Chapter 10: Why KJV Matters

Your Bible determines what you believe.

If your Bible says God appeared in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV), you believe in Christ's deity. If your Bible says "He appeared in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16 NIV), you've lost the explicit statement.

If your Bible identifies Satan as "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12 KJV), you know who fell from heaven. If your Bible calls him "morning star" (Isaiah 14:12 NIV), you've just equated Satan with Jesus (Revelation 22:16 calls Jesus "the bright and morning star").

If your Bible includes Acts 8:37 ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"), you have Philip requiring confession before baptism. If your Bible deletes it like modern versions do, that requirement vanishes.

The changes aren't minor. The impact isn't trivial. Your Bible shapes your doctrine.

This chapter explains why this book quotes exclusively from the King James Version, and why you should too.

The Book Everyone Can Read

You don't need a seminary degree to read the KJV. You don't need Greek lexicons, scholarly commentaries, or manuscript expertise. A child can open it and understand "Thou shalt not kill." A grandmother can find comfort in "The Lord is my shepherd." A prisoner with nothing but this book and time can find salvation.

Five billion copies.^† "Best-selling book," Guinness World Records. Available at: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction. Estimates range from 5-7 billion copies printed. The most printed book in human history. The printing press, arguably humanity's most important invention, was created to spread it. William Tyndale died for this: that the boy driving the plow would know Scripture better than the Pope.^‡ John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (1563; commonly called Foxe's Book of Martyrs), Book VIII: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes," Tyndale's last words before strangling and burning at Vilvoorde Castle, October 6, 1536. Available at: https://www.johnfoxe.org. His stated goal: "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plough to know more of the Scriptures than you do" (to a clergyman, c. 1522).

The medieval priest gate-kept Scripture in Latin; you needed him to access God. The modern scholar gate-keeps it in manuscript debates; you need his expertise to know which Bible to trust. Different mechanisms, same result: the simple believer kept from the simple truth.

The KJV broke that pattern: no subscription, no updated edition next year invalidating the one you memorized, no scholarly apparatus standing between you and the text. Just the book and the Spirit.

What follows is technical, covering manuscript streams, textual variants, and translation philosophies. But the conclusion is simple: the Bible your great-grandparents read, the Bible missionaries carried to unreached peoples, the Bible that sparked every great revival in English-speaking history is still here, still available, still sufficient.

You already have everything you need.

KJV vs. modern version comparison: https://theremnantthread.com/studies/bible-diff

The Two Streams

Biblical manuscripts didn't come from one source. Two major textual streams emerged in early Christianity, preserved in different geographic locations, reflecting different theological influences.

The Antioch Stream (Syria/Byzantine)

Antioch, Syria is where believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). The church at Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (Acts 13:1-3). Early Christianity flourished there.

The manuscripts preserved in this region became known as:

• Byzantine text-type (Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire)
• Textus Receptus (Latin: "Received Text," standardized by Erasmus 1516)
• Majority Text (representing 95%+ of all Greek manuscripts)

These manuscripts agree with each other overwhelmingly. Minor variations exist (spelling, word order), but the text is remarkably consistent across 5,800+ manuscripts spanning 1,500 years.

The Alexandrian Stream (Egypt)

Alexandria, Egypt was an intellectual center, but also a birthplace of heresies. Gnostic teachings flourished there. Origen (185-254 AD), based in Alexandria, produced a Greek manuscript known for:

• Allegorizing Scripture (spiritual meanings over literal)
• Questioning biblical inerrancy
• Influenced by Greek philosophy
• Textual alterations and omissions

The manuscripts from this region:

• Vaticanus (housed in Vatican Library since at least 1481)
• Sinaiticus (found in St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, 1844-1859)
• Approximately 45 manuscripts total
• Represent ~5% of all Greek manuscript evidence
• Disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone¹ The figure of 3,000+ disagreements between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospels is cited in KJV-only literature (e.g., Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions) but disputed by textual critics who argue that most variants are minor (spelling, word order). Mainstream textual scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Daniel Wallace argue that Alexandrian manuscripts preserve earlier readings despite their disagreements, while KJV advocates argue that numerical majority and geographic distribution favor Byzantine priority. [Textual criticism debate - both positions represented]

Two Manuscript Streams

Old Testament:

• Masoretic Text (Hebrew, standardized 7th–10th centuries) undergirds the 39-book Jewish canon.
• Septuagint (Greek, 3rd–2nd centuries BC) adds the Apocrypha and served as the base for the Roman Catholic Church’s expanded canon.

New Testament:

• Byzantine manuscripts (Antioch/Syria) represent roughly 95% of surviving witnesses: over 5,000 copies harmonizing across 1,500 years.
• Alexandrian manuscripts (Egypt) contribute a mere 5% (~45 witnesses), disagreeing sharply with each other and with the majority tradition.

How those streams shaped English Bibles

• Byzantine path: Erasmus’ 1516 Textus Receptus and the broader Majority Text feed the Geneva Bible, KJV, and NKJV.
• Alexandrian path: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus anchor Westcott & Hort’s 1881 text, which modern translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT) follow.

Translation philosophies

• Formal equivalence (word-for-word): KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, LSB.
• Dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought): NIV, NLT, CEV, MSG.

English translation timeline

1. 1380s – Wycliffe (from Latin Vulgate).
2. 1526 – Tyndale New Testament (from Greek; shaped Geneva/KJV).
3. 1560 – Geneva Bible (Puritan favorite).
4. 1611 – King James Version (Textus Receptus, formal equivalence).
5. 1885 – Revised Version (first to use Westcott-Hort critical text).
6. 1971 – NASB (formal, critical text).
7. 1973 – NIV (dynamic, critical text).
8. 1982 – NKJV (Byzantine-based, formal equivalence).
9. 2001 – ESV (formal, critical text).

Key distinctions:

• Textual basis: Byzantine majority vs Alexandrian minority.
• Canon: Protestant 66 vs Catholic 73 vs Orthodox 76–81.
• Philosophy: retaining original structure vs paraphrasing intent.
• KJV stance: Masoretic Old Testament + Textus Receptus New Testament, formal translation of the Protestant canon.

The Alexandrian Problem

Codex Vaticanus (B)

• Housed in Vatican Library since at least 1481
• Missing Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
• Missing Psalms 106-138
• Missing entire books: 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation
• Omits key verses throughout (Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, many others)
• Unknown copyist, uncertain date (estimated 300-350 AD)

Why would God preserve His word in a manuscript missing Revelation and the Pastoral Epistles?

Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)

Constantin von Tischendorf found pages of this manuscript in 1844 at St. Catherine's Monastery being used as waste paper. They had been discarded, considered worthless by the monks who had preserved manuscripts for centuries.² Constantin von Tischendorf's account of finding Sinaiticus describes seeing pages "in a basket" destined for burning. KJV advocates interpret this as evidence the manuscript was considered corrupt. Modern scholars argue the monks didn't recognize its antiquity, or were clearing space. The "trash" characterization is disputed but reflects Tischendorf's own written account.

• Contains ~23,000 corrections by at least ten different correctors
• Disagrees with Vaticanus over 3,000 times in the Gospels
• Includes non-canonical books (Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas)
• Shows evidence of heavy editorial revision
• Missing verses throughout

These two manuscripts, disagreeing with each other and with 95% of other manuscripts, became the foundation for all modern English Bible versions after Westcott and Hort published their Greek New Testament (1881) based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The Result:

Every modern version (NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NLT, etc.) follows the Alexandrian text-type, removing or bracketing verses, changing readings, altering doctrinal statements. Two manuscripts from Egypt override 5,800+ manuscripts from everywhere else.

The Battle Over the Greek Text

The shift from Byzantine manuscripts to Alexandrian manuscripts didn't happen by scholarly consensus. It happened by the work of two men.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), Cambridge professors and Anglo-Catholic scholars, spent decades creating a new Greek New Testament. Their 1881 edition, The New Testament in the Original Greek, rejected the Textus Receptus used by Protestant translators for 300 years and instead elevated Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus above all other manuscripts.^† Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881). Available at: https://archive.org/details/newtestamentino00hortgoog. Their introduction argues for "Neutral Text" (B and א) over "Syrian" (Byzantine) readings.

Their theory: The Byzantine text, used by the church for centuries and represented in 95% of manuscripts, was a late 4th-century editorial harmonization. The "true" original text, they claimed, survived in only a handful of Alexandrian manuscripts. Age trumped quantity. Two manuscripts outweighed five thousand.

This wasn't neutral scholarship. Hort had pronounced the Textus Receptus "vile" and "villainous" in 1851, at age 23, before he had examined manuscript evidence.^‡ F.J.A. Hort, letter to B.F. Westcott, October 24, 1851, in Arthur Fenton Hort, ed., Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort (London: Macmillan, 1896), 1:211. Available at: https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffent01hort. Quote: "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus... Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS." His theological positions, documented in his published letters, rejected core evangelical doctrines:

• Denied substitutionary atonement, calling it "immoral"^§ Hort, letter dated April 3, 1860, in Life and Letters, 1:430: "Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death." He rejected penal substitution in favor of a moral influence theory.
• Rejected literal Genesis, claiming no historical "Eden" existed^¶ Hort, letter dated 1860, in Life and Letters, 1:78: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants."
• Praised Darwin's Origin of Species, embracing evolutionary theory^** Hort, letter to John Ellerton, 1860, in Life and Letters, 1:416: "But the book which I find most to help me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with."
• Rejected eternal punishment
• Rejected biblical inerrancy

Westcott and Hort were also founding members of the "Ghostly Guild," a Cambridge society formed in 1851 to investigate paranormal phenomena, séances, and spirit communications.^†† Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan, 1903), 1:119. Documents formation of society in autumn 1851 by Westcott, Hort, and Edward White Benson (future Archbishop of Canterbury) "for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effects." Active 1851-1852.

When the Church of England formed a committee in 1870 to revise the King James Bible, Westcott and Hort, through influence and persistence, ensured their Greek text became the foundation. The result: the 1881 Revised Version, the first English translation to abandon the Textus Receptus.

The scandal deepened when G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian who publicly denied Christ's deity, was appointed to the committee. Both Houses of Church of England formally protested. Westcott and Hort defended his inclusion. The message was clear: Textual revision would proceed under theological liberalism, not evangelical orthodoxy.^‡‡ Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (London: John Murray, 1883), pp. 112-117. Available at: https://archive.org/details/revisionrevisedb00burg. Burgon documents formal protests from both Convocations (Church of England legislative assemblies) against Smith's appointment. Quote: "The Revision was conducted on Unitarian principles."

This wasn't "old scholarship vs. new discoveries." This was competing theological frameworks determining which manuscripts to trust.

The church rejected the Revised Version. Sales were poor. Preachers continued using the KJV. But the academic establishment embraced Westcott-Hort's text. Every major English translation since 1881 (NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, CSB) follows their Alexandrian manuscript preference. Two men's theological biases became the foundation for a century of Bible translation.

The Defenders of the Traditional Text

Westcott and Hort didn't work unopposed.

Dean John William Burgon (1813-1888), Dean of Chichester Cathedral, Oxford scholar, and patristic expert, spent his final years defending the Byzantine text against the Westcott-Hort revolution. Unlike Westcott and Hort, who based their conclusions on a handful of manuscripts, Burgon personally examined and collated over 80,000 ancient manuscripts, lectionaries, and patristic quotations.^§§ Dean John William Burgon's manuscript work is documented in Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: George Bell & Sons, 1886). Available at: https://archive.org/details/guidetotextualcr00mill. Miller notes Burgon's collations exceeded 80,000 citations from manuscripts and church fathers. No scholar before or since has matched his direct exposure to the manuscript evidence.

His response to the 1881 Revised Version came in The Revision Revised (1883), a devastating 500-page critique documenting systematic corruption in Westcott-Hort's text.^¶¶ Burgon, The Revision Revised, full text available at: https://archive.org/details/revisionrevisedb00burg and https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42209. Burgon systematically refutes Westcott-Hort's theory of "Syrian Recension" and documents disagreements between their preferred manuscripts. His central arguments:

• Manuscript quantity matters. When 5,000+ manuscripts agree against 2, the majority witness cannot be dismissed as "late corruption." The Byzantine text represents the church's received Bible, copied and used across centuries and continents.
• Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradict each other. "The text of Codex B and Codex א disagrees over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone."^*** Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 12. This figure represents major textual variants between the two manuscripts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not minor spelling differences. Burgon argues if both manuscripts were reliable, they would agree. Their disagreements indicate corruption in one or both. If these manuscripts preserve the "original text," why do they contradict each other constantly?
• Byzantine manuscripts show signs of faithful transmission. Their consistency across time and geography suggests careful copying by believers who feared God. Alexandrian manuscripts show signs of theological tampering: Gnostic influences, Arian theology, deliberate omissions.^††† Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 257: "Codex B and Codex א exhibit fabricated texts... they are the works of skillful revisers, not of transcribers." He argues Alexandrian scribes deliberately altered passages to support theological positions condemned as heresy by the church.
• Early church fathers quote Byzantine readings. The text Westcott-Hort called a "4th century invention" appears in quotations from 2nd and 3rd century fathers. The Byzantine text isn't late; it's the original that wore out from constant use.^‡‡‡ Burgon and Edward Miller, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established (London: George Bell & Sons, 1896). This posthumous work catalogs patristic quotations supporting Byzantine readings. Available in modern reprint: https://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Text-Holy-Gospels-Vindicated/dp/0758604424.

Burgon died in 1888, five years after publishing his critique. His assistant Edward Miller continued the work, publishing Burgon's collected research posthumously. But by then, the academic establishment had embraced Westcott-Hort. Seminaries taught the Critical Text as settled science. Burgon was dismissed as emotional, reactionary, too committed to tradition.

Modern scholars have revived Burgon's arguments under new terminology: "Byzantine Priority" or "Majority Text." Wilbur Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text (1977) and Maurice Robinson's scholarly work demonstrate that the Byzantine text-type predates Westcott-Hort's "4th century recension" theory. The majority text wasn't created; it was preserved.^§§§ Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 4th ed. (Brasilia, Brazil: Wilbur N. Pickering, 2014). Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005). Both works argue for Byzantine priority using stemmatic analysis and patristic evidence.

The debate continues. Critical Text advocates call it settled scholarship. Byzantine Priority advocates call it theological bias masquerading as science. The reader decides: Trust two manuscripts hidden in Egypt and Rome, or trust the Bible the church copied, memorized, and died defending for 1,500 years?

The Doctrinal Erosion Pattern

These aren't isolated translation choices. The changes follow a pattern: systematically weakening doctrines that define biblical Christianity.

1 Timothy 3:16 - Deity of Christ

KJV (Textus Receptus):

"God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Modern versions (Critical Text):

"He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."

The Greek manuscript difference: Θεὸς (Theos, God) versus ὃς (hos, who/he). The Textus Receptus explicitly identifies Christ as God incarnate. The Critical Text reduces this to an ambiguous pronoun. Manuscript support: TR reading found in א², A², C, Ψ, 33, and the Byzantine majority. Critical reading in א*, A*, C*, F, G (asterisk = original hand, superscript = later corrector). The explicit declaration of Christ's deity, central to Christian orthodoxy, becomes uncertain.

Colossians 1:14 - Blood Atonement

KJV:

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

NIV/ESV:

"In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The phrase διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (through his blood) is present in manuscripts A, C, Ψ, 33, and the Byzantine majority, but omitted in א, B, F, G. Gnostic heresies denied the necessity of Christ's physical blood sacrifice, teaching salvation through secret knowledge instead. This omission weakens the biblical doctrine that "without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).

Luke 2:33 - Virgin Birth

KJV:

"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

NIV/ESV:

"The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."

The Greek changes from Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ (Joseph and his mother) to ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ (his father and his mother). The KJV carefully avoids calling Joseph "father," preserving the virgin birth doctrine. Modern versions blur this distinction. Manuscript evidence favors the TR reading: A, C, D, K, W, Θ, Ψ, 28, 33, and Byzantine majority against א, B, L.

Acts 8:37 - Confession Before Baptism

KJV:

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Modern versions:

[Entire verse omitted or bracketed as doubtful]

Philip's requirement that the Ethiopian eunuch confess faith before baptism (πιστεύω τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) is absent from Alexandrian manuscripts א, A, B, C, but present in Codex E, several Old Latin manuscripts, and quoted by Irenaeus (c. 180 AD). The omission removes apostolic precedent for requiring belief before baptism, opening the door to infant baptism without conscious faith.

Romans 8:1 - Sanctification

KJV:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Modern versions:

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

The sanctification clause κατὰ πνεῦμα περιπατοῦσιν (walking according to the Spirit) is supported by D, Ψ, and the Byzantine majority, but omitted in א, A, B, C. The full verse balances justification (no condemnation) with sanctification (Spirit-led living). The shorter reading can be misused to teach that salvation requires no change in behavior, contradicting the New Testament's consistent call to holiness.

Matthew 17:21 - Fasting

KJV (Jesus explaining why disciples couldn't cast out a demon):

"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Modern versions:

[Entire verse omitted]

The teaching on fasting (ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ) appears in C, D, K, L, W, Θ, families f¹ and f¹³, manuscripts 28 and 33, and the Byzantine majority. Only א and B omit it. Modern versions delete Christ's explicit instruction that certain spiritual battles require both prayer and fasting, removing a discipline the early church practiced regularly.

Mark 11:26 - Conditional Forgiveness

KJV:

"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Modern versions:

[Entire verse omitted]

The condition for receiving forgiveness (οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν... ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν) is found in A, C, D, K, W, Θ, f¹, f¹³, 28, 33, and Byzantine manuscripts. Only א, B, L omit it. Jesus taught repeatedly that those who refuse to forgive others cannot receive forgiveness themselves (Matthew 6:14-15, 18:35). This omission removes one clear statement of that principle.

The Pattern:

Seven verses. Seven doctrinal categories affected:

• Deity of Christ - Explicit statement removed (1 Tim 3:16)
• Blood Atonement - Physical sacrifice minimized (Col 1:14)
• Virgin Birth - Joseph called "father" (Luke 2:33)
• Salvation - Confession requirement deleted (Acts 8:37)
• Sanctification - Spirit-walking emphasis removed (Rom 8:1)
• Spiritual Disciplines - Fasting teaching deleted (Matt 17:21)
• Moral Accountability - Forgiveness condition removed (Mark 11:26)

In every case, the Byzantine majority supports the stronger doctrinal reading. In every case, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus support the weaker reading.

Coincidence? Or pattern?^¶¶¶ Critical Text scholars argue these variants don't affect core doctrines because the teachings appear elsewhere in Scripture. TR advocates argue cumulative effect matters; a pattern of systematic weakening across multiple doctrines suggests theological bias in manuscript selection, not neutral textual criticism. Both positions acknowledge the variants exist; disagreement is over their significance and cause.

Want to explore more variants with Greek evidence? See the Bible Version Comparison Study at https://theremnantthread.com/studies/bible-diff.

What Modern Versions Remove

Modern versions don't just translate differently. They remove entire verses: they delete them, relegate them to footnotes, or mark them as "not in the earliest manuscripts."

Here are five critical examples. There are dozens more.

Matthew 17:21 - KJV:

"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Modern versions: [Deleted or bracketed]

Context: After Jesus cast out a demon the disciples couldn't remove, they asked why they failed. Jesus' answer in verse 20 addresses faith, but verse 21 adds the practical instruction: some spiritual battles require prayer combined with fasting. Modern versions delete this, removing the teaching that spiritual warfare has levels requiring different disciplines.

Matthew 18:11 - KJV:

"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Modern versions: [Deleted]

Mark 11:26 - KJV:

"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Modern versions: [Deleted - forgiveness condition removed]

Acts 8:37 - KJV (Ethiopian eunuch's confession):

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Modern versions: [Deleted - requirement for belief before baptism removed]

And 55+ more verses removed.

What They Change

Beyond deletion, modern versions change key doctrinal verses in ways that undermine biblical truth.

Isaiah 14:12 - The Lucifer Problem

KJV:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

NIV/ESV:

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!"

The problem? Revelation 22:16 says:

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Jesus is the morning star. If Isaiah 14:12 calls Satan "morning star," modern versions equate Satan with Jesus.

The KJV uses "Lucifer" (Latin: light-bearer), a distinct title for Satan before his fall, avoiding confusion with Christ's title.

Daniel 3:25 - Removing Christ from the Old Testament

KJV (Nebuchadnezzar seeing the fourth man in the fire):

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

NIV:

"He said, 'Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.'"

ESV:

"He answered and said, 'But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.'"

"Son of God" (singular, capitalized, recognizing deity) becomes "a son of the gods" (polytheistic, pagan reading).

The KJV identifies the fourth man as Christ, a pre-incarnate appearance. Modern versions turn it into Babylonian polytheism.

The Translation Philosophy Difference

Beyond manuscript choice, modern versions use a different translation philosophy.

KJV: Formal Equivalence (Word-for-Word)

Translate each word as literally as possible, preserving:

• Word order where English allows
• Grammatical structure
• Hebrew/Greek idioms
• Theological precision

Result: Harder to read sometimes, but maximum accuracy to the original language.

Modern Versions: Dynamic Equivalence (Thought-for-Thought)

Translate the perceived meaning rather than the words, resulting in:

• Interpretive paraphrasing
• Translator's opinion inserted
• Theological assumptions embedded
• Easier readability, less accuracy

Example - Psalm 12:6-7 (God's preservation promise)

KJV (formal equivalence):

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

NIV (dynamic equivalence):

"And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times. You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked."

The NIV changes "preserve them" (God's words) to "protect us" (people). The promise shifted from Scripture preservation to people protection.

Is that translation or interpretation?

Why 1611 Matters

The King James Version wasn't translated in a vacuum. The timing, the translators, and the process matter.

Translated 1604-1611:

• 47 scholars, not one man: committee work preventing individual bias
• 7 years of intensive work, not rushed, not commercial
• Multiple review committees: every translation checked and cross-checked
• Before modern apostasy, translated before liberal theology corrupted seminaries
• Peak of English language: Elizabethan English at maximum precision and beauty
• No copyright: public domain from the beginning, God's word truly free
• 400+ years of proven fruit: revivals, missions, martyrs used this Bible

The Translators' Qualifications:

• Mastered Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin
• Many knew 15+ languages
• Studied original manuscripts directly
• Godly men who feared God and believed Scripture
• Not paid per translation (unlike modern translators paid by copyright sales)

King James I:

• Authorized the translation (hence "Authorized Version")
• Did not translate it himself
• Commissioned it to unify English-speaking Christianity
• Had no financial stake (no copyright in 1611)

Modern Versions:

• Often translated by committees including theological liberals
• Rushed to market for profit (new copyright = new revenue stream)
• Must differ from other versions by at least 10% to qualify for new copyright
• Copyrighted, so you cannot freely reproduce without permission or payment
• Constantly revised (NIV 1978, 1984, 2011). Which is God's word?

If modern versions keep "improving" the Bible, was the previous version wrong? If the previous version was wrong, why trust the new one?

The KJV hasn't changed in 400+ years because it got it right the first time.

The Preservation Promise

God promised to preserve His word:

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Matthew 24:35

The Question:

Did God preserve His word in:

• 95% of manuscripts spanning 1,500 years, agreeing consistently, used for reformation, revivals, and missions?
• Or in 5% of manuscripts hidden in Egypt and the Vatican, disagreeing with each other, producing doubt and confusion?

If God can't preserve His word in the majority of manuscripts through faithful copyists, can He preserve it at all?

The modern critical text position implies God's preservation failed until 1844-1881 when scholars "recovered" the "original text" from discarded Egyptian manuscripts. That means every Christian from 100 AD to 1881 AD had a corrupted Bible.

Do you believe God failed to preserve His word for 1,800 years?

Or did He preserve it exactly where He said He would: in the faithful copying and transmission of believers through the ages, represented by the Textus Receptus and the KJV?

The Practical Test

Doctrine matters. Theology matters. But fruit also matters.

What Bible produced:

• The Reformation? (KJV/Textus Receptus)
• The Great Awakening? (KJV)
• The Welsh Revival? (KJV)
• The Azusa Street Revival? (KJV)
• Modern missions movement (William Carey, Hudson Taylor, Amy Carmichael)? (KJV)
• Which Bible did martyrs die clutching? (KJV/Tyndale, KJV's predecessor)

What Bible correlates with:

• Church decline? (Modern versions post-1960s)
• Doctrinal confusion? (Modern versions)
• Youth leaving the faith? (Modern versions)
• Compromise with world? (Modern versions)

Correlation isn't causation, but when the fruit changed after the Bible changed, it's worth considering what was lost.

Questions to Answer

If God promised to preserve His word (Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35), would He preserve it in 5% of manuscripts found in Egypt that disagree with each other 3,000+ times, or in 95% of manuscripts agreeing across centuries?

The majority isn't always right, but when 95% of manuscripts agree and 5% disagree with each other, which stream reflects preservation? Which reflects corruption?

If using a modern copyrighted Bible version, industry standard practice dictates that publishers often aim to change at least 10% of the text to maintain copyright, it is worth asking whether you are reading God's preserved word or a profitable product.

The KJV is in the public domain. Anyone can print it, distribute it, quote it freely. Modern versions are copyrighted intellectual property. Publishers make money on every sale. Does that profit motive influence translation choices?

When Jerome's Latin Vulgate replaced earlier texts and common people couldn't read Scripture for themselves, darkness fell for 1,000 years. When modern versions replace the KJV and people trust scholars over the text, are we repeating the pattern?

History repeats. The Roman Catholic Church controlled the Bible through Latin. Modern scholars control the Bible through Greek manuscripts most people can't read or verify. Both say "Trust us." Should you?

If changing Isaiah 14:12 to make Lucifer = morning star (like Jesus), deleting Acts 8:37 (belief before baptism requirement), and removing Mark 11:26 (forgiveness requirement) does not raise concern, it is worth considering what level of textual corruption would.

At what point do the changes become significant enough to matter? If these alterations don't qualify, what standard are you using?

If the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament writers to use Greek kyrios (Lord) when quoting Old Testament passages containing YHWH, who are we to insist the Bible must use "Yahweh" instead?

The apostles wrote under divine inspiration. When they rendered Hebrew YHWH as Greek kyrios, that was the Holy Spirit's choice. No Greek New Testament manuscript contains "Yahweh" or the Tetragrammaton. If God's inspired word uses the title "Lord," isn't demanding "Yahweh" rejecting the Spirit's linguistic decision?

If Greek New Testament manuscripts are 100-200 years older than any complete Aramaic New Testament manuscript, what manuscript evidence justifies claiming Aramaic priority?

Physical evidence determines textual history. Greek papyri from 125-225 AD exist. No Aramaic manuscript predates the 5th century. Speculation about what "might have" existed doesn't overcome what demonstrably does exist. When theory contradicts archaeology, which deserves trust?

If God inspired the Hebrew prophets to write the Old Testament in Hebrew, why would we prioritize a Greek translation (Septuagint) over the original language God chose?

The Septuagint is an ancient and valuable translation. The apostles quoted it when writing to Greek audiences. But a translation, even an inspired apostle's quotation of a translation, doesn't replace the authority of the original language. Would you trust a Spanish Bible over the English original if you could read English?

Does changing "Jesus" to "Yeshua" change the reality of who He is, or only how English speakers pronounce His name?

Every language adapts names to its phonetic system. Spanish speakers say "Jesús," French speakers say "Jésus," Chinese speakers use characters approximating the sound. Translation renders content into the target language; it doesn't demand readers adopt the source language's phonetics. Would you insist Korean Christians say "Jesus" instead of 예수 (Yesu)?

If the Hebrew canon that Jesus used didn't include the Apocrypha, and Jesus and the apostles never quoted deuterocanonical books with authoritative formulas, on what basis should they be considered Scripture?

Jesus referenced "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44), the threefold division of the Hebrew canon. Paul wrote that to the Jews "were committed the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). The Jewish community preserved the Old Testament and didn't accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. If the people who wrote and preserved the Old Testament didn't consider these books inspired, and the Messiah who fulfilled them didn't quote them as Scripture, what authority declares them canonical?

If God inspired specific words (1 Corinthians 2:13 says "words which the Holy Ghost teacheth"), should translators substitute different words for "readability," or preserve what God actually said?

Dynamic equivalence replaces God's vocabulary with the translator's paraphrase of what they think God meant. Formal equivalence preserves God's words, letting readers interpret under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Would you prefer a preacher who quotes Scripture verbatim, or one who gives you his summary of what he thinks Scripture probably meant to say?

If 90% of Greek manuscripts preserve the Byzantine text used by churches for 1,500 years, does age alone outweigh the testimony of the vast majority?

The critical text position argues that earlier manuscripts (4th century Alexandrian) trump later majority (9th-15th century Byzantine). But if God preserved His Word through the church's transmission, wouldn't the text copied and used by believers for centuries be more trustworthy than manuscripts preserved in Egyptian monasteries precisely because they weren't used? Quality of one versus quantity of thousands: which reflects providential preservation?

If the KJV is the perfect preserved Word of God, why does it translate pascha (Passover) as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and contain other acknowledged translation decisions that modern scholarship debates?

The KJV-Preferred position doesn't claim perfection of the English translation; it claims faithfulness of the underlying Greek manuscripts (Byzantine majority). "Easter" in Acts 12:4 was a translation choice reflecting how 1611 English distinguished the Christian commemoration from the Jewish festival. Modern KJV defenders argue the translators intended this distinction; critics call it an error. Either way, the underlying Greek pascha is clear, and the textual base remains sound. A translation decision differs from a manuscript corruption. The question isn't whether translators were perfect humans, but whether they worked from preserved manuscripts. And they did. Meanwhile, modern versions work from different manuscripts entirely, omitting entire verses. Which concern is greater: one word translation in an otherwise faithful text, or systematic omission of passages from a fundamentally different manuscript base?

Need a deeper dive into competing Bible translation families and their manuscript claims? See Appendix C. For exhaustive treatment of manuscript families, textual criticism, and the Byzantine vs. Alexandrian debate, see Appendix D.