Some of the Pro’s of the KJV

We’ve spent quite a bit of energy on reasons why the KJVO position does not line up with textual evidence. Here are some good reasons to use the KJV, at the very least as one of the literal translations on your resource shelf:

  1. The King James translation was the last English translation where the text expanded the language rather than the language restricting the translation.
  2. The King James translation is just plain good at what it was meant for. It is an excellent literal translation – possibly still the finest of the genre.
  3. The King James translation is a scholarly Late Reformation Period translation – the pinnacle of English scholarship of the time. The New Testament especially is mostly a revision of the work of Tyndale (under the guise of being a revision of the Bishop’s Bible), whose linguistic work was truly centuries ahead of his time.
  4. The King James translation has a truly majestic, virtually transcendent English. It was intentionally created to be archaic to connect it to the great heritage of faith it represented.
  5. The King James translation contains familiar phrasings. A lot of the verses I quote from memory are still KJ.

That’s just five reasons. I’m sure we can come up with some more.


38 thoughts on “Some of the Pro’s of the KJV

  1. JasonS May 10, 2010 / 9:05 pm

    Job well done.
    I only wish that the KJVO folks would understand our appreciation of the KJV.
    I think it is an excellent translation that has not been excelled yet, though there are those pesky textual differences and archaic words.
    It’s beauty and cadence are unsurpassed.

    • PeterAV April 12, 2012 / 10:29 am

      Even a corrupt criminal can apreciate the pure Bible, but in the end, if truth is not paramount in their life, they also become deluded because they did not seek the truth.
      Plus some of this faked out straw man arguments get old after they parrot it every day. They know that these supposed ARCHAIC words are used every day in many a church a articles.
      Also the translators in some instances choose words that were archaic even to themselves because accuracy to the truth was paramount.
      There are no textual diferences with the King James Bible.
      All spellings and other erratta were sone corrected.
      Now we have the pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible without any errratta whatsoever.
      Those pesky diferences were not textual but were primarily publisher errors and resposibilities.
      Sure could use a dose of honesty about the topic.
      One never commends a book just to later have it ridiculed.

  2. Nathan Smith May 10, 2010 / 10:57 pm

    Regarding #5: I notice many modern translations hearkening back to KJV style in memory verses. For example, see how the NIV handles Proverbs 3:5 – “lean not” in the familiar verse, “do not ____” elsewhere in the chapter.

  3. Nazaroo May 14, 2010 / 6:35 pm

    Another immense advantage is the naivety of the translators. They wrote in a time when most people were believers in the Gospel.

    (1) They held a reverence for the original languages and the transmitted traditions of translation that is totally lacking in the committees responsible for modern versions.

    (2) They were loathe to “force” the text to conform to their doctrinal preferences, and would have been horrified by the shameless manipulation of translation taking place today.

    (3) They made decisions (such as the transliteration of “baptismo”) which unified rather than divided Christianity at a critical time, holding all Christians to a single high standard.

    (4) They sought literal accuracy, not through stilted, clumsy word-for-word translation, but through gifted use of the best English idiom.

    (5) They loved their readers, and wanted to give them the very best they had to offer, in scholarship, informed faith, and humility.

    These traits are all but missing from every modern version.


  4. Erik May 14, 2010 / 10:15 pm

    Nazaroo, I think you are being unfair to some of the translators of modern versions. The KJV translators had their biases which are evident as well; and it is not completely true that ‘they’ made decisions about translating words like bautizo. In reality, those decisions were made by those who came before them like Tyndale and Coverdale.

  5. Nazaroo May 16, 2010 / 3:23 pm

    Dear Erik:

    I don’t mean to imply that all ‘modern translators’ are equally guilty of “shameless manipulation”, only that this typifies the last century of translations as a group, and clearly distinguishes it from the translations of yesteryear. Remembering that ‘modern versions’ covers some 200 translations of the NT in English (c. 20th cent), and not just the NIV, NRSV, & EV.

    I would probably agree that the KJV xlators were influenced heavily by previous translators, and this was one of the “pluses” I listed – continuity, one of the necessary features of good xlation.

    But nonetheless, they must have consciously chosen to continue transliterating “baptismo” rather than xlate it. And this was done in a very active and competing environment of opinion on “baptism”. So they /did/ make a decision, and remain responsible for it.
    But I agree it was not in a vacuum.


    • Erik May 19, 2010 / 11:31 pm

      Hi Nazaroo,

      Actually if I remember my history correctly, the translators operated under a set of 14 rules – one of which was that they were not allowed to change accepted ecclesiastical words. Since the Church of England practices baptism but not immersion, they would not have been allowed to change the translation.

      The same applied to translating εκκλησια as “church” when “assembly” or “congregation” is a more accurate rendering. Since the Church of England was hierarchical and the Puritans were congregationalists, the translators could not render it as anything but “church.”

  6. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 9:25 am

    Hi Folks,

    “# The King James translation is a scholarly Late Reformation Period translation – the pinnacle of English scholarship of the time. Tyndale … whose linguistic work was truly centuries ahead of his time.”

    And I would say that scholarship went downhill from the height of the intense Reformation scholarship of the 1500s into the 1600s. Paradigms of unbelief came in, and the study of the language went atomistic, away from reading the Bible and early writers, discussing iron sharpenteth and (at times) debating and preaching in the Bible language. Working and living in a rich environment of scholastic immersion (e.g. Oxford, Cambridge, Geneva).

    By the 1700s only a few were on that levels, by the 1800s atomism was the norm, a type of grammatical geekiness outside the fluency of daily language use.. (think of English language geek-o-crats from the orient with no real fluency correcting our grammar and vocabulary, as we see on the net at times).

    By the late 1800s the attempt was made to remove faith and belief from Bible understandings and theories.

    Recently there was a supposed big breakthrough in trying to teach Biblical Greek in an academic environment. One or two folks were actually trying conversational immersion. In the Reformation scholarship, this was the norm.

    Steven Avery

  7. Erik July 17, 2010 / 9:59 am

    Hi Steve,
    Thanks for commenting. I disagree with your negative assessment of modern scholarship for a number of reasons – not the least of which is that while no one denies the academic rigor of the KJV translators, there is no way to objectively say they were somehow superior to modern scholars. Others have addressed the points our raise ad nauseum and I don’t think I need to add to it.

  8. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 10:19 am

    Hi Folks,

    Agreed that much is subjective.

    However some measurements are reasonably objective. Do we ever have 50 world-class scholars today working in one region on a Bible, discussing all the fine points, grammatical, translation, early writers, etc. point-by-point… for three years ? Conversing, discussion. How about two weeks ?

    Do we have Greek debates in the seminaries ? Where all the quick-thinking back-and-forth is in fluent Greek ? Which universities make that a regular part of their regimen ?

    We could go on, about the fluency and competency of individual men, the Hebrew sermon preached from unpointed Hebrew directly to English fluidly, the depth of scholarship of Münster, Tremellius, Junius, Fagius et al that led up to the Geneva and KJB.

    The sense you get today is that .. with a few exceptions (e.g. some Hebraic scholars with a Yeshiva background) the emphasis today is individual arcane writings, publish-and-perish, facile computer lexicon scholarship, etc.

    Can this distinction be objectively demonstrated ? Perhaps not. However you can read about the men and the times of the Reformation era and you compare the level of writing of the scholars of today.

    Also when you look at individual verses and the specifics, you can often see how scholarship made a deep dive in the 1800s, coming up with ideas of confusion (often before W-H) unto the modern version corruptions.

    Steven Avery

  9. Erik July 17, 2010 / 10:26 am

    Could you provide documentation on these debates in Greek?

  10. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 12:20 pm

    Hi Folks,

    The historian Thomas Fuller wrote about these debates around 1655.

    The history of the worthies of England, Volume 1 (1840 edition)
    Thomas Fuller

    My father was present in the Bachelors’ schools, when a Greek Act was kept, between him and William Alabaster, of Trinity College, to their mutual commendation ; a disputation so famous that it served for an era or epoch for the , for the scholars in that age, thence to date their seniority.

    McClure says that the Greek act was “a debate carried on in the Greek tongue”. (Translators Revived: p. 116)

    Olga Opfell says these were special yearly events.

    The King James Bible Translators (1982)
    Olga S. Opfell
    At the time of the translation work, Dillingham was known as a great Greek scholar. The Greek Act, always the climax of the academic year, marked the final steps in the creation of masters and doctors. New rushes were laid on the floors, new gravel was put on the quads, the streets were swept. People appeared in best dress, processions were formed, bells tolled. Sometimes the tedium of disputations was lightened by comic touches. But all was seriousness when Dillingham maintained his thesis in a famous debate with William Alabaster of Trinity.

    Steven Avery

    • Erik July 17, 2010 / 2:54 pm

      Thank you for providing sources. You have no idea how rare it is that someone actually does that. I have no doubt that the KJV translators were a tremendously gifted group of men – let me just say that. But I don’t think that necessarily makes them superior to modern translators.

      My Issue with McClure
      Fuller’s reference is to a Greek Act held between Francis Dillingham and William Alabaster, of Christ College and Trinity College, respectively. Dillingham was later a member of the translation committee. There’s no doubting that Fuller reported on the Greek Act.

      But then we get to anything derived from McClure (including Opfell’s stuff). First of all, it is hard to find an actual copy of McClure’s work; and when we do, it is hard to figure out what his sources were for all the information he claims to have access to.

      For example, his statement about John Bois reading the Hebrew Scriptures at the age of five. While Bois was undoubtably a scholar of the first rate, his areas of expertise were Greek and Latin. In his own notes on translation, Bois often shows how best to reconcile Greek and Latin in the English translation. To my knowledge, his notes deal exclusively with the New Testament.

      This is an example of some of the issues I have reading McClure. It’s not necessarily that he is wrong or malicious. It is just that there is no way to verify his statements. KJVO advocates however seem to take McClure as gospel, despite the absence of collaborating sources.

      In short, the presence of an annual debate between two distinguished scholars of Trinity and Christ Colleges does not necessarily prove the academic superiority of 16th century scholarship.

      The Difference Between 16th and 21st Century Academics Is Not One of Superiority or Inferiority
      I’m not saying that modern scholarship is superior – simply that it is different. In the late Renaissance, the entire emphasis of education was classics. There was no physics (Newton pioneered that field in English thought during his lifetime, culminating with Principia in 1687). There also was no study of history, advanced mathematics, sociology, philosophy beyond the classics and certain medieval thinkers, or study of English. There was less diversity which allowed for greater specialization but that does not guarantee superiority.

      These men were geniuses, no one would deny that, but they had little knowledge of Greek koine. Their knowledge was virtually exclusive to the Greek classics since Greek had all but died out as a spoken language after the fall of Constantinople over a century and a half before. Like the Latin of the day, it was a dry academic version of the language. As one writer remarked about ‘court Latin’: it is a Latin no Roman could read.

      Thus, in my view, the diversification of the modern scholar has led to perhaps a different but not inferior understanding of the Greek language. Our scholars have tools in their hands that the KJV translators never could have dreamed of. We can do comparisons – even within the Majority Text – that they never could have done.

      Some Final Thoughts
      It is true that we do not have debates in Greek in our seminaries – but then we also don’t send dissenters to wildernesses and we also don’t overthrow our monarchs over their religio-political views (as the Puritans did within a generation of the KJV translation).

      The number of scholars involved in the KJV had more to do with the tools necessary to effect a translation quickly with essentially no tools on hand – no lexicons, no comparative texts, no spell-checking or editing tools. It was quite literally a massive long-hand project.

      An amazing translation? No doubt. I love the KJV, but I cannot say it is academically superior just because of the reputations (some of which are unverifiable) of the translators and the number of them.

  11. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 4:26 pm

    Hi Folks,

    A bit of a non-sequitur.

    “It is true that we do not have debates in Greek in our seminaries – but then we also don’t send dissenters to wildernesses and we also don’t overthrow our monarchs over their religio-political views (as the Puritans did within a generation of the KJV translation).”

    And they did not loose millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico or Mediterranean Sea.

    Wait, you say .. what does that have to do with Bible scholarship of the day ? The same amount as the English Civil War and Cromwell and the Long Parliament reflects Bible scholarship from 1500-1630. 🙂

    Well, to be fair, they did want to ‘correct’ the KJB in 1650.


    McClure is mixed, he is a mess on some of the Richard Bancroft stuff, good on this and that. That is why I gave you the Thomas Fuller primary source. Opfell is mostly a secondary source gal, so I was even reluctant to include her quote, however I really had the sense that she was working with University sources distinct from Fuller.

    Steven Avery

    • Erik July 17, 2010 / 5:07 pm

      It was indeed a non-sequitur, meant to point out that each generation has its issues. Some of the Puritans of the KJV translation committee created the impetus that birthed the English Civil War, just as the American Puritans preached the messages that caused the Salem Witch trials. Neither did it intentionally or maliciously. It is just a way of pointing out that no generation of preachers (or Bible teachers) are perfect.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Opfell was inferring her statement from Fuller, but I’m not completely certain.

      Good dialogue. I’ve enjoyed it.

  12. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 6:34 pm

    Hi Folks,

    From what I have seen, Opfell stays close to the regular sources. There is too much there to be a legit inference, since Fuller, in the section quoted, says nothing at all about the frequency of Greek Acts or there being yearly special events. Now if I saw other examples where Opfell added stuff way out of her sources then I would agree it is quite possible .. so far I have not seen such improper inferencing by Opfell. And I considered this before deciding to include her quote.

    McClure’s section on John Bois is based on the Anthony Walker biography of Bois which begins:

    His father Mr William Bois was a great scollar. being learned in the Hebrew and Greek excellently well. Which, considering the manners (that I say not the rudeness) of the times of his education, was almost a miracle. Yet did his modesty so withhold him from seeking after eminancy, that its hard to say, whether the copy of learning or virtue, were better sett by the father, or followed by the son; in whom, as he was careful to lay the grounds of religion betimes; so he was not backward in laying the foundation of learning. For he hath shewed me Hebrew which his father had taught him to write very young (unless my memory fails me) by six years old. And that in a character not only legible, but [which] deserves consideration, had he been as old in the university as he was in nature.

    This is in Translating for King James, Ward Allen p. 131.

    Steven Avery

    • Erik July 17, 2010 / 7:09 pm

      I would need to see Opfell’s source for that reference precisely because Fuller doesn’t say it and there’s seems to be no other source to support it. I looked through what I could find on Cambridge at that time period (admittedly, there’s not a whole lot available to the general public and will take some digging) and I feel the opposite – that she added it by extrapolation rather than by actual sourcing.

      As to Bois, I read it in Anthony Walker’s book, which is attached to Bois’ notes in the critical edition edited by Ward Allen. From what I can tell, at least some of Walker’s work is based on Thomas Baker’s recollections, and I am not absolutely certain it can be verified. Statements like “unless my memory fails me” tend to indicate some inflation in the telling, but be that as it may, no one doubts Bois’ skill in Greek.

  13. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 7:26 pm

    Erik .. You seem to be quibbling here.

    If you knew that Anthony Walker, who wrote the biography of John Bois, says very specifically that he saw the child’s hebrew book, then why write something like this ?

    it is hard to find an actual copy of McClure’s work; and when we do, it is hard to figure out what his sources were for all the information he claims to have access to.
    For example, his statement about John Bois reading the Hebrew Scriptures at the age of five. While Bois was undoubtably a scholar of the first rate, his areas of expertise were Greek and Latin. …

    And you knew that his father was a Hebrew scholar and that Anthony Ward is a very clear and specific source ?

    You can fault McClure for not quoting more accurately, with the mild equivocation, however it makes no sense that you were writing as if McClure had no source .. when you knew the source !

    Steven Avery

    • Erik July 17, 2010 / 7:35 pm

      Perhaps I should have been more clear. I read it in Walker’s book online after you sent me the link to it. Everything I said is contained in the google book.

      McClure’s source is still dubious.

    • Erik July 17, 2010 / 7:46 pm

      I am perfectly content to defend the King James Version as an accurate translation of Scriptures done by qualified men, as I was the author of the original post.

      I do not, however, find it justified to credit these men with supernatural intelligence. When I read one source stating that a person did this or that, but I have no collaboration of that source, then it is an unverified source.

      Walker’s biography does not hold weight for a couple of reasons. 1) It is ‘eyewitness’ testimony written decades after the event. 2) It is uncorroborated by additional, contemporary sources.

      If Bois’ Hebrew work was still extant, as much of his Greek work is, then I would place more weight on it. I’m not saying Bois didn’t know Hebrew or even that Bois didn’t learn Hebrew as a kid, but you’re placing an awful lot of weight on a single statement made by a single 17th century writer from a time when inflationary tales were the rule of the day.

  14. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 8:54 pm

    Hi Folks,

    Erik, you are jumping around, and quibbling a lot. Looking for small points of kvetching.

    And I only mentioned Bois because you made a claim about McClure, implying that he had no source (i.e fabricated) since Bois would not know Hebrew .. a claim that blew up in your face in five minutes of checking.

    So the idea that I placed some great “weight” on Bois is sipmly silly.

    There were dozens of world-class scholars involved in the Authorized Versions, and dozens of others previously throughout Europe who helped pave the way.

    The essence of a language is speaking, discussion and reading, not grammar books.

    My English is reasonable, and it is very rare that I would ever even think of using a grammar book and this is true with all people who speak in a native tongue fluently. This is not true for modern lexicon scholarship.

    The Reformation scholarship was not distracted by reality TV and 1000 other things, the loved and read and understood not just the Greek classics, also the early church writers .. up and down. (Erasmus taught at Cambridge, and initiated a big debate in the 1500s over the proper Greek pronunciation and he is also well known for his editions of the early writers that were used throughout the Reformation era.) Greek lectures were common. And Latin had even a longer heritage.

    It is always possible to quibble about this and that. I am just trying to help you understand a bit more reasonably about the excellence of the scholarship of that era, especially with 50 world-class scholars working closely together for 3 years, compared to what is often atomistic nothings involved in translation today.

    Steven Avery

  15. Erik July 17, 2010 / 9:17 pm

    Just a second, Steve. You’re putting word in my mouth. Why is it that whenever I thank someone for having a good dialogue with me, they feel it necessary to declare war?

    I never said Bois didn’t know Hebrew. I simply pointed out that the statement about him learning Hebrew at five was a bit far-fetched and unverifiable. I wasn’t back-pedaling from what I said originally, namely:

    For example, his statement about John Bois reading the Hebrew Scriptures at the age of five. While Bois was undoubtably a scholar of the first rate, his areas of expertise were Greek and Latin… To my knowledge, his notes deal exclusively with the New Testament.

    In other words, I think this is particular anecdote sounds more like glorification and inflation than a valid observation, and when you provided the sources, I read them (and probably read them years ago in college, but I don’t remember things that happened decades ago) and immediately tried to find some kind of confirmation. There is no confirming evidence.

    I never said you placed weight on McClure or Walker, only that they don’t hold weight with me’ and I have you my reasons. It was never an attack on you.

    I am not quibbling. I am trying to have a conversation. I don’t exactly see why you have such a problem just having a conversation.

    I know full well about the men who worked on the KJV and I know the scholarship of the men who have worked on other translations. Some modern translations, probably even most, are not even to the standard of the KJV but my point is that you can’t make the KJV translators into Supermen and you will never convince me that Renaissance education in England is somehow superior to education today.

    Now, if you choose to continue a conversation, I’ll gladly continue to engage with you. But if you’re going to keep saying I said things I didn’t and the like, then I’m not interested. We were having a fine conversation but it seems like you suddenly shifted gears and for the life of my I can’t see why.

    Take some of your own salutation and pursue shalom rather than argument.

  16. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 9:27 pm

    Hi Folks,

    Erik, no “war” .. I just believe you do not understand the dynamic of the discussion and I find some strange twists.

    “you’re placing an awful lot of weight on a single statement made by a single 17th century writer ”

    I never placed any weight on Bois at all, I simply answered your accusation against McClure that he did not have a source for the Bois statement. By showing that McClure had a reasonable source. Then you started attacking the source, which is irrelevant to your original stuff against McClure.

    Now you have moved into a new realm of “supernatural intelligence.” and “Supermen” which has nothing to do with anything I shared.


    • Erik July 17, 2010 / 9:52 pm

      Should have been ‘they’re placing…’. I apologize. I genuinely never intended to say you had placed weight on it, but I digress.

      You’re not specifically calling them supermen, but arguing that their education was somehow superior is paramount to saying that they exceeded modern scholarship. But I don’t see it that way. Were modern scholars working in the same conditions, I have no doubt that they would have risen to the same heights.

      Scholarship, particularly theology and the biblical languages was specialized in that period, and now scholars tend to be generalized. They have to be. There are just too many things one must learn. So rather than everyone being specialists, translation teams are generalists with various areas of expertise.

      You say that makes modern translators inferior, but I contend that it simply makes them different. Just as English is different, just as language study is different. We now know much more about Indo-European languages, Semitic languages. We have far greater resources to pool.

      Consider just the challenges of English today. In the late Renaissance, Latin was still the dominant ecclesiastic and clerical language (even if it was abysmal Latin). Many of Boise’s notes are comparisons of Greek TO Latin and then asking how to convey that idea in the King’s English. But today’s English does is losing its Latin base (and one could argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but since most languages in the world don’t have a Latin base, it is kind of a moot point). What to do now?

      What about English itself? Jacobean England was TINY. The English speaking population of the world was maybe a couple million. I think the population of London in 1530 was like 50,000 people or something like that. By 1600, I think it was closer to 250,000. (I’d have to check; but the most recent place I read population numbers was Shakespeare: World as Stage by Bill Bryson.)

      In the 1940’s, London was over 8 million people. Today, the English speaking population is nigh on a billion. There are more English-speaking people in New Hampshire today than there were in the world in 1600. Just that kind of geometric magnification requires more of translators.

      I don’t claim to have all the answers, but my point is that modern scholarship has much broader issues to deal with than late Renaissance scholarship did. That doesn’t make it inferior; and that was my point from the beginning of this discussion. (Somehow the Bois tangent became dominant)

  17. Steven Avery July 17, 2010 / 9:36 pm

    Hi Folks,

    To try to make it clear, I am sharing about the cultural and intellectual and Bible and language and study and iron sharpeneth environment from 1500-1625 of Oxford, Cambridge, Geveva, Amsterdam .. that these men were true scholars of the word of God and the classical and semitic languages.

    You are focused on whether the John Bois children’s Hebrew book was 5 years old or maybe 10 or whatever. And “proving” this and that.

    Which discussion has more to do with the general question of Reformation Bible vs. the Probability Text ?

    Steven Avery

    • Erik July 17, 2010 / 9:53 pm

      Probability Text? Did I miss something? Do you mean the Critical Text? Because that has nothing to do with probabilities (and I’m not a big fan of breaking up texts into families).

  18. Steven Avery July 18, 2010 / 2:00 am

    Hi Folks,

    Within the modern version texts (critical text, NA-27 etc, the various texts from 1871) every variant is assigned a probability that it is original. In some cases that is indicated by A – B – C – D . I call the text the Probability Text to reflect that aspect.

    Steven Avery

    • Bob Hayton July 22, 2010 / 1:26 pm


      This kind of thing that you are doing is high-handed, and frankly rude. We try to use definitions and terms that our opponents agree on. People in your camp often disparage and speak derogatorily about our views and positions. For instance, you have a problem even allowing a pop-up text tool to use an ESV text even though you can type the KJV text clearly for folks to see. That kind of extreme attitude is what makes conversations with people like yourself really hard. It would seem you would want to be about winning people to your view. You don’t do that by treating them like this.

  19. Steven Avery July 22, 2010 / 1:33 pm

    Hi Folks,

    “high-handed, rude”
    Bob, I really have no idea what you are complaining about.

    I have begun to type in the scriptures since I know the KJB verse does not come up by your blog, and that is what I am discussing 99% of the time.

    Please explain your concern.


    Steven Avery

  20. PeterAV April 12, 2012 / 10:17 am

    I wonder if Eric has a pure Bible, or even believes in a pure Bible.
    Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.
    Thy word is purified seven times.
    Does any non KJB advocate have a pure Bible in their hands that they can say is without error?
    That is the nitty gritty of this.
    One either has the pure real Bible or they don’t.
    They either believe in a pure Bible or they don’t.
    Can any non KJB person display one Bible that is perfect today?
    So far, they never have after thousands and thousands of debates.
    Every word of God is pure:
    I have found that no multi-versionists believe this verse.
    For if they did, they would, after much careful study, declare with us, that ONLY the King James Bible is pure and free from any erratta whatsoever.

    • Erik April 12, 2012 / 11:52 am

      My name is Erik with a K.

      I believe we possess the true Scriptures, but I do not believe these verses (written in Hebrew 3,000 years ago) are meant to be applied to an English translation done 400 years ago.

      You realize this argument was first used by people supporting the medieval Latin translations of the text to justify that there was no need for the originals? Funny how history repeats itself.

  21. PeterAV April 12, 2012 / 3:27 pm

    Erik,You say you posses the true SCRIPTURES yet you dare not name it.
    How hypocritical of you.
    SCRIPTURES in the pure Holy Bible is ALWAYS in refernce to the COPIES and TRANSLATIONS! NEVER of the originals.
    You think you are so smart yet the scriptures shows you to be the fool.
    My case stands and you are found wanton.
    May the LORD rebuke thee.
    Every word of God is pure:
    Erik does not believe this verse aplies to today for us.
    No cloak for your sin EriK with a K.

    • Erik April 12, 2012 / 3:56 pm

      You may feel free to take your unfounded and rude insults elsewhere. I will not justify your slander with a response.

  22. Walter April 19, 2012 / 3:10 am

    I may not be able to say that I have the “Pure Bible in my Hands”, but I do have a copy of the Majority Text (EMTV and WEB) both on my Kindle and on my PC :=)

  23. robycop3 April 26, 2012 / 8:44 am

    Peter says,”Can any non KJB person display one Bible that is perfect today?”

    OF COURSE we can-ANY VALID TRANSLATION. Each is perfect for GOD’S intended purpose.

    Now, Peter, can you show us any SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY for being KJVO? Of course not.

Comments are closed.