KJV only, preservation, understanding, Greek, Tyndale and Modern Versions.

Answering questions on the KJV

Is the KJV the inspired, preserved word of God? Or is there in fact another translation that is inspired and preserved, and in fact the KJV has errors?

Yes the KJV is the inspired, preserved word of God. God says that he will preserve his word, I personally vouch for the Wycliffe bible as the first act of preserving it in English. Then Tyndale made a more accurate translation of the originals. Then the KJV perfected it. I would say any of the pre-1881 versions are quite usable and accurate. It isn't so much the bibles that are the problem but the philosophy behind them.

Why are the modern versions corrupt?

Its not so much the versions themselves, but the philosophy behind them that is the problem. When you buy a text critical bible, you are in fact denying inspiration, preservation, and divine authorship to the bible. Remember that before 1881 all bibles followed the philosophy that God preserves his word. Now we believe that God inspired the originals, and now we approximate to 99.5% the originals. A King James bible believer (KJVO) believes that the KJV is 100% the word of God, even down to the full stops, colons, semi colons etc. Now you may raise your eyebrows at such a statement, but every christian believes in the Holy Spirit right?

Many KJVOs in fact question the translation philosophies as well as the manuscript philosophy. Certain ways that bibles are written obscure prophecies about the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. They often even deny the divinity of Christ. This is not me just saying it, this is well known and all over the internet on various websites. As I am not here to prove, just to describe, I will forgo presenting the evidence, and just tell you to google.

Does the KJV have errors?


Does the ESV?








How do I know? because all of them have had “updates”, and will continue to have updates.

But the KJV had updates!

Indeed it did, and it had no illusions about it, the KJV needed revision, and indeed some words were changed, updated etc. But the difference between them is the PHILOSOPHY, the KJV was made prayerfully, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Words existed in the 1611 for the benefit of those in 1611, words were changed through to 1769 for the benefit of those people living then. By 1769 it was finalized. It may even be that sometimes there were errors, but is it without error now? YES. Will the ESV under its philosophy (that the bible CANNOT be perfect EVER) ever become perfect, no. Its deletions and omissions are permanent, and will never ever be rectified. Same goes with every other translation after 1881.

So you understand what I am saying about the philosophy affecting the translation, had the ESV or others of its kind been translated under the KJV philosophy, we may have had another modern, perfect bible. There is nothing to say that thees, thous etc have to be there, or archaic words of any kind for that matter. But what matters is whats in the hearts of the translators, compilers, editors, as well as the manuscript base that they are translated from. I personally prefer pure Tyndale for my bible reading, and I 100% believe it to be as inspired and preserved as the KJV. I believe it to be a step on the way to perfection, as authoritative as the KJV.

I don't feel that way (anymore) about any modern bible translation. When I hear someone appeal to the Greek or Hebrew, I kind of feel a little bit sick.  When the bible was translated into English, it was under the impression that ANYBODY could read it and understand it. Now we have a new priesthood that will often say "the Greek word says...". What use is that? No my friends, you can pick up an English bible and understand what God wanted you to understand. You will be told that debate is impossible unless you know Greek. How can you really know what the bible says unless you know Greek, because the English will never be as good as the Greek.


I know it is, because God gave us the Holy Spirit, and he gave us the Bible in English. Now tell me, would you rather have a bible which was translated with the philosophy that there is absolute truth, that you don't need the Greek, that you; akin to a ploughboy, could know more of the bible than a Bishop (because you read said bible)? Or a bible which is translated under the banner of "making the bible easier to understand" and with the philosophy that there is no authoritative, preserved word of God anywhere, that we will never know for sure, that you must shell of out every few years for a better version, and that if you don't know greek you're missing something and may be a bit dense, and are unworthy of any sort of debate.

I have argued with such people, people who tell me that I am unworthy of discussion unless I have had 20 years of Greek training.

Come on folks!


Popular Posts