The current KJV controversy

I wasn’t planning on posting anything on this topic because I know some who read this will take it the wrong way and completely miss the point, but last week my pastor asked me if I had heard about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I am bothered by it – but not by what you may think. First, a little background.

Pastor Jack Schaap wrote a book, Where Are We Going, in which he made comments about the King James Version and its inspiration and preservation. There was a teacher from Hyles-Anderson College (from what I have heard it was Streeter), that visited a church in Lexington, KY pastored by Jeff Fugate. This teacher made a statement to the effect of “don’t let anyone tell you the King James is inspired.” This comment along with Schaap’s book motivated Fugate to call Schaap and discuss the issue to clear up any possible misunderstanding. Fugate wasn’t satisfied with these phone calls and thus in the most recent issue of his publication, The Church Bus News, stated publicly his disagreement with Schaap. The disagreement is that Fugate believes the KJV is the inspired and preserved word of God while Schaap believes it is the preserved word of God (not inspired).

Schaap responded in an issue of his church’s publication, The Voice. In Schaap’s response, he referred to the statement of faith of another publication, The Sword of the Lord, whose editor is Shelton Smith. Smith felt like he was misrepresented by Schaap, so he wrote a letter weighing in on the issue.

Gail Riplinger, who received an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson College for her work on defending the King James, decided to weigh in on the issue as well with a 75 page article. I used to be a fan of Riplinger and used to recommend her books, but I have since learned that she has twisted quotes and taken things out of context in attempts to bolster her case. She is not a trustworthy source for evidence.

However, the strangest thing in all this is the letter written by Russell Anderson who co-founded Hyles-Anderson College with Jack Hyles. He addressed his letter to Schaap, the students, faculty, and alumni of Hyles-Anderson, AND to Hyles – even though Hyles passed away 8 years ago. A large section of this letter was specifically addressed to Hyles. Anderson states in the letter he believes God has blessed Hyles-Anderson because of their teaching that the KJV was inspired and preserved. However, Hyles-Anderson was founded in 1972. In 1967, Hyles published a book on Revelation in which he corrected the King James. Also, there were students who were expelled from Hyles-Anderson in the late 70’s or early 80’s who were pushing the teaching that the KJV was inspired and preserved. It was in 1984 that Hyles switched his position to that of King James Only and even wrote in a book that an English-speaking person could not be saved unless that person heard scripture from the King James (he later softened his stance and said other translations had enough truth in them for a soul to be saved). The college was not founded with the KJVO position as Anderson portrays. Hyles was not always King James Only and neither were his friends John R. Rice or Curtis Hutson, both editors of The Sword of the Lord. (Note: providing this info is not intended as a slam on Hyles or any of the others mentioned – I am just stating the history as background info similar to what Schaap did in The Voice.)

This whole disagreement boils down to one side believes the King James is inspired and preserved whereas the other side believes it is preserved but not inspired. I would have to say that Schaap’s position is closest to the historic, orthodox position. To believe that the King James is inspired means you believe in double inspiration and that the English is the same as the Hebrew and Greek. (There are some who think the English is better than the Hebrew and Greek, but I don’t think anyone involved in this disagreement falls into that camp.) In the end, however, both sides in effect believe the same thing about the KJV: that it is the word of God and it is error-free.

So what is inspiration? Inspiration speaks of the origin of the scriptures and we see in 2 Peter 1:20-21 how the scriptures originated: it was men of old who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Let me give an illustration. I can draw a picture on a piece of paper. I can then take that paper and run it through a copier and get duplicates of my drawing. However, the copies were not drawn by me. Only the original was drawn. That is the same with the scriptures. The originals were inspired, but the copies just duplicated the words, not the inspiration. Inspiration only applies to the originals.

What is preservation? Preservation speaks of the transmission of the scripture from generation to generation. The originals – the actual manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets – have long since disappeared, but God has preserved those inspired words through the thousands of copies. We can rest assured that we have the exact inspired words of God as they were first recorded. God has preserved his inspired word. Does that mean the King James is inspired and preserved? Well, can things different be the same? No. English is not the same as Hebrew and Greek. For something to be preserved, it has to maintain the exact same qualities. Since English is not the same as Hebrew and Greek, it cannot be preservation. The King James is an accurate translation of the inspired, preserved word of God. Now, before you go and say something I haven’t said, when I hold in my hand my King James, I am holding the word of God. It has everything I need to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. It does not contain errors. It is not part man’s word and part God’s. It is God’s word. It is a faithful and accurate translation of the originals.

So what bothers me the most about this whole situation which really boils down to a shouting match about semantics? Part of it is how I will be treated for writing the preceding paragraph. Some will focus on those two or three sentences I just wrote and miss the big picture. I will no doubt be castigated by some for saying the King James is not inspired and preserved. I will be portrayed as a liberal bible corrector or something similar. Some will say I don’t believe my bible. Some will say I am on a slippery slope to all things liberal and apostasy and that I will lose my children to the devil. All of that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I love my bible. I read, study, and meditate upon it everyday. I try to teach it to my children. The teaching that the KJV is inspired and preserved is a more recent development. There have been plenty of godly men and women who believed the KJV was a faithful and accurate translation of the word of God.

This whole situation is a perfect example of a major problem with those who have involved themselves in it. Jack Schaap is being castigated for his more orthodox position on the King James, but his extremely unorthodox, if not heretical, positions on other things raised nary a peep from these others, much less a letter or special issue of a publication to call him on the carpet and bring his teachings back in line with orthodoxy. He has several books where he presented unorthodox teachings. In Divine Intimacy, he put forth the idea that the Lord’s supper is akin to sexual intercourse between a husband and a wife, and he attributed the slang sexual meanings to the words “laid” and “stuck” in a couple verses from Psalms. In another book/sermon, he portrayed God as an old man that his church could wear out and force to call the rapture because they were making God work too hard. He also put forth a fantasy dialog between Jesus Christ and God the Father where the crucifixion was the result of things not going so well when Jesus came to earth and Jesus was angry and wanted to send everyone to Hell. Did we hear anything about these unorthodox (and dare I say heretical) teachings in The Church Bus News or The Sword of the Lord? I don’t recall seeing anything. Did we see these pastors writing letters and making phone calls to correct Schaap? No. And that is what bothers me. If you say the KJV is the inspired, preserved word of God, you get a free pass to teach unorthodox things, but once you deny the KJV is inspired and/or preserved, you get thrown under the bus.

These things ought not to be so. While there are some who do not believe this, the teachings (the doctrines) of the word of God are what is important (I’m currently working on a post dealing with the importance of right doctrine). If a man believes the KJV is the inspired and preserved word of God but doesn’t teach the contents of the book correctly, shouldn’t that cause more of an uproar? Aren’t we commanded in scripture to mark false teachers? Aren’t we commanded to prove all things and to earnestly contend for the faith? Weren’t the Bereans commended for searching the scriptures to see if what was preached was true? It’s time we stood up for orthodoxy and separated from false teachers.

Some may argue the teachings of another church are none of our business. However, we are told to earnestly contend for the faith. The letters to the seven churches in Revelation are recorded for all to read (making their business our business). Plus, Hyles-Anderson College is training pastors and missionaries who come into our churches to preach. Are you willing to stick your head in the ground and let future generations be misled by unorthodox teachings? It is our business.

As I said earlier, it won’t be long before I’m thrown under the bus for saying the King James is a faithful and accurate translation of the preserved and inspired word of God rather than being inspired and preserved. I used to say that the King James was inspired and preserved, but the scriptures and evidence have changed my mind. If you think I am wrong, then show me your arguments and let us reason together. Don’t just blast me and throw me under the bus.

Let us hold accountable those who are unorthodox and heretical. Don’t give them a free pass just because they say the KJV is inspired and preserved. Contend for the faith.

Subscribe to be notified when a new post is published.

39 Responses to “The current KJV controversy”

  1. Bold article Gordy. You made some very sound and thoughtful biblical comments.

  2. This passage refers to what Timothy had in his possession, which would be copies or translations of the Word of God (not the originals):

    2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    The passage says “is given”, not “was.” The Word of God has never lost its inspiration – God breathed life into His Word and that living power is still in it today.

    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    No, I don’t in any way believe God re-inspired His Word in 1611 or in English at that point in time. But God’s Word states that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION, and when I hold my KJV Bible, I am holding the Scriptures, His Word in English – therefore it is the inspired Word of God I am holding (otherwise we need to re-define what the Scriptures are). The Scriptures are His Word accurately translated into any language, or any copies thereof.

    Don’t let people scare you away from using the terms that God used in His Word. He never said He inspired the writers (though He did move the writers to write what He wanted them to do), but His Word (and all the individual words thereof), and that Word is still inspired today – whether in Hebrew and Greek, or translations and copies of it, which Timothy and Paul had, and which we have today. In that passage in 2 Timothy, Paul is not even referring to the originals anywhere – but to what Timothy was using and had in his possession in the first century.

  3. Hi Jerry,

    Certainly, “is given” is different than “was” but does the verb tense as written apply to the time it was written only or does it continue to be the same tense today – or in 1611? In other words, if I write “I am home” today and someone reads it tomorrow, is it valid for the person to think I am at home tomorrow when he reads it?

    The canon was not closed at the time 2 Timothy was written so there was still more scripture to be given, but once the canon was closed, God was no longer giving scripture.

  4. The problem is Paul was speaking about the Old Testament, which had been finished for 450 years by this time. Paul was referring to the copies and/or translations Timothy had access to while growing up – not Scripture that was still being written in the first century.

    2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    P.S. What is INspiration? It is something God breathed INTO His Word. His Word still contains that life and power today – it never lost it. His Word still IS GIVEN life and power by God today.

    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

  5. I have always thought that inspiration meant God breathed, as in at that moment of writing, God breathed His words down on paper using man’s hand to write it as He wanted it. This would not be the case in translating. He would of course be present during translations, to be sure it was done 100% correctly, but He would no longer need to “breathe out His words” but supervise the preservation of those words. He would do this by using men who walk in the Spirit and are intent on being led by Him. In that case, the KJV would have been preserved by God – made sure it was accurate, but not inspired. KWIM?

    We do not think of preservation of the Scriptures as exact duplication of the language, but preservation of the words of God, written down in a different language, accurately for the reader. If God did not preserve it as he promised in Scriptures, we would not be sure it was accurate.

    Preservation of His Word means maintaining its wholeness and accuracy – whether in the original or different language. God gave His Word life – it is a living book, but not newly inspired at translation, only preserved for us in an accurate state.

  6. This is thus far the most comprehensive presentation of the “controversy” and gives the first analysis with which I agree completely.

    I’d just like to add a view on a related matter.

    Schaap states that “God’s words existed and were divinely preserved before 1611 and were divinely preserved through the numerous editions of the KJV”. He often also keeps referring to how “the KJV is being compromised by careless or corrupt publishers”.

    When these, and similar statements, are viewed in light of Schaap and Hyles’ penchant to “correct” several of the Schofield bible commentary notes you must then wonder if Schaap is creating the “controversy”, and welcoming the reaction, in order to soon present his solution. That solution is a notion which has been circulating a while now that Schaap intends to publish the KJV from the the same presses which publish FBCH literature. In effect he seems to want to be a bible publisher.

    If so, will Schaap bible commentary notes augment or even replace Schofield’s?

    Just wondering as an interested observer.

  7. You may be right. I have heard rumblings about them wanting to publish their own KJV. I also recently heard they are holding a “KJV Summit” in July.

  8. Gordy,

    I had heard this as well. I would be interested to hear if there was any truth to it.

  9. Read this online today from a recent HAC grad:

    I recently graduated(winter grad.09) and there were meetings for the project going on my last semester there. It started when (and I don’t know if this true) when Cambridge, who holds the rights to what most consider to be the most reliable KJ text announced that they would no longer be printing KJV bibles. The HAC bible according to the plan put into place is to be much like the “Defined Bible” put out by D.A.Waite. However, Schaap having used a Scoffield his whole life and acknowledging that a lot of other believers have as well, wants the Bible to have the same layout so that every verse is in its familiar place to the long time Scoffield user. So word definitions , maps , and traditional baptist teaching are to take up the space where Scoffield’s notes are. The Bible is to published in 2011.

    Note- I have been gone for almost five months now and dont know if the plan is still on. When I left the Bible Faculty was meeting once a week and going through the Bible together to determine which words needed up to date definition.

  10. Also, what better way to create demand for the product than by stirring up a huge controversy? I imagine that once they are ready to sell this bible, they will reconcile with all the parties involved in the controversy so as to increase the demand even more. That is some brilliant marketing work!

  11. Say Gordy, you found the site too!

    I joined the forum very recently and put the question to the HAC/FBCH crowd. I believe you quoted from that forum:

    And I agree with you that the “controversy” was planned. As I said in my first post, its a classic setup of Problem (created intentionally), Reaction (from the group being manipulated), Solution (presented by the same ones who created said problem in first place.

  12. I understand the inspiration vs. “double inspiration” issue as presented by those who propose that only the autographs should be called inspired. However, if it is improper to refer to the copies of the auotgraphs or the KJV as inspired it would also be improper to refer to them as scripture since the Bible states that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 52 times copies are called scripture in the NT. If the Bible calls copies scripture and then says that all scripture is given by inspiration who am I to argue.

    Secondly, there is little difference between the phrase, “Word of God”, and the word “inspired”. If you call something the “Word of God” and yet deny it is inspired are you claiming there is something called the “uninspired Word of God”? I think this reveals the fact that some are emphasizing the mechanics of how we got the Word over the Source of the Word. The word inspiration refers to Who gave us the Word not just how He gave it to us. When you over emphasize the mechanics of inspiration, i.e. the breath, it leads you to think that only the autographs should be called inspired. On the other hand, when you understand that inspiration refers just as much to the source of the Words you can freely call copies and the KJV the inspired Word of God because you are simply saying that these are the Words that God gave us, whether it be an autograph, a copy, or a translation. In the original preface to the KJV the translators make the argument that if a Kings letter is translated into other languages it is still the word of the King. Likwise even though the autographs have been copied and translated, when we hold our KJV in our hands we are holding the Word of the King!

  13. Thanks for posting Brian.

    If the word “inspiration” refers to who and not just how, then why does the verse also state the who separately (“of God”)?

    I found this pdf file enlightening:

    In your first paragraph, I think you are mixing the attributes of the originals and the copies. The original scriptures were given by inspiration and the copies of scripture were preserved by men making copies. The copies are still referred to as scriptures because they are word for word copies of the originals, but a copy does not preserve the method that the original was given. In my orignal post, I gave the example of a drawing and then making copies of it. You can still say of the copies it is my drawing even though I did not draw the copies.

  14. Gordy,

    Thanks for your reply, but I think you missed my point or maybe I didn’t fully explain. The commonly used definition for inspiration, “breath”, does not reflect the full meaning of the word. A more accurate defintion of inspiration is “infusion of words by the Holy Spirit into the mind of man”. If you look up the word in your Websters 1828 you will find the following defintion as it applies to the Bible use of the word.

    3. The infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Tim.3.

    Please note the last phrase which states that inspiration refers to the “reality of their supernatural origin.” (or in my words the source)

    To limit the definition of inspiration to the word breath is a secular defintion. Also it is important to know that the Greek word underlying inspiration is never translated “breath” anywhere in the KJV. This is why I said that the word inspiration refers both to the method and the source of the words. When we say this is the inspired Word of God we are not saying that God gave them to us today! Instead we are simply saying that God is the author of these words not man. We are saying that God gave us these words not man, it is really that simple.

    I agree that copies are not given by the same method as the autographs but my point is that a copy by defintion is an exact duplicate of an original. If the second document is missing anything found in the original it is not a copy. A copy of an autograph would by defintion have the exact words given in the autograph. If I held a copy of an autograph in my hand I would not be wrong to state that I held in my hand the words which God has inspired. I would not be saying that those words came out of God’s mouth again and again each time a copy was made, but that the words found in each copy were the words which came from God. The words found in a copy do not cease to be the words given by inspiration just because they were not given again, and again, and again by inspiration each time a copy is made. Thus it is not heresy or improper to refer to a copy or an accurate translation as being the inspired Word of God.

    As far a preservation is concerned, remember that Psalms 12 is a promise that God will preserve His words not the method by which He gave them to us. When I say that the NT calls copies scripture etc. I am saying that if the Holy Spirit is OK with refering to copies as scripture and also says that “all scripture is given by inspiration” He must have a different definition of the word inspiration than some people do. Since the Holy Spirit knows that each individual copy is not given from God directly, He must use a definition more like the one I have outlined above. The Holy Spirit must believe that since copies contain all the words which were given by inspiration it is OK to refer to them as scripture. Anything called scripture must be given by the inspiration of God. The Holy Spirit does not call copies of the autographs copies, He calls them scripture. The Holy Spirit does not assign a lesser quality to copies and neither should we. Since the Holy Spirit refers to copies as scripture He must believe the phrase “given by inspiration” means that the words on a copy are the words which are the inspired words. Therefore if the Holy Spirit is OK with referring to copies as something given by inspiration we should be OK with it also.

    Thank you for your good spirit.
    Brian Evans

  15. You & I call the KJV scripture. What about someone who calls the ESV scripture? Would you then say the ESV is inspired?

  16. A translation is only as good as the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which serve as it’s foundation. The manuscripts from which the ESV was translated have 1000’s of man made changes. These new words are not inspired words since they are not the words given to us by God. Since God was not the source of these different words they are not inspired words and anything translated from them could not be rightly called the inspired Word of God either. A translation cannot be inspired if it’s foundation was not inspired.

    Side note: The official web site for the ESV states that the RSV of 1971 is actually the starting point for the ESV. ( Also, note the words inspiration or inspired do not appear in the ESV New Testament.

  17. How do you know the ESV manuscripts have 1000’s of man made changes?

  18. By the nature of your question I take it you are not familiar with the Critical Text which is the foundation of the ESV, RSV, NIV and most other modern English versions. The Critical Text is at variance with the Majority Text which is the basis for the KJV in approximately 30,000 places. I cannot educate you about the Critical Text in this type of forum but there are many, many good resources on the web which document the changes made. If you are truly uninformed about this issue you owe it to yourself to take some time and study it.

  19. I am familiar with the different text families. I’m just curious why the difference in the ESV manuscripts was attributed to man-made changes.

  20. Those who have handled the manuscripts from which the Critical Text was compiled in the 1880’s record the corrupt, altered, and almost vandalized nature of the text. Sentences, words, phrases are missing in some place while being added in other places. Some sections display the handwriting of at least 10 different copyists. Again, the fact that you are asking this question reveals your need of a more in depth look at this issue. You are asking me to document something I cannot do in this type of correspondence.

    Go to and you will see the sort of evidence I am referring to. Here is a sample from the site above. “Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
    This codex was produced in the 4th century. In his book Let’s Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton writes of Codex Sinaiticus: Quote: “The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the ‘Shepherd of Hermes’ and the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ to the New Testament. The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about Sinaiticus…
    ‘On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
    On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century.
    … Phillip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court in April 1892, wrote a book called “Which Version” in the early 1900s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus… ‘From these facts, therefore, we declare: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.’ ” (Ref:C1)

  21. Or I’m asking just to provoke a conversation. 😉

    If the TR is the preserved line of manuscripts, would a new English translation based on those manuscripts be the inspired, preserved, word of God?

  22. Brian Evans says:

    So glad you weren’t offended by my suggestion you might need to study the issue more. You seem to have a great spirit and I’m glad we can discuss this in a friendly manner.

    If the KJV is the inspired Word of God preserved in English without any translational error, why would we need to produce a new English translation. If there is no need for a new translation the point becomes moot.

    Other practical points to consider concerning why a new translation from the TR would be superfluous.

    1. The body of translators who gave us the KJV was a collection of the best and brightest scholars who have ever lived. Men who not only knew the original tongues in an academic sense but who could actually speak the languages. I do not think such a body of men exist today.

    2. The manner in which the translators worked is well documented. The work of each man was reviewed and agreed upon by each of the other 47 translators. Think about this, the word choices of each translator was not placed in the final version of the text until it had been reviewed and approved by each of the other translators. The next time you hear some pastor who has had only two courses in Greek and Hebrew correct the KJV keep in mind that the KJV is the work of 47 of the best scholars who have ever lived, and that the work of each man was reviewed and re-reviewed over and over again by the other translators.

  23. Some may argue a new translation is needed because of the archaic language needs to be updated. Others may wonder why the need for the KJV since there were already a couple of good English translations (and the instructions to the KJV translators was to follow the Bishops Bible as closely as possible).

  24. Brian Evans says:

    Two good questions.

    1. All modern versions have unfamiliar language such as “satrap” in the NIV etc. Some object to the “thee’s & thou’s” because they don’t understand their importance. The English of the KJV is the English of literature not everyday language and must be exacting to communicate the fulness of truth. In literature a word like “thee” is needed instead of you because it tells us whether the speaker is addressing a single individual or a group of people. The word you is used countless times in the KJV. Consider the following Webster 1828 definitions of “thou” & “ye”.

    THOU, pron. in the obj. thee. The second personal pronoun, in the singular number; the pronoun which is used in addressing persons in the solemn style.

    YE, pron. The nominative plural of the second person, of which thou is the singular. But the two words have no radical connection. Ye is now used only in the sacred and solemn style. These important distinctions are lost in all modern versions because they substitute “you” for “thee”, “thou”, “ye” etc.

    You don’t hear much talk about changing the unfamiliar language used in other fields of study such as law, medicine or science. The problem is we don’t take the field of Theology seriously enough to study the vocabulary and grammar needed to properly understand it; shame on us

    There comes a point when we must stop watering down the vocabulary of the Bible to match the people and start raising the vocabulary of the people to match the Bible. The Bible is the most important book on the planet, and if we are willing to take the time to increase our vocabulary to be able to understand science or math, we certainly be willing to increase our vocabulary to be able to understand the Word of God.

    2. Yes the previous English versions were a blessing and were greatly used of God. However, a study of the lineage of the English Bible reveals that the previous English versions were the word of either one man or a very small group of men (The Geneva Bible for example.) In the original preface to the KJV the translators expressed their admiration for previous versions but also thier agreement for the need of one English version “not to be justly excepted against”. They would have said that the previous English versiions were the Word of God but not the Word of God without error. If you have never read the preface I am referring to, I encourage you to take some time to look it over and you will get a clear understanding of why the folks back in 1611 felt the need for a new translation.

    By the way, since the KJV does exist, and has been so greatly used of God for almost 400 years, I don’t think the question has much relevance to us today.

  25. All translations contain unfamiliar language i.e. “satrap” in the NIV. Remember the English of the KJV is the English of classic literature not the English of conversation. Words like “Ye” and “Thou” are important for grammatical reasons. “Thou” is singular and “Ye” is plural. They help the reader know whether the writer is talking to only one person or to a group. Modern versions lose this as they replace these words with “you”. Look up these words in your Web. 1828 for a more detailed explanation.

    Just as one must learn the meaning of unfamiliar words to learn science, law, or medicine, it is needful for us who would learn the Bible to learn the vocabulary needed to understand the Word of God. Maybe the Bible isn’t important enough to many for them to invest the time needed to upgrade their vocabulary.

    The KJV is consistently found to be the easiest to read and comprehend of all English versions by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator. According to them the KJV is written on a 6th grade average. This might be because the KJV uses more two syllable words and more simple words and phrases than modern English versions.

    Your second question is not very meaningful seeing as how the decision to produce the KJV was made almost 400 years ago. It is worthy of note that those who lived in that time and who were the most familiar with the ancient English versions decided a new translation was needed. Reading the original preface to the 1611 will give you insight into the minds of the translators and the reason they thought it needful for the KJV to be made.

  26. Sorry about the double entry. I thought the first version didn’t go in.

  27. Keith Whitlock says:

    Quit you like men. It is obvious to us who have really studied this issue that many of you have not. The KJB is inspired by God. And so are all the other common language bibles of the Christian world. Inspired, not God-breathed.
    How would you defenders of the faith like a restored classic BMW? One that would outrun a Corvette and look cool doing it? Just present to me one error in the KJB or lets make this more interesting, errors in any of Gail Riplinger’s works.
    It is quite telling that God would have to raise up a humble godly woman to set the record straight. Maybe we men need to get a little back bone.

  28. LOL, Keith. That is a good one!

  29. The unfamiliar words are not necessarily a problem as people who want to study will look them up. The problem comes with familiar words that have changed meaning since the translation was done. An example is mansion in John 14. Today, mansion refers to a large, luxurious house where rich people live. Back when it was translated, it referred to more of an apartment like complex.

  30. Brian Evans says:

    Hard to believe that in a city where gold is so plentiful that the street is paved with it we would have a ruddy little apartment to live in. If gold is used to pave the street, no telling what the mansions are made of!

    The Web. 1828 simply defines mansion as a follows;

    1. Any place of residence; a house; a habitation.

    Thy mansion wants thee, Adam, rise.

    In my Father’s house are many mansions. John 14.

    2. The house of the lord of a manor.

    3. Residence; above.

    I’m with Mr. Whitlock, if you think the KJV has true errors of translation, trot them out!

  31. Who said anything about a ruddy little apartment? It is best to understand the passage in the timeframe when it was written rather than reading into it our understanding from modern times. Mansion then is different than mansion now.

    Also, I don’t think anyone claimed translational errors. I was laughing at his comment about Gail Riplinger.

  32. Bill Bradley just preached a great informative message on this issue tonight. You can listen to it on the media page at

  33. SheepleShearer says:

    Keith Whitlock said: “Just present to me one error in the KJB or lets make this more interesting, errors in any of Gail Riplinger’s works.”

    It’s really gotten old, this dare from Riplinger supporters telling people who don’t support her false work to “prove” errors in her books. You see, people have already done that but you don’t like the result so you keep hiding behind your dare. So, instead of continuing to tell people to do something they’ve already taken the time to do, it’s time for **you** to check Mrs. Riplinger’s work for yourself and prove there are no errors in what she says. The burden of proof, that she has no errors in her books, is now on you. For starters, here is an easy assignment. Go to and open up the books by Westcott and Hort (available free for reading online), from which she claims to quote these two men, then compare what she says they said with what they actually said. Next, verify her quoting of the “new versions” with what they actually say. To do this, you can go to several online Bible sites, such as or the Bible Gateway, where you can search many versions, old and new. Compare what Mrs. Riplinger says they say with what they actually say. Then, if you are honest enough, stop daring people to prove something they already have and then offer them a humble little apology for having impled they are liars for obeying the word of God by being as the Bereans. If the Bereans checked what Paul said, without just automatically trusting him, then certainly the same must be done with Mrs. Riplinger’s writings, as with anyone else’s. It’s time to stop giving Mrs. Riplinger the free pass which the early church refused to just offer the Apostle Paul.

  34. Someone has documented some of the dishonest quotation practices of Riplinger:

  35. What everybody misses, and its completely now applies,never mind about 2000 years ago, 6000 years ago, or any period of time in our past…

    Eternity means everlasting, which in its simplicity means–there is no measure of time…

    Whether it was 6000 years ago, or two seconds ago, they are, and always will be one and the same thing…

  36. Pastor Branden Lawrence says:

    This has been very interesting reading. I’m familiar with the kjv-only and only King James debate as well as the tr/wescott hort debates but I am relatively new to this whole issue being raised by Pastor Schaap. What I am curious about is if he has come out and said that he believes there are “errors” in the King James Bible. If he has, then can you give me that documentation and if he hasn’t can someone explain to me what, on the practical side of things, all the arguing is about. It seems that one group wants to use the term “inspired” to say that the KJV is without errors and another group wants to say that the originals were inspired and that teh KJV is without errors using the term “preservation” By the way, Hi Pastor Evans…This is Brian Lawrence’s son. Dad and I were talking about this last night. Maybe you have some quotes from Pastor Schaap that I could study out or maybe you can help me to see how practically this is more than simply a debate on a preference of words. Thanks and God bless!

  37. I am going to make some statements that may or may not be true-this is an observation of mine–in my life time the KJV was pretty much it for the most part till about 1950-giv r take 10 or 15 years.Then from about that time till now a bunch of newer versions have come about in existence or popularity or both.And from about 1960 till now the world has marched into the church and taken over in every arena of life–from dress to music to womens amd mens roles–and on and–the church is mocked ,the Bible kicked out of public school n 63,row v wade-73–only 2 say I can not prove a correlation exist but just consider how far our country and churches have moved away from God n the last 20 years and how much the KJV continues to be ridiculed,shelved and put aside by so many “Christians”n that same time frame-and Brian—I so enjoyed your comments–you put into words what I wanted to but could not-thank you–ken

  38. inspiredkjver says:

    Thanks for your comments Jerry. It still seems like some believe that God’s word isn’t inspired if it has to be spoken in English? Hmmm, I thought we serve a God that speaks all languages.

  39. In late January of 2018 I was privileged to minister the Gospel through street preaching nd tract distribution at the Super Bowl in Minneapolis.

    A controversy became evident during those days. A group of three or four men INSISTED that anyone who would not accept the KJV could not be saved.

    They preached this to thousands of shivering football fans who were lined up to attend events.

    Further, they “consulted” with about 50 others who were gathered from all over the country to present the Gospel. Their mission was very obvious: they wanted every man there to believe that the KJV is the only Bible and that all who use anything else is hell bound!

    I have a PH.D. in New Testament Text and my dissertation subject was on the dynamic equivalence theory of translation.

    I do not take the matter of inspiration lightly, and only after a time of prayer and consultation with trusted colleagues did I write a response to those who were so strongly in favor of the “King James Forever” attitude.

    In one way or another I have dealt with this issue for over 50 years.

    If anyone reading this would be interested in reading my response to those men or my views on Bible translations in general, feel free to contact me at

    God bless!

Got something to say?