King James Only?

Blogging our way through the King James Only debate

The claim that modern Bible versions strip out the word "blood"

A persistent argument circulates among certain corners of the internet insisting that contemporary English translations of the Bible have conspired to remove the word "blood" from their pages. Proponents of the King James Only position often point to a handful of verses where modern translations do appear to use synonyms like "life" instead of "blood," and from these examples they construct a narrative of systematic theological sabotage.

The claim carries emotional weight because the atoning sacrifice of Christ rests on the shedding of his blood according to the New Testament writers. If a translation were genuinely stripping out references to blood, it would distort the doctrine of atonement at its foundation. This is precisely why the accusation lands so effectively with readers who have been taught to view the King James Version as the only reliable English Bible.

Yet accusations require evidence, and a careful examination of the texts reveals a different picture. Rather than avoiding the term, modern translations retain "blood" in the vast majority of passages where the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts use the word. Where renderings differ, the reasons tend to be linguistic rather than theological.

This examination will look at the specific verses most often cited, examine the Hebrew and Greek source texts, and consider why translation choices sometimes diverge from the King James rendering. The goal is not to defend every translation decision but to equip readers in Brisbane, Sydney, and Perth with the tools to assess these claims against the primary evidence.

The verses most frequently cited

The verses typically assembled in support of the "removed blood" claim include Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11, Matthew 27:24, John 19:34, Acts 15:20, Colossians 1:14, Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 9:22, and 1 John 1:7. In many of these, modern translations retain "blood" without hesitation. The Gospel of John, for instance, records that the soldier pierced the side of Jesus and "there came out blood and water," a phrase preserved in the ESV, NIV, NASB, and virtually every contemporary version one might pick up at a Koorong store in Melbourne.

Ephesians 1:7 is another verse where the Greek haimate is unambiguous, and translations across the spectrum render it as such. The NIV reads "we have redemption through his blood," the ESV agrees, and the NASB likewise presents the term without euphemism. The idea that modern translations have drained the New Testament of its blood theology does not survive a simple comparison exercise.

Acts 15:20 and 29 present the apostolic decree urging Gentile converts to abstain from blood, a directive preserved in modern translations with the same force as in the King James. Hebrews 9:22 affirms that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins," a phrase familiar to anyone who has attended an evangelical service in Adelaide or a Catholic liturgy in Hobart. The textual tradition supporting the word "blood" in these passages is overwhelming.

Where the King James reading diverges from the underlying text

The cases where modern translations depart from the King James rendering cluster in the Old Testament, particularly in passages involving the Hebrew word dam. In Genesis 9:4, the King James reads "flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof," but the Hebrew expression is basar b'naphshu dam, where naphshu can be rendered as "life" or "soul." Modern translations often choose "life" because the Hebrew construction treats the blood as synonymous with the life principle in that context.

This is not a case of removing "blood" from the text but of recognising that the Hebrew phrase equates blood with life. A translator who renders the verse "flesh with its life, which is its blood" preserves both concepts, while one who writes "flesh with its life" simply chooses the more immediate referent for English readers. The underlying concept of blood remains; the English vocabulary shifts to communicate the meaning the Hebrew author intended.

Leviticus 17:11 presents a similar dynamic. The Hebrew ki nephesh ha-basar ba-dam hi, often rendered in the King James as "for the life of the flesh is in the blood," could equally be translated in a way that foregrounds the blood. The theology is preserved in either rendering, since the verse itself equates the two. The reasons modern translations choose "life" in these passages reflect specific linguistic considerations:

The Greek evidence and lexical considerations

The Greek New Testament uses haima consistently for blood, and there is no manuscript evidence that scribes systematically removed this word from the tradition. Papyrus 46, one of the oldest surviving portions of the Pauline epistles, contains the phrase en haimati in Ephesians 1:7, demonstrating that the word was present in the earliest copies we possess. The Byzantine text-type used by the King James translators likewise retains the term in these passages.

Modern translations are based on a broader range of manuscripts than was available to the King James translators. The discovery of the Chester Beatty Papyri in the 1930s and the Bodmer Papyri later in the twentieth century gave scholars access to earlier copies of New Testament books, but these discoveries did not result in the removal of "blood" from the text. Where the earliest manuscripts occasionally omit the word, such as in certain textual variants in the Pericope Adulterae or in Mark 16, the verses affected are not the blood passages.

Lexical decisions in the Old Testament likewise reflect Hebrew semantic range rather than theological evasion. The Hebrew dam functions both as the physical substance and as a metonym for violent death and life itself. A translator must choose which sense to highlight in English, and modern translations have generally opted for clarity over one-for-one word substitution. This is a difference of translation philosophy, not of fidelity to the original.

How modern translations actually handle key passages

A walk through a typical modern translation will show that "blood" appears in the vast majority of the relevant passages. The Gospel accounts of the Last Supper retain the phrase "my blood of the covenant." The crucifixion narratives preserve the detail of blood and water flowing from the pierced side. The book of Hebrews continues to emphasise that purification requires blood, with the ESV, NIV, and NASB all retaining the term.

The handful of verses where modern translations diverge are those where the Hebrew expression uses dam as a metaphor for life or violent death. In these cases, the translator makes a judgment call about which English word best captures the author's intent. Calling this a removal of blood is a rhetorical move, not a textual observation.

For readers attending Bible study groups in suburban Brisbane or discussing Scripture over a flat white in a Sydney café, the practical question is whether the translation they are reading faithfully represents the original. Comparing multiple translations side by side, as one can do using online resources or print editions available at Australian Christian bookshops, shows that the word remains prominent in passages central to the Christian doctrine of salvation. Key passages where modern translations unanimously retain "blood" include:

Theological precision and the risk of distortion

The substitution of "life" for "blood" in certain Old Testament passages does not undermine the theology of atonement. The New Testament writers draw on the Levitical imagery of sacrificial blood, and modern translations preserve this connection explicitly when quoting or alluding to those Old Testament passages in the New. Hebrews 9:22 and 1 John 1:7 are translated with the word "blood" in every major modern English version.

What changes is the foregrounding of the equivalence between blood and life in the Old Testament sacrificial system. A reader who only consults the King James Version might miss that the Old Testament treats blood as the locus of life, while a reader who consults a modern translation alongside a commentary will see this point made explicit. The theological substance is preserved; the pedagogical emphasis shifts.

For Australian Christians navigating debates about religious freedom under the Commonwealth anti-discrimination framework or discussing these issues in denominational settings, the relevant question is whether the translation they use accurately represents the source text. The answer, based on manuscript evidence and lexical analysis, is that modern translations retain the word "blood" wherever the underlying language uses it.

Reading translations responsibly in the Australian context

The availability of multiple reliable translations in Australia, from the Australian Bible Society editions to the range of study Bibles sold through Koorong and Word bookstores, gives readers a unique opportunity to compare renderings. Rather than accepting accusations at face value, Australian Christians can examine the texts themselves and see what is actually present in modern versions.

For those interested in the detailed textual analysis behind these conclusions, the pink elephant blog offers thorough examinations of similar KJV-Only claims with full citations of primary sources.

Engaging with translation questions requires humility and a willingness to consult primary evidence. The claim that modern translations have removed "blood" from the Bible does not survive examination of the Greek and Hebrew texts or comparison of modern English versions with each other. What it does reflect is a translation philosophy that prioritises meaning over word-for-word correspondence, a philosophy that has merit when weighed against the alternative.

For readers who want to dig deeper into the manuscript evidence, consider purchasing a copy of Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament" or visiting the Australian Bible Society's online resources. The evidence is there for those willing to look.