonest or very inconsistent about those whose Final Authority is God Himself, is there? However, as we read this document by one who worships another god, we see great instability, unconfessed (if not unconscious, unless misplaced) insecurity, certain dishonesty (which comes part and parcel with idolatry), and rank inconsistency. We, as true worshippers of God, do prove so by the wisdom of the Lord and by Scripture (KJV or otherwise). Many translations, both old and new, whether with inaccuracy or not, bear witness against KJV idolaters by the truth.

You add:

Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated

The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations. The Laodicean period is the last church period before the Second Coming of Christ. It is the last of the seven church periods in Revelation chapters two and three. One can clearly see that we are living in the Laodicean period today by simply comparing modern churches to the church of Revelation 3:14-22. This lukewarm period began toward the end of the 1800’s and will continue until Christ returns. The new versions fit well into the lukewarm churches, because they are lukewarm ‘bibles’.

Where does the KJV or, for that matter, any Bible version tell you that the seven churches of revelation are a historical description and progression, or regression, at any point in history, of the church of God? Where does the KJV break down the time lines? Where do you find anything in Scripture of a second coming? Who says you are right in your “private interpretation”? We say you are in error, having no Scriptural basis for it. Truly, you contradict the KJV in that you add your private interpretation.

Continuing your paragraph:

The Authorized Version, however, was translated LONG BEFORE the Laodicean churches appeared. It was translated during the Philadelphia church period, which is the best church period of all. It was this church that the Lord Jesus COMMENDED for KEEPING HIS WORD (Rev. 3:8-10)!

James, what were English-speaking peoples doing in all other church ages? And are you right in your historical divisions? We have covered this territory.

You write:

In 1611, when the King James Bible was completed, the scourge of lukewarm Laodicea had not yet swept over the world. There was no “scientific” crowd around in 1611 to put pressure on the translators. There was no civil rights movement going on at this time to influence the work of these men. The women were not screaming for “equal rights,” and the humanists and socialists had not yet taken control. The massive army of liberal and modernistic preachers had not yet been assembled. The open public denial of God’s word and the Deity of Christ was practically unheard of among ministers. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that professing Christianity became flooded with lukewarm preachers who would be willing to compromise the word of God for self gain.

Where have you been? Sleeping as Rip Van Winkle for the last two thousand years? The Word of God has been attacked and denied by people all along! Are you not aware of the atrocities of the RCC against God’s people and the Bible?

Continuing your paragraph:

“The greatest missionary work in church history occurred between 1700 and 1900, so it makes perfect sense that God would have a Bible ready for this great work, and He did – the KJV. Unfortunately, the new translations appeared a bit LATE on the scene! Think about that. I know the KJV is the word of God because of the time in history in which it was translated.

Is it only the English that needed Bibles for missionary work? What about Tyndale, Coverdale, Wycliffe and so many others who fought to have a Bible translation in their own language? What about Luther, whose translation came on the heels of the Gutenberg press, which facilitated the dissemination of the Word of God to the rest of the world?

You write:

Because No One Has Ever Proven That the KJV is Not God’s Word

Any honest American should know that innocence is supposed to prevail in our land until guilt is proven. The KJV should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Has anyone proven it guilty? No. Has any scholar actually PROVEN that there are errors in the King James Bible? No.

We have proven the imperfection of the KJV, though not saying that it is not God’s Word (see our paper as submitted). Listen to this, James Melton: As God has seen fit to take up His residence in unworthy, weak, earthen vessels, so He has seen fit to contain His Word in weak physical writings. Placing His Word in these writings does not make the writings, called “the Bible”, perfect any more than taking up His residency in us makes our flesh perfect. Though the Spirit of God dwelt in Paul, Paul yet said, “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing.” Do you hear? Your reasoning on the KJV is tantamount to saying that because we are Christians, we have perfect bodies.

You continue:

Enemies of the KJV delight in IGNORING the facts about the Authorized Version, while never PROVING anything. All apparent “errors” in the KJV can be explained through prayer and a careful study of the scriptures, but the opponents of the KJV aren’t interested in looking for TRUTH; they’re interested attacking God’s word, while never proving anything. I know the KJV is the word of God, because, over nearly four hundred years, no one has proven otherwise.

If you were honest yourself, you would acknowledge the blatant shortfalls and imperfections of the KJV. While we do not attack the KJV, we do declare the truth, because we walk in the Truth and know Him Who is True. All the proof from heaven, including the raising of the dead, which only He Who is life can do, will not suffice one set on the course of self-aggrandizement.

You continue on another point:

Because of the Manuscript Evidence

Only a very deceived individual could believe that the new versions are equal to the King James Bible. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence.

The new “bibles” are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the “Vaticanus” and the “Siniaticus.” These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44.

Here is the passage to which you refer:

“And He said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning Me” (Luke 24:44 KJV).

This time I left the brackets in place, which indicate the words that were not in the original Greek, but which are plainly inferred. I leave these here as an example of how translators did not need the Holy Spirit to add those words, but could do so simply because they logically belonged.

Does it indeed mean that Jesus excluded the “Apocrypha,” simply because He did not mention those books? What about Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon? Shall those be excluded based on your prejudiced interpretation of Luke 24:44? We agree that the Apocrypha are not to be included in the Bible, not being inspired, but it is by revelation that we know it, and not by this kind of reasoning. By the way, James, shall I again remind you that the Apocrypha was included in the Original King James Version?

Continuing your paragraph:

All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible.

Where do you get your percentages? How is it that you can be so irresponsible with your words and judgments? Nevertheless, I have allowed myself to be dragged into a controversy of comparison between the KJV and other translations, as though that were the issue. It is not. The question before us is whether the King James Authorized Version is “the perfect or infallible Word of God” or not, perfect in every detail, as you claim.

Continuing, you write:

The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other “bibles” do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome. We don’t need an Egyptian version, for Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exod. 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that “every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians” in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten. Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don’t need a “bible” from Alexandria, Egypt.

According to this reasoning, God should not have used Egypt to save His servant Jacob and his family. He should not have had Joseph, a type of Christ, sent to Egypt, into slavery, then have him rise up to save not only his own family, but Egypt itself, and the surrounding nations as well from the severe famine He sent. God should not have raised up Moses under the maternal direction of an Egyptian. Joseph should not have sought refuge for his son and wife Mary in Egypt. After all, it is all superstition!

As to your reference to Apollos in Acts 18, here is the passage:

“But a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus, being powerful in the Scriptures. This one having been taught by mouth in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things about the Lord, having understood only the baptism of John. And this one began to speak boldly in the synagogue. And hearing him Priscilla and Aquila took him and more accurately expounded the way of God to him” (Acts 18:24-26).

Was God wrong in teaching Apollos anything simply because he was from a city of “superstition”? Did you come from a godly city yourself, or was it somewhere in America, which does not have a monarch, and which produces all these fake translations of the Bible? What about Nathaniel, who said of the Lord, “Shall any good thing come out of Galilee?” Because Peter denied the Lord three times, and years later, was rebuked by Paul for hypocrisy, should Peter and all those from his hometown be rejected or criticized as you do with Apollos?

You continue:

Then there’s the Roman text, also called the “Western Text.” We can also do without a Roman “bible”, because it was ROMAN soldiers who nailed our Lord to the cross. The harlot of Revelation 17 is a perfect description of the Roman Catholic Church, which has persecuted Christians for thousands of years. Romans persecuted the Christians in Acts18:2, and in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Rome is the “dreadful and terrible” beast of Daniel chapter seven, and Christ will destroy the “Revised Roman Empire” at the Second Coming (Dan. 2; 7; and Rev. 13). It has been estimated that Rome is guilty of the blood of some 200 million people who have rejected her corrupt system. A ‘bible’ from Rome is another thing we can live without.

James, are you unaware of the fact that it was the Jews who insisted that Rome crucify their Messiah, even though “the Roman” Pilate sought to release Him? By your reasoning, should you not reject the Scriptures delivered by the Jews’ sacred custodial care because they killed the very One of Whom the Scriptures testify? You continue:

There’s only one line of manuscripts that we can trust, and this is the line from Antioch, called the “Syrian” or “Byzantine” type text. The word of God speaks POSITIVELY of Antioch, and NEGATIVELY of Rome and Egypt. We should TAKE THE BEST AND DUMP THE REST! I know the King James Bible is the word of God because of the manuscript evidence.

And what of Paul’s letter to the Romans? Were there not people of faith in Rome? Hear also what God said He would do for the Egyptians, as written in the KJV:

“And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and He shall send them a Saviour, and a great One, and He shall deliver them. And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it. And the LORD shall smite Egypt: He shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and He shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them” (Isaiah 19:20-22 KJV).

There need be no argument with the use of the KJV, or with its manuscript source. As we have declared, we prefer it, and for your sake, as expressed in your introduction, we believe what ought to be believed of it. However, we dare not be in idolatrous ignorance of the imperfections.

You continue:

Because It Exalts the Lord Jesus Christ

Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: And they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39.

A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another.

By perverting the many important verses of scripture which deal with the fundamental doctrines of Christ, the new “bibles” have a CONTINUOUS ATTACK launched against our beloved Savior, and this is NOT an overstatement! His Virgin Birth is under attack in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33. His Blood Atonement is under attack in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5. The Bodily Resurrection is under attack in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark. His Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16. The new versions attack the Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and the list goes on, because the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminent place.

There is no doubt that some of what you say here of many other translations is true, James. However, we will take but 3 modern translations to demonstrate those passages and the fact that they do not attack these doctrines as you declare. As well, there is no mention in any translation, not even the KJV, of a “Second Coming.” Here are the passages you mention, firstly in the KJV, then in three other “modern” translations, The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV), God’s Word (GW), and Young’s Literal Translation (YLT).

I do not see these three translations, among others, attacking the truth of the virgin birth, Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14 KJV).

“So, The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! The virgin will conceive and will bring forth a son; and she shall call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14 LITV).

“So the Lord himself will give you this sign: A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel [God Is With Us]” (Isaiah 7:14 GW).

“Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14 YLT).

“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:34 KJV)

“But Mary said to the angel, How will this be since I do not know a man?” (Luke 1:34 LITV)

“Mary asked the angel, ‘How can this be? I’ve never had sexual intercourse'” (Luke 1:34 GW).

“And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?'” (Luke 1:34 YLT)

I do not see these three translations, among others, attacking the truth of the blood atonement, Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5:

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:” (Colossians 1:14 KJV)

“In whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins;” (Colossians 1:14 LITV)

“His Son paid the price to free us, which means that our sins are forgiven” (Colossians 1:14 GW).

Literalists may argue that this second example is an attack on the blood atonement, by not mentioning the blood, and I must confess that I would prefer the blood mentioned, however, the whole of the Bible, in this translation, does attest to the blood atoning for sin. For examples:

“He will cleanse many nations with is blood. Kings will shut their mouths because of Him. They will see things that they had never been told. They will understand things that they had never heard” (Isaiah 52:15 GW).

“This is my blood, the blood of the promise. It is poured out for many people so that sins are forgiven” (Matthew 26:28 GW).

“Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to be shepherds for God’s church which He acquired with His own blood” (Acts 20:28 GW).

“God showed that Christ is the throne of mercy where God’s approval is given through faith in Christ’s blood. In His patience God waited to deal with sins committed in the past” (Romans 3:25 GW).

There are many verses in Hebrews 9 of this translation that bear witness to the efficacy of Christ’s blood. In toto, this version (GW… “God’s Word”) does not “attack the blood atonement.” Now for our third version of this verse:

“In whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins,” (Colossians 1:14 YLT)

Going on to the next verse in question:

“And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” (Revelation 1:5 KJV)

“Even from Jesus Christ the Faithful Witness, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him loving us and washing us from our sins by His blood,” (Revelation 1:5 LITV)

“And from Jesus Christ, the witness, the trustworthy one, the first to come back to life, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. Glory and power forever and ever belong to the one who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” (Revelation 1:5 GW)

“And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,” (Revelation 1:5 YLT)

I do not see these three “modern” translations, among others, attacking the truth of the bodily resurrection in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark:

“To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:” (Acts 1:3 KJV)

“To whom also He presented Himself living after His suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them through forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3 LITV).

“After his death Jesus showed the apostles a lot of convincing evidence that he was alive. For 40 days he appeared to them and talked with them about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3 GW).

“To whom also he did present himself alive after his suffering, in many certain proofs, through forty days being seen by them, and speaking the things concerning the reign of God” (Acts 1:3 YLT).

Neither do the modern translations attack the bodily resurrection in Luke 24 or in the last chapter of Mark. See for yourself.

The translations I present here do not attack His Deity in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16 (it appears that Acts 10:28 is an erroneous reference. We will go on to the others):

“Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” (John 9:35 KJV)

“Jesus heard that they threw him outside, and finding him, He said to him, Do you believe into the Son of God?” (John 9:35 LITV)

“Jesus heard that the Jews had thrown the man out of the synagogue. So when Jesus found the man, he asked him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?'” (John 9:35 GW)

Can we say that in that verse of the GW translation, referring to the “Son of Man” rather than to the “Son of God” attacks the deity of Jesus? Perhaps we could. On the other hand, Jesus often referred to Himself as the “Son of man.” Was He Himself therefore denying His deity? If this version eliminated any trace of Jesus as Deity, then we could easily make a case against it. However, here are some of its references to His Deity:

“Thomas responded to Jesus, ‘My Lord and my God!'” (John 20:28 GW)

“He said to Jesus, ‘If you are the Son of God, jump! Scripture says, ‘He will put his angels in charge of you. They will carry you in their hands so that you never hit your foot against a rock.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Again, Scripture says, ‘Never tempt the Lord your God‘” (Matthew 4:6-7 GW).

“They shouted, ‘Why are you bothering us now, Son of God? Did you come here to torture us before it is time?'” (Matthew 8:29 GW)

“The men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus and said, ‘You are truly the Son of God‘” (Matthew 14:33 GW).

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!'” (Matthew 16:16 GW)

Now here is a very interesting passage to disprove any notion that the GW translation attacks the Deity of Jesus Christ. It also shows that the KJV is not as direct or clear in proclaiming the Deity of Jesus, as is the GW in this instant. Note the Lord’s answer to the chief priest in the GW:

“But Jesus was silent. Then the chief priest said to him, ‘Swear an oath in front of the living God and tell us, are you the Messiah, the Son of God?’ Jesus answered him, ‘Yes, I am. But I can guarantee that from now on you will see the Son of Man in the highest position in heaven. He will be coming on the clouds of heaven'” (Matthew 26:63-64 GW).

Now note the Lord’s reply in the KJV:

“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:63-64 KJV).

First, the GW demonstrates that Jesus clearly declared His Divinity, while the KJV demonstrates that Jesus said the high priest, and not He Himself, said it. Secondly, the KJV version also makes reference to the Son of Man, but with a small “m” for man, while the GW accords Deity to Jesus by capitalizing the word “Man.” There are also several other passages wherein the GW declares the Deity of Jesus Christ. Case closed.

Finally, the verse in the YLT:

“Jesus heard that they cast him forth without, and having found him, he said to him, `Dost thou believe in the Son of God?'” (John 9:35 YLT)

Moving on to the next verse:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV).

“And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in flesh, was justified in Spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16 LITV).

“The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16 GW).

“And, confessedly, great is the secret of piety–God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!” (1 Timothy 3:16 YLT)

While I would prefer the word “godliness” to “piety” in reference to Jesus Christ, nevertheless, this translation (YLT) does say that God, and not godliness, was manifested in flesh (in case there is any argument here).

The new versions that I present here do not “attack the Second Coming” as alleged by Melton to be mentioned in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, simply because there is no second coming mentioned in any translation:

“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 11:15 KJV).

“And the seventh angel trumpeted. And there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of the world became our Lord’s, even of His Christ; and He shall reign to the ages of the ages” (Revelation 11:15 LITV).

“When the seventh angel blew his trumpet, there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will rule as king forever and ever'” (Revelation 11:15 GW).

“And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, `The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!'” (Revelation 11:15 YLT)

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13 KJV)

“Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” (Titus 2:13 LITV)

“At the same time we can expect what we hope for-the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13 GW).

“Waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” (Titus 2:13 YLT)

There are also other modern translations that do not “attack” the vital doctrines of Christianity, as you, James Melton, would have us to believe. Perhaps you wrote your paper before some of these translations were published. Nevertheless, your argument is that the King James Version and ONLY the King James Version is the Bible with merit, and moreover, “perfect.” We bring forth argument and sure evidence that such is not the case.

You continue:

If the reader doubts this, we challenge you to take whatever version you want and compare the above verses in it to the same verses in the King James Bible. If you still doubt it, after checking the verses, then write us and we will send you a great many more references to check. The new “bibles” have a very consistent record of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ; so they cannot possibly be “the scriptures” that He said would testify of Him in John 5:39. They testify AGAINST him.

Now James, you have a job to do. I have doubted your word, and have provided the proof of good reason to doubt. If you wish to provide me with more references, first check them out with the versions I have given you, and if you find a problem, in that your point of view is substantially accurate, then let me know. I may be coming across as a “smart aleck” here, however, I do not appreciate your using the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ to preach false doctrine, which is, even by the King James Bible you worship, provably false. Furthermore, I will declare, and have declared the truth against idolatry, not only for your sake, but also for the sake of your hearers and readers that are deceived by the error you teach, leading them into spiritual sin and bondage.

You declare:

The King James Bible NEVER attacks our Lord.

I say you are wrong, yes, wrong. What about the translation of the words in our paper, such as “aion” and “olam”? What about the depiction of Christ’s character in the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the impotent and lame people at the Bethesda pool? There is plenty in the KJV to attack the Lord and to besmirch His character, diabolically so. The KJV both exalts and defames the Lord Jesus Christ, as do other translations. You, James, as author of the letter we now herein address, shame Jesus Christ, and break His laws with your idolatry of the King James Version.

You conclude:

More than any book in the world, the Authorized Version of the Protestant Reformation EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ. If we had no other reason for receiving the Authorized Version as the word of God, this reason alone should be enough to convince any true believer, for how could we not become suspicious of the new versions for making such changes? I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it always exalts the Lord Jesus Christ.

While it is true that many versions do not translate the true Biblical doctrines accurately, and worse still, are in unbelief of His work and His Deity, it is not true that the King James Bible is the only worthy Bible in existence in the English-speaking world. It is not true that it is without error. It is not necessarily true that it exalts the Lord Jesus Christ more than any book in the world. You have no proof of that, and really, it is not the issue. Even if it were the best translation, you have no cause for idolatry. It is antiChrist. Know that, and repent of it, James, for your sake, for His sake, and for all our sakes. One day you will repent, and you will know the Lord Jesus Christ as He is, and not as you have imagined Him to be. His blood will prevail for you, for one and all. That is the wonderful truth, the good news. On that note, please avail yourself of our site, and the papers that come to mind for you to read now are:

Our Testimonies, The Good News, The Reconciliation of All Things, and Who Then Can Be Saved?!

Contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, worshipping in spirit and in truth the One of Whom the Scriptures testify,

Victor Hafichuk

Print Friendly