Question: Why do you prefer the KJV over modern translations?

August 1, 2024

TBC Staff

Question: I was very upset by the answer from you about the reason you prefer the KJV.... I need you to please send me several examples of what you consider "serious" errors [in modern translations]. I would also be very appreciative of some reading material that the lay person can understand...or names of some sources....

Response: Thank you for your recent letter challenging me regarding my support of the KJV. This question is too complex to deal with in a brief letter, but let me try once again. You asked for sources.

The best case against "KJV only" is presented by D. A. Carson in The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. He points out, in "eight key Christological verses (Jn:1:1,18; Acts:20:28; Rom:9:5; 2 Thes:1:12, Tts 2:13; Heb:1:8; 2 Pet:1:1)... the KJV fails to underscore the deity of Christ in four." Most modern translations do as well or better. The NIV scores in seven of the eight. Even Thomas M. Strouse, though strongly criticizing Carson, admits these four KJV failures (Jn:1:18; 2 Thes:1:12; Tts 2:13; 2 Pet:1:1) and explains them as "a textual problem (Jn:1:18) and the other three are translational problems." Even its defenders must admit to some flaws in the KJV.

Critics fault the KJV because it comes from a Greek New Testament which was put together by Erasmus in 1516, later improved by Theodore Beza and Robert Stephanus. The latter's fourth edition in 1551 is "substantially the Textus Receptus," according to Jasper James Ray, one of its most fervent defenders. Too late in time, say the critics, and too few manuscripts as its source. Yet this was basically the Greek text that had been accepted by the Greek church in the East for centuries (the Roman Catholic Church in the West used the Latin Vulgate), earlier manuscripts from which the Greek Bible came having been worn out and discarded. Modern translations (some are worse than others, the RSV in particular) come from a Greek text developed by Westcott and Hort (two scholarly heretics) based largely upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which, though older, are clearly corrupted.

In God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper James Ray cites more than 200 differences between the KJV and "44 new version Bibles"—some minor, some serious. How do we know who is right without learning Greek and poring over thousands of ancient manuscripts? In checking out the differences Ray cites, not only logic but the testimony of the rest of Scripture and the Holy Spirit come down solidly on the side of the KJV. You wanted examples. Here are a few.

In Revelation:1:11, RSV, NAS (and others, but I can't list them all) leave out "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." Not only is this a key claim to deity stated in a special way to show that Jesus is Jahweh (see Is 44:6), but it seems logical that the speaker would immediately identify Himself. It is more likely to have been deleted than added.

In John:9:35 modern translations change "Son of God" to “Son of man," which not only denigrates Jesus but makes no sense in this context. Yes, Jesus often called Himself "Son of man," but in His general teaching to the multitude where He used veiled language. Here He is introducing Himself to someone who never heard of Him or heard His teaching, and "Son of man" wouldn't mean anything.

In Luke:2:33 "Joseph" is changed to "father" and in verse 43 "Joseph and his mother" are changed to "his parents." All of the above (and others) deny His deity. Though Christ's deity is clear in other places in most modern translations, these and other verses send the opposite signal, thus causing confusion.

In Colossians:1:14, "through his blood" is left out in RSV, NAS, etc., though they include it in Ephesians:1:7. I don't think Paul omitted it. In 1 John:4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh" is missing, though this phrase was a key in combatting gnostic cults and now the New Age. In Luke:4:8, "Get thee behind me, Satan" is omitted, though it seems appropriate. In Luke:4:4, "but by every word of God" is missing, making it an improper quote of Deuteronomy:8:3 and weakening it. In each case deletion seems more likely to have occurred than addition.

There are several cases where direct reference to Old Testament prophecies seems very appropriate yet is left out of RSV, NAS, etc., such as Matthew:27:35, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet"; Mark:13:14, "spoken of by Daniel the prophet"; Mark:15:28, "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith," etc. Again, the text seems weakened by the loss.