Which Translation Should You Trust?
A Defense Of The Authorized King James Version Of 1611
Chapter IV

Timothy S. Morton


Copyright © 1993, Timothy S. Morton, All Rights Reserved
All Scripture references and quotations (except where indicated) are from the 
Authorized King James Bible



 No Copyright  Its Language  Its Honesty Concerning The Apocrypha
The Agreement Of Its Different Editions  Textus Receptus or King James?   The Bible God Uses

The Use Of Italics

Now that we have briefly looked at the translators and their motives, let's look at the result of their labors. One reason the King James Version is the most honest English Bible is because of its use of italics. When the translators had to supply a word (or words) in the Authorized Version to make it make sense in English, they put it in italics. That is, they were honest in showing the words they added to the text. This is something the translators of nearly all the modern versions failed to do. The New International Version, for one, has the translated words and the words the translators added in the same type. There is no way a reader can tell which is which. Obviously, indicating the added words is a more ethical practice, yet the Authorized Version translators are often criticized for doing so.

Some people ignorantly claim that all the italicized words should be removed, but this would be harmful. It would make some Bible passages unclear or difficult to understand because they would not contain complete sentences in English (Psalm 58:7-8 for example). Others insist that only some of the italicized words should be removed or at least changed, but which ones? Of course, only the ones THEY want removed or changed. The italicized word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians 14 is one that is often in debate. Some want to remove it because some others build an outrageous doctrine upon it. Many of the Charismatics teach the "unknown tongue" is an "angelic language" that no one on earth can understand, but it is clear from reading the entire chapter that Paul is referring to foreign languages which are unknown only to the HEARERS. This is plain without removing the italicized words. The added word does not confuse the text as some claim, it clarifies what type of tongue (language) Paul is speaking about. In the preface of the Authorized Version one will find the words "unknown tongue" used in the same manner—a foreign language. It's not the Bible's fault some people "wrest the scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

God has honored the King James Version, italics and all, for over 380 years, and it would be very presumptuous for anyone to change it in any way. Furthermore, there is evidence of God's hand concerning the italics in the English text itself. Look at Romans 10:20, where Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1. In Isaiah 65:1 the words "them that" are in italics; they are not in the Hebrew. However, in Romans 10:20, the words are NOT in italics because the Greek words for them are there! Paul quotes the Hebrew as if the words are there, but they are not in any Hebrew text; they are only found in the Authorized Version text! (Some may claim Paul is quoting a pre-Christian Greek "Septuigent," but there is no such thing.) This is not the only place where this occurs. Compare Psalm 16:8 with Acts 2:25 ("he is"); Psalm 94:11 with 1 Corinthians 3:20 ("are"); Deuteronomy 25:4 with 1 Corinthians 9:9 ("the corn"); and Deuteronomy 8:3 with Matthew 4:4 ("word"). With such evidence that God is behind the italics in King James Version, what kind of person would dare tamper with them?

Back To Contents

No Copyright

Another significant advantage the Authorized Version has over the other versions is its lack of a commercial copyright. Check the title-page of any King James Bible for a copyright notice. If you find one it will be for something other than the Bible text itself, such as study notes, cross references, maps, etc. (as in the Scofield Reference Bible). Now check the "new Bibles," any or all of them. They all have one without exception. From this we learn a very important lesson. The words in these "Bibles" are not God's words, they are MAN'S words! You say, "How can you say they are man's words?" Very simple, just look up the definition of a copyright. The Columbia Concise Encyclopedia defines a copyright as (emphasis mine):
(The) statutory right of the CREATOR to exclusive control of an ORIGINAL literary or artistic production. The copyright holder may reproduce the work or license others to do so, and receive PAYMENTS (royalties) for each performance or copy. 
Unlike the "crown copyright" that King James granted to printer Robert Barker so the Authorized Version could be printed, a modern copyright expresses authorship and ownership. So all the publishers of the new versions are admitting to the world that the "Bibles" they publish are not God's word, but THEIR WORD! Now, of course, they will cry foul because we say this, but the commercial copyright is still there. They often say it is only there to protect the text from being tampered with. Well, if this is true, why does one have to ask them permission and sometimes even PAY ROYALTIES to use or quote from their translations?

According to 1 Timothy 2:9 the word of God is NOT BOUND. It is FREE for anyone to use, quote, or print without having to get permission from or pay anybody! The only Bible in English still in print that meets this requirement is the King James Version of 1611. God's word, like His salvation, is free, so why would anyone think one of these new copyrighted "Bibles" was His word? Remember, a copyright protects WORDS (not paper, leather, and ink), so when one buys any book other than the Authorized Version some of the payment is for the words themselves. Of the millions of books in the Library of Congress, only one of any significance is NOT copyrighted. Should it be any surprise whose book it is?

Back To Contents

Its Language

The King James Version is often criticized because of its use of what is called "archaic language." The translators of the modern versions ride this "hobby horse" to death by using it to justify THEIR versions. With all the new "Bibles" that have appeared in the last 100 years claiming to do this, one would think the "updating" would be complete. Has English become "archaic" 100 times since 1885 when the Revised Version came out? According to many scholars it must have. Evidently, the RV's translators did a poor job of "modernizing" the words because dozens of newer "revised" versions have come out since then each claiming to do the same.

This, however, is just a smokescreen. The translator's primary desire is not to modernize the words, they want to change the TEXT. The public was told the RV was to be the Authorized Version updated to modern language, but that is NOT what they got. This corrupt perversion had thousands of TEXTUAL differences with the Authorized Version. It omitted verses, cast doubt on passages ("yea hath God said"), and weakened many fundamental doctrines. The translators, under the guise of "updating the language," produced one of the most destructive books in history. This "Bible," and the corrupt text behind it, has directly led to the publication of scores of corrupt versions which are the cause of much of the confusion and unbelief in the Christian world today.

Instead of falling for this obvious deception, let's look at some of the reasons the "archaic language" of the Authorized Version is SUPERIOR to the language of any modern version. The Authorized Version's personal pronouns ("ye," "yea," "thee," "thou," etc.) are often criticized because the words are not in common use today. Granted, they may not be common "street" terms, but they are still easily understandable by the vast majority of people. Here, someone may say, Why doesn't someone just substitute "you" and "your" for these terms and make the Bible simpler for everybody? Well, for one very good reason. The personal pronouns of the King James Version are a much more direct and accurate translation of certain words than "you" and "your" are alone. Dr. Bruce Cummons explains the difference in the December 1988 issue of, The Plains Baptist Challenger, edited by E.L. Bynum.

In the language of the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament there is a very distinct difference between the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. We make no difference in modern English—both singular and plural are translated "you." However, in old English there exists a difference just as there is in Greek and Hebrew. As a result the old English from the King James Version gives a far more precise translation than would modern English.  

In our King James Bible, "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" are always singular. "You," "ye," "and "your" are always plural. If the second person pronoun starts with a "t" (in the English translation) then it is singular. If it starts with "y" it is plural....  

It is interesting to note that, contrary to popular opinion, the word "you" is used in the King James Version of the Bible about 2000 times in fact. The "thee's" and "ye's" are used also for accuracy and directness of translation.... 

So the reason the King James Version translators used these "archaic" pronouns is not because the pronouns "you" and "your" were not available, but because of ACCURACY! Just because modern English is inferior to "old" English does not mean we must have a Bible that is also. As we mentioned before, God knew by His foreknowledge when to compile His Bible in its final form and He also knew what language to put it in. Again we quote Benjamin Wilkinson in, Which Bible, page 247:
Since then (1611), words have lost (their) living, pliable breath. Vast additions have been made to the English vocabulary in the last 300 years, so that several words are now necessary to convey the same meaning which formerly was conveyed by one. It will then be readily seen that while the English vocabulary has increased in quantity, nevertheless, single words have lost their many shades...and therefore less adaptable to receiving into English the thoughts of the Hebrew.... New Testament Greek, is, in this respect, like the Hebrew. 
"This may be true," you say, "but there are still some words in the Authorized Version I don't understand." Come on now, what do you think dictionaries are for? Any time you come to a word you are in doubt of consult a dictionary. The older the better. Some words in the Authorized Version do have a different meaning today than they did in the seventeenth century, but, again, it's not the Bible's fault English has degenerated. This still does not warrant a change in the King James text though. The most that should be considered for these words is to put their modern equivalent in the margin, NOT IN THE TEXT! If these words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake. No person with a sixth grade education (or even less) will have any problem reading and understanding the King James Version if he wants to (John 7:17). The so-called "archaic language" problem is no problem at all for anyone who wants to know the truth. As we will see in the next chapter, it was for the most part invented by the publishers and translators of the new "Bibles" to help justify their version's existence. They not only change the words, but also the TEXT behind the words, weakening many essential truths. The readers of them pay a high price for "readability."

Back To Contents

Its Honesty Concerning The Apocrypha

Another tactic the enemies of the Authorized Version use to try and intimidate the Bible believer is the matter concerning the Apocrypha. The (Old Testament) Apocrypha is fourteen books, most written before the time of Christ, that are NOT scripture and NOT part of the canon. The word "apocrypha" itself means, "not genuine; spurious; counterfeit," the definition of the word declares the nature of the books. Since the first edition of the King James Version had the Apocrypha BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS, critics will cast doubt on its integrity by smugly saying to the Bible believer, "The original edition of the King James Version had the Apocrypha in it and all fundamentalists agree that it is not God's word; therefore, your Bible is flawed...." They say this like they expect the believer to immediately abandon his Bible and fall at their feet and say, "Teach me master." That the enemies of our precious Bible would bring up the Apocrypha at all shows the extent they will go to, to get rid of the hated King James Version. And as we will see, it is also an act of the utmost hypocrisy.

It is true the 1611 edition of the King James Version had the Apocrypha in it, but as we mentioned, it was between the testaments. Furthermore, the translators plainly labeled the books as "apocrypha" (remember the definition). They never once hinted that they considered any of it scripture; on the contrary, they left the reader in no doubt that they knew it NOT to be scripture. No one at that time considered it to be scripture anyway except the Roman Catholics. If one will look at a 1611 edition of the Authorized Version (or a replica of it), he will find the translators clearly identified the fourteen books as "the books called apocrypha" in the table of contents, separating it from both the Old and New Testaments. Also, at the end of Malachi, they add the words "The End Of The Prophets" to show the END of the Old Testament. On the next page the Apocrypha begins, with the word "Apocrypha" (remember the definition) in large letters in the upper center of the page and twice more in smaller letters at the top. The word is also found twice at the top of every page thereafter. At the end of Second Maccabees (the last book), the words "The End Of The Apocrypha" are found. On the facing page the New Testament begins.

Here, the question arises, Why did the translators put it in if they didn't believe it was scripture? Simple, the same reason many Bibles have references, notes, and commentary in them, for recommended reading. The Apocrypha is of value if only from a historical standpoint, and the translators put it in the first edition for that reason. In the later editions it was removed.

One can see in this matter even more clearly than in others that the Authorized Version's enemies will in an act of desperation not hesitate to bring up half-truths and partial information to try to destroy someone's faith in it. They allow a believer to assume the worst without telling him all the facts, and one fact they are careful to omit is that their "Bibles" contain the Apocrypha also, not in the English text, but in the "oldest and best Greek texts"!

The two texts which are the basis for nearly all of the new translations both contain the Apocrypha WITHIN THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE! Vaticanus contains Apocrypha in the Old Testament, and Sinaiticus contains some in the New Testament. The copiers of these corrupt manuscripts made no distinction between the canon of scripture (66 books) and the Apocrypha. To them there was no difference. The texts the King James translators used DID NOT have these phony books in them. See the hypocrisy? The critics make a charge they know to be false against the King James, while keeping quiet the fact that their "best texts" contain the very same WITHIN THE CANON! How dishonest, deceitful, and unethical can people get? If the Authorized Version is not authoritative because it contained the Apocrypha in one edition between the testaments, what does this have to say about their favorite GREEK texts? By their own argument they have much less authority! Beware, Christian, the forces at work trying to destroy your confidence in your precious Bible will stop at nothing to advance their cause.

Back To Contents

The Agreement Of Its Different Editions

The edition of the King James Version in common use today is slightly different from the 1611 edition and Bible critics often use this information in an attempt to intimidate and confuse Bible believers. They usually resort to this approach in a final act of desperation. When a critic cannot shake a believer's faith in the Authorized Version with his usual arguments, and more than that, the believer has pointed out how these arguments are based on unbelief, he must do something to protect his precious ego. The final assault may be something like, "Which revision of the King James Version do you believe is infallible anyway? You do know that the Bible you have in your hands is not the 1611 edition, don't you? Why, the King James Version has been revised four (or six, or eight) times since 1611, resulting in 20,000 (or 25,000, or 30,000) changes between then and now. So which one is infallible, they can't all be?" This evidently is supposed to shock the believer into submission and cause him to join the ranks of the "unbelievers," but when the matter is honestly dealt with it is clear this argument is just more "hot air."

The Authorized King James Version 1611 Bible has NOT gone through one true revision (many of the new "Bibles" claim to be a revision, but this is a fraud as we will see later), however, it has gone through several different editions. The most notable editions were in the years 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. There were many changes made in these editions, but they were not of the nature the critics insinuate when they pull their "revision hoax." They would have the believer to believe that since there were a large number of changes made, the text of the Authorized Version we have today is drastically different from the 1611 edition. This is a deception of the most diabolical sort. The current edition of the King James Version (not the corrupt New King James Version), is, as far as the text is concerned, IDENTICAL to the intended original edition. In a report given to the American Bible Society in 1852 (well after the 1769 edition, which has been the standard edition ever since) a researcher states:

The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us UNALTERED in respect to its text.  
With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains UNCHANGED AND WITHOUT VARIATION FROM THE ORIGINAL COPY AS LEFT BY THE TRANSLATORS. 
Since the TEXT of the Authorized Version we have today is virtually identical to the one the translators delivered to the printer, you may be wondering what kind of changes were made that number in the thousands and cause such a ruckus. They fall under three categories:

(1) A change in typestyle
(2) changes in spelling
(3) and corrected typographical errors

First, we will look at the change in typestyle. The first edition of the Authorized Version was printed in the Gothic typestyle. Gothic letters are formed to resemble handwritten manuscripts, thus they look quite different than the Roman letters which are in common use today. The printers used the Gothic typestyle because they considered it to be more majestic and beautiful than the others, but it is somewhat harder for people to read who are not used to it. One reason it is more difficult is because it transposes some of the letters of the alphabet. The Gothic letter "v" looks like a Roman "u," the "j" looks like todays "i," and sometimes the "s" looks like the modern "f." As a result, the word love is rendered "loue" in the 1611 edition, Jesus becomes "Iefus," and Christ looks like "Chrift." It is apparent how this ornamental typestyle could be confusing to some, but the printers only wanted to exalt God's word.

In 1612, an edition of the Authorized Version was printed using the Roman typestyle. Though it is less graceful and ornamental than the Gothic, it is easier for most people to read. Just the change in typestyle alone accounts for thousands of the changes between the 1611 edition and the later ones. As anyone can see, these changes do not affect the TEXT of the King James Version in any way, no more than a self-pronouncing text does (there is no difference in the meaning or hearing of the words), but many will allow you to believe otherwise

Spelling changes account for nearly all the remaining differences between the editions. In the early seventeenth century spelling had not yet become standardized; it was left to the whim and fancy or the author. Many times an author would spell the same word differently, even in the same book. Even Sir Walter Ralegh sometimes spelled his last name "Rauley." The King James translators were consistent with spelling in their version, but, still yet, the way they spelled many words then is different than the way we spell them today. Often, an additional "e" was placed at the end of words, i.e. "doore," "feare," "loude," "worde," etc.; and double vowels were more frequent; "bee," "doe," "hee," and "goe" are examples. Double consonants were more common too. Evil was spelled "euille," until was "vntill," and son was "sonne." Changes like this make up the majority of differences between the edition of 1611 and the edition we have today. They are not changes in the MEANINGS of the words at all, only in the spelling. See how deceptive the Bible critics are? They try to fool the believer into thinking their TEXTUAL changes (RSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, etc.) are justifiable because the King James Version's typeface and spelling were updated! Honesty does not appear to be a virtue among many of them.

The final category deals with the 400 or so changes made between the 1611 edition and today's that do affect the text. The critics make much of these changes, but every one of them was because of a typographical error. In the seventeenth century printing was a very tedious process. The typesetter had to set every letter by hand, and sometimes errors crept into the text as a result. Usually a letter was misplaced or the word order changed. Sometimes a singular was rendered a plural or vice versa, and rarely a word or two was omitted. Often these errors were not caught until after the book was printed. These type of errors are to be expected even with today's sophisticated printing process. Nearly every book, magazine, or newspaper printed today has at least one "typo" in it, and even recently printed Bibles occasionally have one.

Most of the typographical errors that were in the 1611 edition were corrected in the 1613 edition, but the 1613 edition introduced even others. In 1629, another edition was released that corrected these. Two of the original translators (Samuel Ward and John Bois) took part in making these corrections, and who would know the intent of the translators more than two of the translators themselves? However, a few more "typos" were made during this printing, and the 1638 edition removed these. By this time nearly 75 percent of the 400 textual variations had been corrected, the rest were picked up later.

Of the four major editions of the Authorized Version, the 1629 and 1638 were mainly to correct typographical errors; the 1762 and 1769 were to update the spelling. By 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error.

We will list some of these "typos" below so the reader can see the nature of the changes and how this issue is blown way out of proportion by the Bible critics. We will first reproduce the 1611 reading, and then the present, corrected reading.

1. shall burnt them — shall burn them
2. sons nor daughter — sons nor daughters
3. shewed them by the prophets — hewed them by the prophets
4. that you remember me — that ye remember me
5. this thing — this thing also
6. requite good — requite me good
7. he came and worshiped him — he ran and worshiped him
8. chief rulers — chief ruler
9. a fiery furnace — a burning fiery furnace
10. now and ever — both now and ever
11. good — God
12. thy right doeth — thy right hand doeth

One can easily see from the above examples that the variations between the version of 1611 and the one today are very slight, thus ANY EDITION of the Authorized Version is vastly superior to any one of the new "Bibles," even if the new "Bible" is typographically perfect. Even with "God" rendered "good" (Psalm 69:32) in the 1611 edition, and "of God" omitted in the same (1 John 5:12), it is much to be preferred above any other English translation. As we have said, the promoters of the new versions use these slight typographical variations to justify their CHANGING of the TEXT, and the change is always for the worse. Below we will produce one example of this. The New King James Version claims to be the fifth revision of the 1611 King James Version, but one verse will show this to be a lie. We will look at Acts 4:27 as found in the true King James Version, and then the verse as it reads in the so-called New King James Version.

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together. (KJV)

For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together. (NKJV)

No edition of the true King James Version has the word "servant" in place of "child," yet the NKJV does. In this verse it agrees with all the other "new" versions and refuses to call Christ God's child. Of course, the scholars will say, "the Greek word can be translated as `servant."' Yes it can, but it can also be translated as "child," and this is what every true King James Version ever printed says. Dear reader, which exalts the Lord Jesus Christ the most, being called God's servant, or God's "child"? Which rendering would the Devil prefer? There are many more "revisions" of this type in the so-called NKJV, and each one takes something away from the truth of the text.

One writer estimates the number of changes between the NKJV and the true King James to be near 60,000, and these are nearly all changes in the text! With only 400 textual variations in 380 years, (and all of them "typos") in the real King James Version, do these people expect Christians to believe that their 60,000 changes are of the same fashion? Nonsense. Not one change made in any of the editions of the Authorized Version was to update the language or correct a (supposed) mistranslation, so the revision claim promoted by the translators of the NKJV truly is a hoax.

Furthermore, many of the new translations that are based on the Alexandrian Greek text (RV, ASV, RSV, NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc.) claim to be revisions of the Authorized Version also. (It appears that the promoters of these "Bibles" are jealous of the results God has obtained through the King James since they are always comparing their versions with it or claiming to be a revision of it. Also, by this they are admitting that the King James is the standard their version is to be judged by.) Their translators would have you think that since the typestyle, spelling, and "typos" have been updated or removed from the Authorized Version, that this gives them license to completely change the underlying GREEK text! The text used by these Alexandrian "perversions" is different from the "Textus Receptus" the King James translators used in over 5000 places! This is the height of deception. How could anyone honestly claim that these versions are revisions of the Authorized Version when they come from a entirely different text? God has blessed, honored, and promoted every edition of the King James Version, "typos" and all, but he has NOT these. As was mentioned before, the RV is out of print (or nearly so), and the other new "Bibles" must be advertised heavily to even look respectable beside the blessed King James

Back To Contents

Textus Receptus or King James?

In the last few years, many leading fundamentalists have changed their position on the Textus Receptus. Thirty years ago (around 1960) the majority of them insisted the Alexandrian type of manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were the "oldest and best Greek texts" and maintained the English translations that came from them were superior to those made from the Textus Receptus (then only the King James). Since then, many of these "authorities" have shifted their allegiance to the Textus Receptus (or Majority Text), claiming it is "closest to the original." The result of this change is the publication of the New King James Version in 1982. It is based on the Received Text.

Why did these scholars do this? What possibly could have affected them to make them change their position so drastically? Did the manuscripts change? Did the Majority Text in some mysterious way lose its "errors"?

Apparently, these men just could not endure the stigma of being branded as Bible correctors and members of the "Alexandrian cult" by Bible believers. They found themselves being identified with translations that omitted hundreds of words, mistranslated many key passages, and weakened every fundamental Christian doctrine (especially those dealing with Christ), and evidently the "heat" was more than they could take. They didn't want their reputation to suffer in the eyes of the public because of their position, so they gradually began to accept Receptus readings and finally published the NKJV as an "improved" King James Version.

Is this change in "preference" any improvement? Not at all. Their basic premise and ideology has not changed in the least. They still do not believe ANY Bible is inerrant. Not the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, or even the NKJV. They simply shifted their preference to remain "fundamental" in the eyes of ignorant Christians.

We are mentioning this so the believer will not be fooled into thinking that someone who claims to be a "Textus Receptus man" or "Majority Text man" instead of a "Alexandrian" is a Bible believer. These people are just as much humanists in their attitude toward the scriptures as members of the "Alexandrian cult." They may now "prefer" the Textus Receptus, but they reserve the right to correct it, or any translation from it, whenever their final authority (opinion) tells them to. They still insist "only the original manuscripts were inspired," and "no translation can be inspired."

A Bible believer does not believe the Received Text (which was written in what is now a dead language) to be his final authority. He believes the Bible God has given him in his OWN language; the Book God put His stamp of approval on by using it to save countless more sinners than He saved with the Textus Receptus alone (or the original autographs)—the Authorized Version of 1611.

We should mention here that the King James Version is NOT a word for word translation of the Textus Receptus or of the Majority Text. It is based on the Textus Receptus, but it also has a few readings from other sources. God, in His providence, directed the translators in choosing which readings to use.

 #Back To Contents

The Bible God Uses

Another compelling reason the King James Version is to be preferred above every other English translation is because it is the Bible God has used more than any other to bring the lost to Christ. In the last 380 years there have been nearly one billion copies of the Authorized Version printed in some form, much more than all other versions combined, and this alone says a great deal. Some may say this is an unfair comparison since it is so much older than the newer versions, but this is not necessarily true. The King James Bible has completely replaced the six major English versions that preceded it, and as for the newer versions, they were all published after English became the universal language and after the earth's population had greatly increased. Still yet, to get the sales of these new "Bibles" to their present level the publishers had to resort to worldly advertising practices; the King James Version has prevailed because the Holy Spirit advertises it.

One very significant way a person can know the Authorized Version is the Bible God uses is by looking at its "fruits." Since the day the printer pulled the first copy from off the press in 1611, the King James Version has enjoyed Gods favor. He has used it not only to bring more souls into his Kingdom than any other Bible, but also to civilize and educate entire nations which were ignorant of Him and His ways. No Bible, in any other language, or at any other time (including the "original autographs"), can approach the results God has obtained through the King James Version of 1611. It is not only "the single most influential book ever published in the English language," it is the single most influential book the world has ever seen! You say, "These are a very broad claims." Yes they are, but each can easily be substantiated.

When the King James Version was published, England was a second-rate power in the world. It was not until after she took a stand against "popery" (notice how the translators call the Pope "the man of sin" in the dedicatory, something no modern version would dare say) and for the truth, that God began to expand her territory. He knew that wherever saved Englishmen went they would take their Bible with them. God blessed and cared for England because He wanted her to take His perfect word to the corners of the earth. This she has done.

After the Authorized Version was published, the great British Empire began to form. England (later Great Britain) came to control land masses dozens of times larger than the isle of Britain. At its height (during the 1800's), the empire controlled one-forth of the earth's land area, and concerning the sea it was said, "Britannica rules the waves." Australia, India, Canada, America, and many other countries were once British colonies, and each one was introduced to her blessed Bible. As long as England honored and believed the Authorized Version God honored her, but when she began to abandon and replace it, God began to abandon her. After 1885 when the RV came out to replace the Authorized Version, England's empire began to crumble; today she is again a second-rate power. The same is happening to the United States before our eyes. Unless America abandons the scores of "new Bibles" (which profess to be "improvements" of the Authorized Version), and gets back to the book she was born under (KJV, 1776), she is doomed to destruction.

The King James Version has been the Bible behind every major revival in the English speaking world since its publication. Not only that, it has been translated into over 1000 other languages and dialects, and God has greatly used these also to bring revival to other nations. The great missionaries and evangelists of the past used it exclusively to convert the lost. William Carey (1761-1834), called "the father of modern missions," took the Authorized Version to India and labored forty-two years to translate it (or the Greek text behind it) into forty-four languages and dialects. God greatly blessed his efforts. Adoniram Judson (1788-1850) carried it across the sea to Burma and translated it into the difficult Burmese. When he arrived, there was not one believer on the island; after his death, there were over 200,000 natives recorded as Christians.

John Wesley (1703-1791), the great founder of Methodism, preached nearly 42,000 sermons and led tens of thousands to Christ in England with only a King James Bible. His friend George Whitefield (1714-1770) led many thousands more to the Lord in America with the same. God used these two men to start the famed "Great Awakening" of the eighteenth century. Francis Asbury (1745-1816), one of their contemporaries, carried the Authorized Version 175,000 miles throughout America in his saddlebags and saw even more thousands saved. David Brainard (1718-1747), with great difficulty brought it to the American Indian; Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) used it to convict and melt the hardest of hearts. Charles Finney (1792-1875) started great revivals in many cities with it; George Müller (1805-1898) used it to build orphanages and save countless children. Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) preached it to over fifty million people; Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) preached it to millions more. We could go on and on. We could mention how God used the Authorized Version in the ministries of R. A. Torrey, John Paton, Hudson Taylor, Peter Cartwright, Sam Jones, Billy Sunday, Lorenzo Dow, Christmas Evans, David Livingston and many others, but space forbids that we dwell on this long. To my knowledge, everyone of these great men was saved under, called to preach under, and preached the King James Version of 1611. They all knew which Bible to believe and use.

Again, to all who are willing to honestly examine history it is obvious that God has used the King James Version of the Holy Bible more than He has used any other in ANY language. He has chosen it to save untold millions, increase godliness and morality, and turn whole nations from darkness unto light (while copies of the "original Greek" set on the back-burner of obscurity). It is God's Bible of choice. He will save a sinner with a new version, but He prefers to use the Authorized Version. Looking at the results of the new "Bibles" as compared to the King James should be proof enough. If the new versions are so much more accurate, readable, reliable, and trustworthy than the King James as they all claim, then WHERE ARE THEIR FRUITS! If God can use a "flawed" and "corrupt" King James Version to do all it has done, the combined effort of these "revised and improved" versions should do MUCH more! It is evident they haven't. All together they don't have one-forth of the fruits of the blessed King James Version.

God has obtained these outstanding results with the Authorized Version because of His providential guidance of the translators to choose the words He wanted the English speaking people to have. Furthermore, He will use these English words translated into other languages as much as He will the Greek or Hebrew words! The Chinese, Burmese, Malayan, Indian, Japanese, African, Persian, Arabic, and Hebrew Bibles came directly from the King James. One source says it had gone into 109 languages before 1880, and today it has gone into 1,578 languages in whole, or in part. Who would dare tamper with the Bible God has used and blessed so much but a fool? The old saying applies here, "If it's not broke, don't fix it!" If God has no problem with King James Version why should any man?

It is almost certain that the majority of English-speaking Christians alive today were led to Christ under the preaching of a King James Bible, yet sadly many of them have abandoned it for a modern version. Why would someone abandon the Bible that has blessed him so much with salvation? Why would a person forsake the very words that brought about his new birth (1 Peter 1:23)? This is like someone abandoning his mother! As illogical as it may seem, many believers have been beguiled into doing this. This indicates (as mentioned before) that there is a supernatural element involved—Satan. Satan has seen all to well how God has used the Authorized Version to take millions out of his kingdom, and he wants to stop this any way he can. If he cannot take the believer's Bible away by persecution, he will try talking him out of it by appealing to his pride and intellect. He has hundreds of "scholars" and preachers working in his behalf by saying there used to be a pure Bible but insisting that it does not exist today. All they have brought to Christianity is apathy, laziness, confusion, and unbelief. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

In this chapter we have covered several reasons why the Authorized Version is to be preferred above all others, but we still have the most important reason to examine. It should settle the matter in the mind of every Christian and convince him beyond any doubt whatsoever. This reason will be the topic of our final chapter.

Back To Contents

   Go To Chapter V