Posts Tagged ‘King James only debate’

This is one of the best examples of how KJVOist use circular reasoning and logical fallacy to defend King James Onlyism. I find it interesting how the guy in this video takes numbers and grammar to some how prove the NIV is Satanic.


In Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles we where warned about Satanic/evil men who tainted the KJV. The conclusion was that the 1769 KJV is 100% pure and all other KJV’s are corrupted. Now we have a rogue named Matthew Verschuur  in the KJV only movement claiming that the Cambridge Edition of the KJV is 100% perfect! How do we know which KJV is perfect? Why was the first KJV created in circa 1611 excluded from this on going debate? I would love to see these two KJVOist debate! Maybe just maybe, we will discover which KJV “god” moved over and blessed as 100% perfect.

I just wonder how (g)od goofed in 1611 and could not get it right the first time…

“The Protector” with latest news and updates are periodically post on the Bible Protector Board, click on the link:



ARE IMPURE EDITIONS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE INERRANT?A typographical error is not actually an “error” in the Bible, because it is only a presentation error. The fact is that any KJB (of the proper tradition) is still presenting the same text and translation that is correct. The issue is not about “errancy”, but about purity of presentation. (The problem is if someone is thinking that an impure rendering is the truth, if it differs to the intended and proper presentation, especially when meaning is potentially altered.)If we have an inerrant text and translation, and yet we have many differing editions of it, we would also want to have the edition which has the standard spelling and that is free from perpetuated typographical errors. As a whole, the Pure Cambridge Edition is this, and I have presented electronic copies that are free from even little accidental one-off errors of the kind that are likely to appear in almost every book on the planet.However there are some so-called KJBs which are corrupt, because the text and translation have been altered, e.g. the margin notes interpolated, or so-called “archaic” words changed.

The point is that the proper intended message and meaning of the KJB is linked with the most accurate presentation. This does not mean that present impure copies, or old copies are wrong or not “real Bibles”, but it does mean that there are places where there was potentially a question, for example, should it be “ye” or “he” in Jeremiah 34:16? Resolving this has been taking into account many factors, such as, the Hebrew, the 1611 Edition, the 1769 Edition, various opinions, and other such things. But the foundation is that God has provided out of history a completely correct edition, for which there is a witness to in a great consensus of literally millions of copies. By receiving the true edition, which is in line with God’s promise of having the seven-times purified Word, we have the responsibility to study the issue, and seeing that these things be so. (All kinds of internal and external evidences vindicate the PCE, and show it to be presentationally superior to any other edition at any place of difference.)

Also, I would point out that to have a standard copy of the King James Bible is an idea that a non-KJB person could accept, even if they do not accept that it is the pure presentation of the perfect version of God’s Word in English for the world. (After all, scholars accept the logic of having the “Cambridge standard Shakespeare” etc.)

Some presently printed Bibles are going to be closer to the “pure” edition than others, e.g. a Pitt Minion Cambridge, which was once a PCE, may now still be fairly close since Cambridge has been making changes away from the pure.

Last of all, I will mention that even if we had the final draft with handwriting in it that was delivered to the press in 1610/1611, we would find that this master copy would not be the “standard presentation”, though it would obviously have the correct text and translation just the same as any 1769-based printed copy today. We know that this is the case for a number of reasons: 1. the text and translation have not altered between the first printed copy and 1769. 2. that if there was a problem, there would have been a public comment, alteration by translators, alteration by printers and/or rejection by King James at the outset; history gives no such testimony of textual or translational defects in the King James Bible, and every change that was made, e.g. in 1638, was in line with purification, namely, of clearing out typographical errors, standardising the language and introducing other regularisation, including in the use of italics.


1. PCE Bibles are available through this website.

2. It may be possible that existing stocks of new PCE Bibles printed by HarperCollins in the Popular Size may be obtained from that publisher, Bible distributors and bookshops.

3. Second hand copies may be available in certain countries in churches, with older Christians and through second hand shops. In Australia, many Collins printed Bibles from the 1940s and 1950s conforming to the PCE may be found, as well as Cambridge printed Bibles from the same era.

For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”.

Use the checklist to ascertain whether the Bible is a Pure Cambridge Edition:

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2

2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19

3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4

4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16

5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24

6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16

7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1

8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39

9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73

10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12

11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28

12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8


BACK TO THE BIBLE PROTECTOR Copyright © 2012 I am using this information as defined under the Fair Use section of US copyright law.

There is a new menace plaguing those who are faithful to Benjamin G Wilkinson‘s KJV only doctrine! This new threat is deadly that the NIV, more divisive than Peter Ruckman’s prophecy about a black-lipped anti-Christ coming to earth in a UFO, and far more confusing then trying to understand Gail (god and) Riplinger’s babbling about the NIV and the sinking of the Titanic! What is this threat? COUNTERFEIT King James Bibles! It seems a new Satanic plot has been unleashed upon those who are faithful to the “old” book.

Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles

By Nic Kizziah

This article is © Copyrighted by Theological Research, a department of The Believers Organization.  Permission is granted to copy and distribute this article, or any portion of it, as long as it’s not for profit and not edited in any manner whatsoever.  If you wish to use this article in a profit making capacity then permission must be granted by the author.  Contact Nic Kizziah, President, The Believers Organization, P. O. Box 40862, Tuscaloosa, AL  35404, phone: (205) 462-1873,  email:, visit their website:

King James Bible believers are faced with an array of problems to day. Of course we all know that the multiplicity of all the new modern versions are a big problem but another big problem is the fact that many of the worldly publishing companies are publishing Bibles and calling them King James Bibles when in actuality they are not.  They are counterfeits.

Because the King James Bible is in the publick domain and not copyrighted, these worldly publishing companies think they can make minor changes to the standard text so that they can please certain groups which translates into extra sales for them.  That’s the way the modern world operates to day.  All the common ordinary Bible believer wants is the same Bible that his grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had etc. that’s all.

Just give us the text that has established itself as the standard text of the Holy Bible, an old fashioned, Christ exalting, devil kicking, Authorized King James Bible.  To the best of my understanding this is the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible with a few minor printing errors and spellings corrected along the way in the 1800’s.

Until the twenty-first century you could get a copy of it in any nickel and dime book store.  To day you can still find it but you must proceed with caution.  You will be hard pressed to find it at all in any typical Christian book store without some alterations to the text.

The Bible of our forefathers which we received through process of time comes with three specific warning labels.  One is near the front.  The other is near the middle and the last one is at the very end.  Let’s read them:

WARNING LABEL # 1 – Deuteronomy 4:2

2 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.

WARNING LABEL # 2 – Proverbs 30:5-6

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

WARNING LABEL # 3 – Revelation 22:18-19

18 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:
19 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.  

I would like to think these worldly publishing companies are just ignorant to the seriousness of what they are doing.  However in some cases I’m sure that these deceptive maneuvers are being done with fore thought.  In other words they are aware of the warning labels but choose to ignore them. They have hardened their hearts against the standard text of the Holy Bible.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about.  It was approximately six months ago I purchased a King James Bible from a popular on line book store.  It was a straight text (advertised as the standard text) meaning it had no notes, no references, no helps, and no maps.  It was just what I wanted.  Just give me the Bible and if I need help with a difficult passage I’ll ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and I’ll check other scriptures for references.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against some of the commentaries and other Bible study tools.  In fact I consider some of them a necessity, for example a good dictionary.  It’s just that commentaries, dictionaries, concordances and the like are the words of men and not the words of God.  They are not infallible.  Therefore I do not believe they should be mixed together under the same cover and be called the word of God.  In actuality it is the word of God plus the words of a man or a group of men. In my opinion the Holy Bible should be just the word of God only from cover to cover.  That is why I prefer a straight text.

At any rate I had bought the Bible I thought I wanted.  It had been published by Cambridge.  They have always been the giant in the industry. In fact they are the oldest Printer and Publisher in the world.  They are supposed to be the gold standard for dependability according to many King James Bible believers.  This Bible had a nice black French Morocco leather cover with golden coloured gilt edges.  It was very nice on the outside but when I started checking out the inside I was shocked. This particular edition of the Cambridge Bible that calls itself a King James Bible is not genuine.  IT’S A COUNTERFEIT!  It’s not the Bible of my forefathers!

Here are some of the changes I located: Asswaged has been changed to assuaged.  Basons has been changed to basins.  Chesnut has been changed to chestnut.  Cloke has been changed to cloak.  Enquire has been changed to inquire.  Further has been changed to farther.  Jubile has been changed to jubilee.  Intreat has been changed to entreat.  Morter has been changed to mortar.  Ought has been changed to aught, and rereward has been changed to rearward.

Brother Nic, why get so upset?  These are just minor changes in spelling.  Well maybe they are, but have you never read “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”  You see I believe God wrote the Bible through sinful men.  I believe God copied the Bible through sinful men.  I believe God translated the Bible through sinful men, and I believe God edited (purified) the Bible through sinful men.  So therefore I believe God gave us the exact words in the exact order He wanted us to have them in.  If that’s the case then He spelled the words exactly the way He wanted to spell them, and gave them to us in a pure language, and that language is the standard text of the King James Bible.  This is the Bible that has stood the test of time without any editing whatsoever and this is the Bible The Believers organization, with God’s help, intends to preserve for all future generations.

Beside all this, Cambridge has also taken the liberty of making doctrinal changes.  Notice the following: The capital S in the word Spirit has been changed to a lower case s in numerous passages.  The capital S refers to the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead, whereas the lower case s in the word spirit could have multiple definitions such as simply referring to a mood or emotion.  Its primary definition means to breath.  All living self moving creatures have a spirit within them.  So many definitions could apply to the word spirit when it is not capitalized.

To change the capital S in the word Spirit to a lower case s is an attack against the Godhead, the most powerful threefold cord in heaven and earth: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Cambridge has made this critical error in the following places: Genesis 1:2, 41:38, Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 13:25, 14:6, 14:19, 15:14, 1 Samuel 10:6, 10:10, 11:6, 16:13, 16:14, 19:20, 19:23, 2 Samuel 23:2, 1 Kings 18:12, 22:24, 2 Kings 2:16, 2 Chronicles 15:1, 18:23, 20:14, 24:20, Job 33:4, Isaiah 40:13, 48:16, 61:1, 63:10, 11, 14, Ezekiel 11:5, 24.  For hundreds of years Cambridge published these verses with a capital S, but now in the twenty-first century it has been changed.  Actually this so called standard text edition first hit the market in 1993 and is being endorsed by many King James Bible believing websites to day.  I assume that they are not aware that it has been modernized.

Here is another change that has been made in this particular edition: the word twoedged has become two-edged.  They added a hyphen.  This word is only in the King James Bible four times (Psalms 149:6, Proverbs 5:4, Hebrews 4:12, and Revelation 1:16.)  Now check this out: they added the hyphen in only three of the four verses.  They left it without a hyphen in Hebrews 4:12.  Why?  Was this a mistake or did they mean to do it that way?  Why tamper with it in the first place?  Don’t say you were trying to help us Cambridge.  If that’s the case then please don’t try to help us any more.  All we want you to do is to publish the same standard text of the King James Bible as you have done so very well for hundreds of years. Don’t publish something that is not the standard and call it the standard.  Once you modernize spelling, change capital letters to lower case letters and add hyphens, you are changing the standard text in order to please modern society.

Here are some other ploys that some of these other worldly publishing companies are pulling on an unaware publick. One thing a lot of them do is change the spelling of words that end with the letters o-u-r to the more modern American spelling of o-r.  For example armour becomes armor.  Behaviour becomes behavior.  Clamour becomes clamor.  Colour becomes color.  Endeavour becomes endeavor.  Favour becomes favor.  Honour becomes honor.  Labour becomes labor.  Neighbour becomes neighbor.  Odour becomes odor.  Rigour becomes rigor.  Rumour becomes rumor.  Valour becomes valor and vapour becomes vapor.  Well Brother Nic what’s wrong with that?  Remember what we said about the warning labels?  Remember what the scripture said about a little leaven leaventh the whole lump?

Now the very worst of this battle of o-u-r vs. o-r comes when dealing with the only begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  The modern day counterfeiters have changed Saviour to Savior.  They have given us a six-letter Savior in place of a seven-letter Saviour.  In Bible numerics seven is the number of completeness, purity, and spiritual perfection.  On the other hand six is the number of man which is earthly not heavenly.  Every one has heard of 666.  It has a bad connotation and is not highly esteemed in Bible numerics.

The seven-letter Saviour is the only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.  The six-letter Savior is the son of perdition, the anti christ. He wants to be like the most High (Isaiah 14:14,) but not in a good way, but in an evil way.  He is not a follower.  He’s a counterfeiter.  Therefore his final destination is the lake of fire.  The new versions, along with the new age movement, and some of the King James Bible counterfeits are preparing the way for this six-letter so called Savior. That’s the way he will spell his name, S-a-v-i-o-r not S-a-v-i-o-u-r.   No thank you Satan.  I’m sticking with the seven-letter Saviour as portrayed in the old black Book that I inherited from my forefathers.

There are many other things going on by the worldly publishing companies.  Almost all of them have hardened their hearts against the standard text of the Holy Bible.  They do not believe God actually had His hand upon it much less wrote it.  They treat it as a product of men.  That is why they do not hesitate to publish all the different new versions.  Nor do they hesitate to change the old King James and still call it the King James. If a person can’t see the fingerprints of God upon this Book then he is either clouded in the cabassis or he is as lost as a duck in the desert with his head in the sand!

The rules of English grammar may change but the King James Bible is fixed in a moment of time (the 1800’s, the 1900’s and for ever more) and is unchangeable.  This is the standard text and there is no other.  This is the Book that spread the gospel of Jesus Christ all over the world. This is the Book my grandmother had and her grandmother had and her grandmother had without any alterations (editing) whatsoever.  It is basically the same Book that rolled off the printing press in 1611.  The only differences being it was changed from Gothic type to Roman type, printer’s errors were corrected and spelling was stabilized.  The King James Bible is a very old Book.

Now consider this: the scriptures have been translated into over 1,200 languages.  Of all these over 800 languages had it translated straight from the Elizabethan English of the King James Bible. Not from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Not from the Latin, not from the German, but straight from the Authorized King James.  Now some of these people have learned English as a second language.  They are not familiar with these modern Americanized spellings nor are most of the other English speaking people of the world.  Can you see what God has woven together through process of time? The Holy Bible is from above and is a finished book from God. It is written in a pure language. Furthermore this language is very peculiar and has been used and still is being used in a very unique way.  Let’s preserve it as we received it and quit trying to change it!


Scripture Reference

The Real Bible


GENESIS 1:1 heaven heavens
GENESIS 1:2 Capital S (Spirit) lower case s (spirit)
GENESIS 8:1 asswaged assuaged
GENESIS 11:3 throughly thoroughly
GENESIS 11:3 morter mortar
GENESIS 12:1 shew show
GENESIS 21:26 to day today
GENESIS 23:8 intreat entreat
GENESIS 24:57 enquire inquire
GENESIS 30:37 chesnut chestnut
GENESIS 31:42 labour labor
GENESIS 41:38 Capital S (Spirit) lower case s (spirit)
EXODUS 8:23 to morrow tomorrow
EXODUS 24:6 basons basins
EXODUS 25:30 shewbread showbread
EXODUS 25:30 alway always
LEVITICUS 25:9 jubile jubilee
NUMBERS 10:25 rereward rearward
NUMBERS 22:26 further farther
1 SAMUEL 18:6 musick music
PSALMS 149:6 twoedged two-edged
ISAIAH 59:17 cloke cloak
MATTHEW 1:19 publick public
MATTHEW 4:1 Capital S (Spirit) lower case s (spirit)
LUKE 2:11 Saviour Savior
PHILIPPIANS 3:17 ensample example
1 TIMOTHY 6:20 so called so-called
JAMES 4:14 vapour vapor

This is just a very short list of the changes being made by some of the worldly publishing companies.  If you find one counterfeit word then that is a pretty good indication there are many more.  Don’t buy that Bible, check elsewhere.

The best place I know to purchase a good Bible at a reasonable price is at Bearing Precious Seed Ministry.  They sell them at cost. However they do expect a donation with each purchase.  This is a church ministry, not a business.

Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates
by James R. White

King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not “corrupt” but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.

Baptist writer William P. Grady, in a chapter titled the “Synagogue of Satan,” writes, “The average Christ-ian is unaware that the manuscripts from which the modern ‘Bibles’ have been translated are Egyptian in origin; more specifically, Alexandrian. This lack of understanding is exacerbated by little or no knowledge of Egypt’s heretical climate at that time. When these factors are appreciated, the weakness and hypocrisy behind the modern revision movement becomes more readily apparent.”1

The claim that modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) are based upon “corrupt” editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts is a common argument of King James Only advocates. Believers who encounter the claims of individuals such as Peter Ruckman,2 Samuel Gipp,3 Gail Riplinger,4 or D. A. Waite5 will often hear that while the King James Version (KJV) is based upon “God honoring manuscripts,” the modern translations are based upon only a handful of heretical, corrupt manuscripts.6 They allege that these manuscripts can be linked to every kind of heretical belief, even when those beliefs are contradictory to one another. One will find KJV Only advocates7 linking these manuscripts to Arianism, Gnosticism, liberalism, and Roman Catholicism. These manuscripts allegedly deny salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection of Christ, and the existence of hell, and affirm any number of other heresies and errors. Therefore, since nearly all modern translations8 are based upon these “corrupt” manuscripts, the translations are also corrupt and should be rejected by all “Bible believers.”

The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position,9 the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight.

Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the “old ways” — the “traditions” of the “good ol’ days” when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term “modern,” for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was “good” about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church.

Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer.


In 1516 a Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Over the course of his lifetime four more editions would come out, each differing in various ways from the other. It was this Greek text that influenced the life of Martin Luther.10 Indeed, all of the Reformers11 used this text — a point KJV Only advocates often make. We should point out, however, that their choice of the text was not due to anything other than availability. Erasmus’s text was widely published and relatively inexpensive, and hence was easily obtainable. Textual studies had not yet advanced to the point of even being able to identify different kinds of text types in the underlying Greek manuscripts. Therefore, to attempt to enlist the Reformers as advocates of one particular text type over another is to embroil them in a debate that was not theirs.

Robert Estienne, better known by his Latin name, Stephanus, continued Erasmus’s work. Theodore Beza, who succeeded Calvin in Geneva, used Estienne’s work. Beza was particularly interested in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, even collecting a few of the more important manuscripts himself. He produced a number of editions of the Greek New Testament.

All of these editions — the five of Erasmus, Stephanus’s text (primarily his 1550 edition), and Beza’s editions — were available to the King James translators while they labored between 1604 and 1611. Since these editions differed at various points,12 the translators also played the role of textual critics, weighing the various readings and making decisions as it seemed best to them, just as modern editors and translators do. It is important to note that the resultant King James New Testament text did not exist in that exact form prior to 1611. That is, there is no family of manuscripts, or even a single manuscript, that reads exactly as the King James New Testament. The translators used an “eclectic” methodology, recognizing that no single manuscript should be elevated to the status of the “standard,” but that each manuscript contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of texts.

A few decades after the publication of the KJV, an advertisement appeared for the printed edition of the Greek New Testament that claimed, as advertisements are prone to do, that it represented the “text received by all.” In Latin this phrase boiled down to the textus receptus, and hence an advertising blurb became associated with the Greek texts of the Erasmus–Stephanus– Beza line so that today one will find the phrase used to describe the text from which the KJV was translated.13 It is important to note, however, that the Textus Receptus (TR) normally used by KJV Only advocates did not exist in 1611. That is, the TR used today is normally the one created by Scrivener in 1894, which took as its basis the English translation of the KJV, giving the reader the Greek textual choices made by the KJV translators.

The TR was the “standard” text for more than 200 years in most of Europe. While more manuscripts came to light during this time, it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that a serious challenge to the preeminence of the TR was mounted through the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Westcott and Hort recognized the existence of text types or “text families” in the growing number of manuscripts available to scholars, and they asserted that the most common form of the NT text, found predominately in later manuscripts, was the result of an earlier revision. This meant that the TR, in their view, represented a later, secondary form of the text. The earlier, more primitive (and hence more pure) form of the text was to be found in those manuscripts that predated this revision.

The TR text generally represents the Byzantine family of manuscripts. The Byzantine text type is by far the majority text type and is to be found in the vast majority of later NT manuscripts. The other text types include the Western, the Caesarean, and the most important, the Alexandrian. The names indicate that these text types are related to geographical areas, though it should not be assumed that all Alexandrian manuscripts come from Alexandria, nor all Byzantine manuscripts from Byzantium.

Modern Greek texts, such as the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Societies 4th edition, which underlie modern English translations and are used most often in college and seminary-level Greek classes, are based not upon just a few texts, but upon all Greek manuscripts. Unlike the TR, which was derived from only one stream of the large Byzantine family of texts, the modern texts draw from the entire range of Greek texts. The modern Greek texts also provide extensive textual notes indicating what readings are to be found in which manuscripts. This is important for the person who wants to check the choices made by editors and translators, as well as for the person concerned about alleged “secrecy” on the part of modern textual scholars. Modern Greek texts are open in allowing the reader to examine all the relevant manuscript readings, leading to honesty and accountability.


When manuscripts differ from each other, one needs a methodology to determine which reading to include in the Greek text and in any translation derived from that Greek text. Given the fact that no two handwritten Greek manuscripts read exactly the same, everyone who engages in creating printed editions of the Greek text or translations into modern languages must struggle with textual diversity. Erasmus did so, the KJV translators did so, and modern scholars engage in the same task. The King James Version is just as much a result of this process of study and examination as any modern text, and those who assert it is somehow above such “human” activities are simply ignoring the facts of history. If KJV Only advocates wish to say that all the decisions made by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators were perfect, they need to explain why. Simply assuming this won’t do.

Most of the textual differences that have attracted charges of “corruption” by KJV Only advocates come from the fact that modern textual scholars believe that certain text types carry more weight in determining a reading than others. That is, rather than simply counting manuscripts to see which reading has more manuscripts on its side, scholars recognize that other factors must be considered. Most agree that the Byzantine text type, as a whole, is a later form of the text, while the Alexandrian text type generally represents an earlier form. Since the TR, and therefore the KJV, represents a Byzantine form, modern texts will differ at places from the KJV where scholars determine that the KJV’s reading comes from a later, rather than earlier, time.

Modern Greek texts do not simply reproduce the entire Alexandrian text type. Instead, each variant is examined as a single unit, with both external considerations (e.g., which manuscripts contain which readings) and internal considerations (e.g., context, determining which reading is most difficult, etc.) being used to determine which reading will be placed in the main text. It is important to note, however, that those readings not chosen are still included in the textual apparatus at the bottom of the page, and at times modern translation committees will choose one of these variants as their main reading, feeling free to disagree with the editors of the Greek text they are relying upon.


The charge of “corrupt manuscripts,” while often made, is far less often defined. What does the term mean? Textual critics use the term to refer to any variation from the original text. Hence, spelling the name of the pool in John 5:2 Bethzatha rather than Bethesda would be called a “corruption” of the text, though such a difference is hardly relevant to the meaning of the text. This is why textual scholar Bruce Metzger can title a work on the subject, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 

KJV Only advocates, however, do not use the term in this way. Most often they use it to communicate the idea of specific, purposeful, doctrinal corruption or perversion. Any variation from the chosen standard (the KJV) is considered a “corruption.” And there are many such variations. But does this make modern texts “corrupt”? Certainly not. In point of fact, if we make the most primitive form of the NT text the standard, the Byzantine text type (and hence the KJV itself) shows evidence of having the largest number of scribal errors, additions, and expansions, and hence would be, in the most accurate use of the term, the most “corrupt” form of text. It all depends on what one defines as the “chosen standard,” for the standard determines which texts end up labeled “corrupt.”

Textual variations exist. This is a fact everyone must deal with, including every KJV Only advocate who wishes to be honest with history and with himself or herself. But why are there variations? And does the presence of variations make a manuscript “corrupt”?

One of the most important advances in our knowledge of the Greek manuscripts since the days of King James comes from the area of scribal habits. We are able to recognize much more clearly now what kinds of errors people are liable to make when they are hand-copying a manuscript. The largest portion of textual variants in the NT comes from simple scribal errors, not from purposeful “corruption” of the text for theological reasons. For example, even modern writers will engage in the error of homoeoteleuton — that is, “similar endings.” When copying a sentence, people often skip a word or phrase due to a similar ending appearing later in the line or on the next line. It is obvious that this took place in James 4:12a in the later Byzantine manuscripts. While the earlier texts read, “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, ” the majority of texts simply have, “There is only one Lawgiver,” the term “and Judge” being deleted. The Greek term for lawgiver is nomothetes, and the word for judge is krites. Notice that both terms end in the same three-letter cluster, tes. A scribe, having written the first term and returning his eyes to his original text, simply caught the second appearance of the letter cluster and mistook it for the first. Not realizing this oversight, the scribe continued on, thereby inadvertently deleting the term “judge.”

The same type of error is found at 1 John 3:1, where modern translations (based on the earliest texts) read, “. . .that we might be called the children of God, and we are!” The later texts (on which the KJV is based) have simply, “that we might be called the children of God.” Similar endings are again found in the Greek, the letter cluster men this time causing the problem. A scribe simply skipped the small phrase “and we are,” and this reading became the reading of the majority of Greek texts.

We can identify many more examples of simple scribal error in the texts of the NT. The important thing to note is that such errors do not require one to believe in any grand conspiracy theories, nor must one search for some “hidden meaning” behind the variant itself. The Byzantine scribes who did not have the reference to God as judge were not denying that He is just that, nor were they denying 1 John’s statement that we are the children of God right now by faith in Christ. Yet KJV Only materials are filled with this kind of reverse argumentation.14

Another kind of “corruption” of the NT text was purposeful. (Yes, there are purposeful corruptions in NT manuscripts.) Almost always these changes are toward what would be called “orthodoxy,” not away from it. Most often these corruptions come from scribes who were attempting to “help out” the biblical text. Over and over again, for example, one will find scribes trying to harmonize the parallel accounts of events in the Gospels. There was a desire to make Matthew, Mark, and Luke say the same thing in the same words.

A quick glance at a parallel Greek text of the Gospels15 provides multiple examples on almost every page. One such example will suffice. In Luke 9:23 Luke recorded the Lord saying that the disciple must take up his cross daily and follow Him. Since Matthew and Mark did not include the term “daily,” a large portion of later manuscripts “harmonized” the passage by deleting the phrase from Luke.

Should someone ask, “But how do you know someone didn’t add it to Luke?” we must first point out that the reading is found in the most ancient manuscripts of Luke. Furthermore, why would a scribe try to make Luke different than Matthew or Mark? The tendency we find in the texts is to make things the same, not different. Those who have spent time in the text of the NT know the truth of this rule of thumb: “The original reading is most likely the one that best explains how the others arose.” If one can easily determine how a particular reading could give rise to the others, that reading gets the weight of the internal evidence on its side. One can then factor in the manuscript evidence so that a final decision can be made.16

The same thing happens in the Pauline Epistles that bear similarity to one another, such as Ephesians and Colossians. One of the most famous instances of harmonization is found at Colossians 1:14. KJV Only advocates refer to this passage with great frequency. In a recent Bible Answer Man broadcast a caller attacked the NIV for “taking out the blood at Colossians 1:14.” In Salt Lake City I encountered a KJV Only advocate who was passing out tracts outside the Mormon temple and who referred to the NIV as the “bloodless Bible,” again citing this passage. When one compares the KJV with modern translations at this point, it certainly seems like there is a problem.


In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.


in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Where is the phrase “through his blood”? Here we have another example of how parallel passages can cause scribes to “harmonize.” Note the source of the phrase in the parallel passage in Ephesians 1:7:


In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;


In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,


In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

The phrase “through his blood” in Ephesians 1:7 is found immediately after “in whom we have redemption.” Hence, later scribes, possibly inadvertently, inserted the phrase in Colossians as well. In point of fact, the KJV’s reading at Colossians 1:14 is the minority reading based upon only a few comparatively late manuscripts. It should be emphasized that all the modern translations contain the phrase at Ephesians 1:7. Why? Because they are seeking solely to translate the Greek text, and the Greek text — the best Greek text no matter how one slices it — has this reading. There is no conspiracy, no cut-and-snip methodology occurring in these reputable translations.


Are modern translations “doctrinally corrupt”? Some are. The New World Translation published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is certainly corrupt doctrinally and textually as well.17 Some translations give evidence of rank liberalism or a less-than-orthodox view of Scripture. But the reputable, scholarly translations used regularly by believers such as the NASB and the NIV are most certainly not doctrinally corrupt.

The textual variant at John 6:47 helps us demonstrate that the broad spectrum of passages most often cited by KJV Only advocates do not, upon close examination, support their charges of doctrinal corruption. Dr. D. A. Waite of The Bible for Today alleges just such corruption in his book Defending the King James Bible. He alleges a “SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PERVERSION” (emphasis in original)18 in modern texts at John 6:47. Note the comparison:


Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Modern Translations (here NASB)

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Modern translations do not contain the phrase “on me” at this verse, causing Dr. Waite to comment, “To make salvation only a matter of ‘believing’ rather than solely, as Christ said in this verse, ‘believing on Me,’ is truly ‘ANOTHER GOSPEL’! If you were trying to lead someone to Christ with the NIV or NASV, using this verse, they could ‘believe’ in anything and still have ‘everlasting life’ — whether in Santa Claus, in the Easter Bunny, in the Tooth Fairy, in Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, or in any of the false world religions!” (emphasis in original).19

Accusations of preaching “another gospel” are quite strong. But does the accusation have merit? Not at all. The NASB and NIV are brimming with the phrase “believe in me.” Just a few verses before John 6:47 (in v. 35), the NASB reads, “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst’” (emphasis added). And in the immediate context of John 6, v.40 reads, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (emphasis added). Other places in John where the phrase appears in modern translations include John 7:38, 11:25-26, 12:44, and 46. If the modern translations are trying to preach “another gospel,” why do they include all these references that contradict this “other gospel”? What’s more, how do they explain the many places where the KJV has the simple phrase “believe,” such as at Mark 9:23 and Romans 1:16 and 10:4? Is the KJV guilty of teaching “another gospel” because it does not have the specific phrase “in Him” or “in Christ” at these places? Of course not.

As we have seen all along, the modern translations are simply translating the text before them, and in this case the phrase “in me” is not found in the most ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Later scribes most probably inadvertently harmonized the phrase “believe” with the more common “believe in me,” resulting in the KJV reading. There is no perversion here. Instead, this is one of literally hundreds of examples that could be presented from the text of the Gospels that show the tendency of scribes to utilize the most common way of saying things, often resulting in this kind of harmonization. Anyone who thinks that the lack of the term “in me” at John 6:47 somehow alters the gospel itself has an extremely strained view of how one determines the gospel message from the text of Scripture.

A little patience and a little study will reward the diligent student with answers to all of those passages cited by KJV Only advocates regarding alleged doctrinal “corruption.” In each case the reputable modern translations will be cleared of the charge.

Many other examples could be examined that confirm that modern translations such as the NASB and NIV, far from being corrupt, are in fact the best examples of faithful English translations of the best Greek texts we have available to us. The Christian who studies, memorizes, and obeys the Scriptures as he or she finds them in modern English translations can be confident in the text he or she uses. While the KJV remains to this day a venerable translation, those who attempt to make it the standard to the detriment of more readable (and in many instances more accurate) modern versions are in serious error.

James R. White is Scholar in Residence at the College of Christian Studies, Grand Canyon University, and the director of ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Bethany House) and Letters to a Mormon Elder (Bethany House).


1William P. Grady, Final Authority (Schererville, IN: Grady Publications, 1993), 73.
2See The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press, 1990).
3See The Answer Book (Shelbyville, TN: Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989).
4See New Age Bible Versions (Munroe Falls, OH: A. V. Publications, 1993).
5See Defending the King James Bible (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1992).
6In this article we focus primarily upon the New Testament text, as the majority of allegations of “corruption” are aimed at Greek New Testament manuscripts rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.
7It is vital to note that we use the term “KJV Only” to represent only those who believe the KJV alone is the God-honoring English translation today. There are many differences among those who attack modern translations. Men such as Samuel Gipp (a student of Peter Ruckman) attack those who defend the Greek text (known as the Textus Receptus, or “TR”) that underlies the KJV rather than the KJV text itself. In answering the question, “What is the difference between a ‘Textus Receptus Man’ and a ‘King James Man?’” he writes, “A ‘TR Man’ gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt” (The Answer Book, 78). In the same way, those who defend the TR attack those who go so far as to invest the KJV translation with “divine preservation” or even the status of “advanced revelation.” Dr. Theodore Letis has identified the position many of the more radical KJV Only advocates have as “cultic” in these words: “Anyone who ascribes the inspired characteristics of the Hebrew Bible or the greek N.T. to an English Bible and anathematizes everyone who does not agree with them is a cult. These tend to be…highly separatistic and unlearned Baptists.” (Internet post from the “Theonomy-L” mailing list, dated Friday, June 16, 1995.)
8The New King James Version (NKJV) is based upon the same texts used in the translation of the original 1611 KJV. Despite this fact, KJV Only advocates attack the NKJV with as much fervor as they do the NASB and the NIV.
9It is important to differentiate the KJV Only position and the related “TR Only” position (which asserts the superiority of the specific Greek text used by the KJV translators) from the “Majority Text” theory proposed and defended by men like Zane Hodges, Art Farstad, and Maurice Robinson. The Majority Text theory, while commanding a rather small minority of scholarly support, is far removed from the position taken by people such as Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger.
10It was from this text, for example, that Luther recognized the vast difference between the Latin Vulgate’s “do penance” and the Greek’s “repent.”
11This is not to say that none of them made corrections or changes to the text. Calvin, for example, disagreed with Erasmus’s text in a number of places.
12For examples, see pp. 63-70 in this author’s work, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995).
13There are actually as many as 100 different texti recepti, so to speak, each one differing in small matters from the others.
14An excellent example is provided by Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions. The cover of her book claims, “The Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind the new versions are examined, revealing their occult origins, contents, and yet unreleased material — a blueprint for the Antichrist’s One World Religion and government….Documented are the thousands of words, verses, and doctrines by which new versions will prepare the apostate churches of these last days to accept the religion of Antichrist — even his mark, image, and Lucifer worship.” Riplinger claims that “all new versions, based on a tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts, make the fatefully frightening addition of three words in Revelation 14:1” (p. 99). A comparison of the KJV with modern texts indicates that the KJV is missing the emphasized words: “The Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.” Riplinger writes of this alleged addition, “Will the unwary, reading Revelation 14:1 in a recent version, be persuaded that the bible sanctions and encourages the taking of ‘his name’ on their forehead before they receive his Father’s name?” (p. 100). A familiarity with the critical apparatus of a Greek text would have saved Riplinger from concern about such conspiracies, for in point of fact it is only a “tiny percentage” of all Greek manuscripts that do not contain the phrase. It fell out in a small number of manuscripts due to the repetition of the Greek phrase to onoma and the Greek term autou. Again, there is no need to look for “conspiracies” when a normal scribal error of sight is a far more logical and rational explanation.
15Kurt Aland has provided such a tremendously helpful tool, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985).
16I hasten to remind the reader that Erasmus and the KJV translators used similar reasoning. Hence, the KJV’s readings were arrived at in the same way. For example, in citing a textual variant at Matthew 20:22, Erasmus correctly noted that the phrase in question was most probably borrowed from Mark 10:38, even though retaining it in his text. Modern textual critics agree, and have placed the reading in footnotes.
17I note only in passing the fact that the NWT, though ostensibly following the 1881 W&H text, deliberately deletes the word “me” at John 14:14, despite its presence in the W&H text, so as to avoid having another reference of prayer to Christ. This is blatantly obvious “textual criticism on the basis of theology.”
18Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 158.

This article first appeared in the Winter 1996 issue of the Christian Research Journal.

Is it me, or does it appear that many King James Onlyists seem to appear a bit off? Mentally. This is not to be mean but it is an obvious observation.(source)

The King James only doctrine is nothing but a divisive myth peddled by power hungry wolves. These wolves ear tickle their flock with “old time and simple faith” themed sermons laced with poison.

2 Timothy 4:2-4(KJV) 

2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.