5 Reasons The King James Version Only Movement Is Completely Nuts

Let me get one thing straight before I even start this list. There is nothing wrong with wanting to read the KJV. The problem is when fanatics try to force other people to read it because they have been convinced that the new translations are evil because the translators are “changing” the Bible. However, the King Jame Bible on your shelf right now is not the same as the original 1611 KJV. In fact, the 1611 KJV Bible that you can buy on amazon or any other Bible store is still not the same as the real 1611 King James.

  The Bible you see above…..is “like” the 1611 version. Except it’s missing all the Apocryphal books. Which, contrary to popular belief, were included in all the original KJV Bibles. After the 1611 Bible was created it went through numerous updates. It was revised in 1629, 1638, 1760, 1762, 1769, and a few minor revisions in  between those dates. The current standard text is from 1769 and has thousands of changes between it and the 1611. Most of those changes were due to the changes in the English language. They updated as needed to keep up with how English was used….a novel concept.

To stay as “pure” as possible in this blog post, I will only quote from my store bought 1611 KJV Bible.

5. The Passover is now Easter (Acts 12:4)

 And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

This is one of the funnest things to point out to people who refuse to read those wretched, evil, new-age translations, and swear by only the good old King Jimmy. Why is it so fun? Because most of them are willing to bet an arm and a leg that the translators of the KJV would NEVER make a mistake like that! This is much to big of a mistake to overlook. And after all, the King James is the perfect word of God in English. At least that is what they were taught to believe. (http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/errors.html)

Jesus celebrating easter
Yea, that’s how I remember it. Jesus was all about Easter!

But KJV advocate are SOOO intent on proving that that KJV is the only Word of God that they will go out of their way to justify even the smallest mistakes. Here is one guy’s web page trying to explain why Easter was actually the correct translation. You can see right from the start this its going to be special ….

“I will prove to you from the King James Bible that “Easter” is in fact, the proper word to use.”

He’s going to use the KJV to prove that the KJV is correct? That’s called circular reasoning and it’s usually a laughable attempt at but. But that is exactly what he tries to do. He attempts to discuss how a word should be translated…..but never actually looks up what the stinking word was in Greek (the original language). This is like trying to fly to the moon without a rocket ship. How can you prove that something was translated into English correctly if the only thing you look at is the English translation? It’s so completely ludicrous it makes my head hurt.

The Greek word being used is “pascha (πάσχα).” This is the same word used for Passover, in the Greek version of the Old Testament (LXX) that Jesus and the disciples used. Every time they spoke the word Passover in Greek, it was pascha. Therefore, every Greek lexicon ever has had the definition of pascha as Passover. Their is no known recorded use of the word pascha being translated into Easter, outside of the KJV.

Still not convinced? Here is the same word being translated in Matthew 26:2.

Ye know that after two dayes is the feast of the Passeouer, and the Sonne of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Easter as we know it did not exist until the Holy Roman empire started expanding. It’s name is derived from the Germanic Pagan goddess Oestre. The definition that the author looked up in the Webster New World Dictionary was for a Germanic goddess, as it’s listed in the article, “Eastre, dawn goddess, Austro”. This was not a 1st century Roman or Greek figure.

Additionally, the first Christians were Jewish and most still celebrated passover. Even though many Christians did not celebrate the passover, because they were gentiles, there was no Easter celebration developed yet at the time that Peter was imprisoned to be murdered. The Roman empire was many decades away from having any contact with Germanic culture.

Moreover, the context of the passage does not make any sense if we assume Easter was the holiday.

When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

Why would Herod wait until after the gentile Christians celebrated a holiday? That doesn’t make any sense. He was killing Christians, not Jews. He was out to please the Jews, not the gentiles. That is why he waited until he had their full attention, after the passover. Why would a guy killing Christians wait until after they celebrated Easter to kill them in front of the Jews who did not celebrate Easter? The logic is not there.

4. Don’t pay attention to one who is wearing gay clothes (James 2:3)

Even more special than 400 year old translation mistakes is when the actual translation sound like a 5th grader’s joke. That is exactly what happened in James 2:3 when James is giving instructions for people not to give special treatment to those who are dressed in fine clothes. Unless you’re reading the KJV; than it’s gay clothes.

richard simmons
Ok now that you mention it, I think the KJV might be onto something……..

Lets be realistic here. In 1611 gay meant something different. It meant happy, bright, or radiant. Therefore, the translation was not actually that far off. It was a fairly good translation for it’s day. The real issue that the KJV has kept the gay clothes rendering for over 400 years. Why would any Bible translation do this? Why the heck not?! Contextualization means nothing when you have the only God- ordained translation in English, right?

All I’m saying here is that keeping language translation up to date with current trends is necessary is something is going to be relevant. In fact, it’s the whole reason why the KJV was created in the first place.

3. The KJV is rated at a 5th grade reading level and is statistically easier to read than the newer translations?

The first time I heard this idea I thought to myself…..”how exactly was this test performed? Because if this is true than somewhere there are a bunch of 5th graders that have a higher reading level than I do!!”

The facts of the matter are that this is information that has been forwarded over and over again in people’s email. It has NO factual basis. It came originally from charts like the one below.

Flesch-Kincaid KJV Chart
Flesch-Kincaid KJV Chart (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html)

Like all of the KJVO arguments, this one seems like it could almost have some legitimacy about it. But just a quick look under the hood tells a different story.

The Flesch-Kinkaid reading scale basically calculates scores based on how many words are in a sentence and how many syllables are in a word. The more syllables in a word and the more words in a sentence then the higher it ranks on the “hard to read” scale. Anyone who thinks this test proves that the KJV (against all normal sensibilities) is easier to read than the NIV obviously doesn’t understand what the chart actually represents.

This is why this system has absolutely nothing to do with the readability of the KJV; no one cares how many syllables are in a word or how many words are in a sentence. We want the Bible to use the correct lingo. That is all. Nothing less and nothing more. In fact, most people would love to read a King James Bible…..but they can’t. Because the words are no longer understandable by modern English readers. Many modern readers do not know how to interpret 400 year old English. This is why our English translations must be kept up-to-date.

The preface to the 1611 KJV even states…

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?


2. Modern Bible translations remove the name of Jesus, among other evils

The first time I read about this issue I was legitimately concerned. I thought to myself that if this information is true then the modern translators have some real explaining to do . I did some research and found a table outlining the issue…

Scripture Reference KJV NIV
Matt 9:28, Matt 13:36, Matt 17:20,
Matt 17:22, Matt 18:2, Matt 24:2,
Mark 5:13, Mark 7:27, Mark 11:14,
Mark 14:18, Luke 7:22, John 4:16,
John 4:46, John 8:20, John 9:1,
John 11:14, John 11:39, John 20:15,
John 21:5
Jesus he
2 Cor 4:11 Jesus his
Matt 8:29 Jesus, thou Son of God Son of God
Matt 16:20 Jesus the Christ the Christ
Romans 15:8, 2 Cor 4:6, 2 Cor 5:18 Jesus Christ Christ
Col 1:28, Phile 1:6, 1 Pet 5:10,
1 Pet 5:14
Christ Jesus Christ
Luke 7:19, Luke 10:39, Luke 10:41 Jesus the Lord
Acts 19:10, 1 Cor 5:5 Lord Jesus Lord
Rom 16:18 Lord Jesus Christ Lord Christ
1 Cor 16:22, 2 Tim 4:22 Lord Jesus Christ Lord
John 19:38 the body of Jesus the body
Acts 3:26 Son Jesus servant
Rom 1:3 Son Jesus Christ our Lord Son
Acts 7:45, Heb 4:8
(Jesus,Joshua: What’s the difference?)
Jesus Joshua
Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24, Col 1:2 Jesus [not present, but it is in the footnote]
John 21:21, Acts 9:29, Gal 6:15,
Eph 3:9, Eph 3:14
Jesus [not present]

And then I did what every responsible should do; I did a reverse look up in my NIV Bible for the name of Jesus and found that quite often the KJV removed the name of Jesus where the NIV kept it. Hrrrmm that’s interesting! As it turns out this is one of those arguments that can be turned right back around to defeat the claim it initially made. Never mind the fact that the claim was erroneous to begin with, since the word “he” in the context of the passage is the same as using the name of who ever the subject is……Jesus. Here is the list of the times the NIV uses the name of Jesus and the KJV does not.

Scripture Reference(s) KJV NIV
Matt 4:4, Matt 4:19, Matt 4:21,
Matt 8:24, Matt 9:1, Matt 11:20,
Matt 12:22, Matt 12:46, Matt 13:24,
Matt 15:3, Matt 15:10, Matt 15:23,
Matt 15:39, Matt 16:4, Matt 16:23,
Matt 19:8, Matt 19:11, Matt 19:17,
Matt 20:23, Matt 21:10, Matt 21:23,
Matt 22:34, Matt 24:3, Matt 26:20,
Matt 26:23, Matt 26:25, Matt 27:3,
Matt 27:14, Mark 1:10, Mark 1:16,
Mark 1:21, Mark 1:35, Mark 1:38,
Mark 1:43, Mark 2:4, Mark 2:13,
Mark 2:14, Mark 2:23, Mark 3:3,
Mark 3:4, Mark 3:13, Mark 3:23,
Mark 4:1, Mark 4:9, Mark 4:13,
Mark 4:33, Mark 4:28, Mark 5:2,
Mark 5:8, Mark 5:9, Mark 5:18,
Mark 5:32, Mark 5:35, Mark 5:38,
Mark 6:1, Mark 6:6, Mark 6:39,
Mark 6:45, Mark 7:14, Mark 7:24,
Mark 7:31, Mark 7:33, Mark 7:36,
Mark 8:5, Mark 8:15, Mark 8:23,
Mark 8:25, Mark 8:26, Mark 8:30,
Mark 8:33, Mark 9:9, Mark 9:12,
Mark 9:19, Mark 9:21, Mark 9:28,
Mark 9:30, Mark 9:35, Mark 10:1,
Mark 10:17, Mark 10:46, Mark 11:1,
Mark 11:12, Mark 11:27, Mark 12:15,
Mark 12:28, Mark 12:38, Mark 12:43,
Mark 13:3, Mark 14:16, Mark 14:17,
Mark 14:32, Mark 14:61, Mark 15:2,
Mark 15:44, Mark 16:11, Mark 16:12,
Mark 16:14, Luke 4:23, Luke 4:38,
Luke 4:42, Luke 5:12, Luke 5:13,
Luke 5:14, Luke 5:16, Luke 5:20,
Luke 5:27 (twice), Luke 5:34, Luke 6:1,
Luke 6:5, Luke 6:8, Luke 6:12,
Luke 7:1, Luke 7:11, Luke 7:15,
Luke 7:21, Luke 7:24, Luke 7:43,
Luke 7:48, Luke 7:50, Luke 8:1,
Luke 8:22, Luke 8:27, Luke 8:29,
Luke 8:42, Luke 8:49, Luke 8:52,
Luke 8:55, Luke 9:1, Luke 9:18,
Luke 9:21, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:51,
Luke 9:55, Luke 10:28, Luke 11:1,
Luke 11:14, Luke 11:17, Luke 11:27,
Luke 11:29, Luke 11:37, Luke 11:38,
Luke 11:46, Luke 11:53, Luke 12:1,
Luke 12:14, Luke 12:22, Luke 13:10,
Luke 13:18, Luke 13:22, Luke 14:1,
Luke 14:12, Luke 14:16, Luke 15:3,
Luke 15:11, Luke 16:1, Luke 17:1,
Luke 17:11, Luke 17:20, Luke 18:1,
Luke 18:9, Luke 18:27, Luke 18:29,
Luke 18:31, Luke 18:35, Luke 19:4,
Luke 19:28, Luke 20:17, Luke 20:41,
Luke 20:45, Luke 21:1, Luke 21:5,
Luke 21:37, Luke 22:8, Luke 22:13,
Luke 22:14, Luke 22:25, Luke 22:34,
Luke 22:35, Luke 22:39, Luke 22:67,
Luke 23:3, Luke 23:7, Luke 23:9,
Luke 24:28, Luke 24:35, John 9:22,
John 11:43, John 11:57, John 12:9,
John 12:37, John 13:28, John 18:6,
John 19:41, John 20:9, John 21:15,
John 21:16 (twice), John 21:17, John 21:19,
Acts 1:22, Acts 9:20, Hebrews 2:11,
Hebrews 7:24, Hebrews 8:6, 1 John 2:6,
1 John 3:16
he Jesus
Matt 8:31, Matt 9:32, Matt 12:10,
Matt 12:14, Matt 14:35, Matt 16:1,
Matt 17:3, Matt 17:14, Matt 18:21,
Matt 19:13, Matt 19:16, Matt 20:20,
Matt 21:7, Matt 26:62, Matt 27:18,
Matt 27:34, Matt 27:48, Mark 1:30,
Mark 1:32, Mark 1:34, Mark 2:4,
Mark 2:18, Mark 3:2, Mark 3:6,
Mark 5:10, Mark 5:12, Mark 5:17,
Mark 5:22, Mark 6:54, Mark 7:1,
Mark 7:5, Mark 7:26, Mark 8:11,
Mark 8:22, Mark 9:15, Mark 9:20,
Mark 10:10, Mark 10:13, Mark 11:21,
Mark 12:13, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:10,
Mark 14:45, Mark 14:46, Mark 14:51,
Mark 15:10, Mark 15:16, Mark 15:22,
Mark 15:36, Mark 15:39, Luke 4:38,
Luke 4:40, Luke 5:1, Luke 5:18,
Luke 5:29, Luke 6:7, Luke 7:17,
Luke 7:20, Luke 7:36, Luke 8:4,
Luke 8:32, Luke 8:37, Luke 9:10,
Luke 10:25, Luke 13:1, Luke 13:31,
Luke 14:15, Luke 14:25, Luke 16:14,
Luke 18:15, Luke 18:43, Luke 19:39,
Luke 20:27, Luke 22:2, Luke 22:4,
Luke 22:6, Luke 22:66, Luke 23:3,
Luke 23:55, John 1:40, John 7:43,
John 8:4, John 10:42, John 11:3,
John 13:2, John 19:12, John 19:32,
Acts 3:16, Acts 13:27, Hebrews 13:15
him Jesus
Luke 20:20, Acts 3:16, Acts 13:24 his Jesus
Matt 17:24, Matt 20:29, Luke 10:38 they Jesus and his disciples
2 Cor 11:4 whom Jesus
Acts 10:48 the Lord Jesus Christ
Acts 18:25 the Lord Jesus
Mark 16:19, 2 Thess 2:8 Lord Lord Jesus
Acts 16:7 Spirit Spirit of Jesus
Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, 1 Cor 4:17,
Gal 5:24, Eph 3:6, Col 4:12
Christ Christ Jesus
Acts 9:22 this Jesus
Acts 13:38, Heb 3:3 this man Jesus
Mark 3:20, Mark 7:19,
Luke 9:31, John 10:40
[not present] Jesus
Romans 1:4 [not present] Jesus Christ our Lord
Jude 1:25 [not present] through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages

As you can see, this argument doesn’t bode well for those who claim that modern translations are trying to remove the name of Jesus. But thanks to Gail Riplinger’s famous book, “New Age Versions“, I do not believe this argument is going away. It seems a staple in most argument over the NIV.


On the issue of building arguments, I will say that you can’t prove if something is correct or not by comparing it to the thing you claim is correct. You have to compare the NIV and the KJV to the original language to see which is the most accurate. I could easily perform the same arguments on the KJV if I held that the NIV was the only Word of God in English.

1. The King James Version has not been changed or altered, but has been preserved because it is God’s perfect Word in English

Out of all the items on the list the KJV people throw at me, this one makes the least amount of sense. Here is why; because in the front of nearly every KJV is a preface that explains how it happened that the reader is now holding a KJV Bible. It also explains that the KJV has been updated and revised a number times or so. It also states that the newest updates include newly discovered manuscripts and new critical revisions. Which means that the KJV has indeed changed over time. They just keep that same archaic language to make you think its the same….because most people who own Bibles won’t notice the difference between one or two words.

The editors also indicate that it was not their intent to make a perfect translation, just a better translation, in the native tongue. This is evidenced by the 8,500+ marginal notes in the 1611 version, that describe translation issues and alternate readings.

KJV Acts-Chapter-27:40

Wait a minute….did they cut the ankers or did they take them up? Ooh no! Satan has altered the sacred text! Burn it!!!!

Hey why doesn’t my spell-check recognize anker? Oooh that’s right, it isn’t spelled that way anymore! At a bare minimum we need to at least update word spelling. At least the NKJV has agreed to do that much.

For more KJVO fun visit some of these sites!




46 thoughts on “5 Reasons The King James Version Only Movement Is Completely Nuts”

  1. by Matt Slick

    The word “Easter” is of ancient origin. Some believe it was related to Ishtar the ancient Babylonian goddess of war, sex, and fertility that had symbols which included the egg and rabbit. However, that is not accurate.

    “Originally a Saxon word (Eostre), denoting a goddess of the Saxons, in honor of whom sacrifices were offered about the time of the Passover. Hence the name came to be given to the festival of the Resurrection of Christ, which occurred at the time of the Passover.”1

    The Bible never uses the word in the original Greek of the New Testament. However, the King James Version uses the word in Acts 12:4, “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” The word in Greek in that verse is pascha, not ishtar or Eostre or easter. Pascha points to the Old Testament Passover.

    Ishtar was an ancient fertility goddess of the Akkadians that was worshiped in Mesopotamia until around the first century BC. Ishtar was associated with the planet Venus2 and Tammuz, the god of vegetation, which is mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14.

    The English word itself seems to be derived from Old English and/or Old High German that formed around A.D. 900-1200.

    Middle English estre, from Old English ēastre; akin to Old High German ōstarun (plural) Easter, Old English ēast east
    First Known Use: before 12th century3
    before 900; Middle English ester, Old English ēastre; cognate with German Ostern; orig. name of a goddess and her festival; akin to east4
    Should we use the pagan originated word “Easter” to designate Christ’s resurrection?
    We have seen that Easter is not related to Ishtar; but it is, as a word, related to the ancient goddess of the Saxons. So, is it proper to use such a word that has pagan origins in order to describe such a sacred Christian celebration? The answer is simple. Using it is not a problem. Let me explain why.

    The origin of the word does not mean that the word is bad, any more than the origin of technology used by the Nazi’s (jet engine) means that it is bad.

    If we are to avoid using words of pagan origin, then we should be consistent and avoid using such words as . . .

    Jupiter–the ancient Roman god of the heavens and the weather.5
    Mars–the ancient Roman god of war.6
    Saturday–the day of Saturn, the ancient god of agriculture, hence, Saturn day which became Saturday.7
    Saturn–the ancient Roman god of agriculture that we used to describe whatever planets.8
    Thursday–derived from the ancient word Thursdagr, which designated the Norse god Thor from which Thorsday derives.9
    So we can see that many words have pagan origins, but we still use them today. It’s not bad to use them; and it doesn’t mean that if we use a word that originated in a pagan context, that we are somehow involved in paganism. Therefore, it is okay to use the word Easter because we understand it to mean that time of the year when Jesus rose from the dead.

    1.Easton, M. G. Easton’s Bible Dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893.
    2.Achtemeier, Paul J., Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.


  2. You are so deceived that it is very sad.. The reason the KJV says Easter is because … well.. I’m going to give you a link.. If you have the desire for truth you can study to show yourself approved.. if you want to keep going on in your deception, well, that is up to you. Here you go http://www.moresureword.com/easter.htm

    • I’ve already read this article and all the others that believe somehow Easter was about Ishtar…….a goddess that was in no way connected to the Roman culture or the Greek culture. There was no Easter celebration in ancient Judea. I have written extensively on this matter. A short article explaining the reasons why Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar can be found here….


      To summarize though, as I find KJVO activists hardly ever read anything that differs from their opinions:
      1. Ishtar was a goddess that originated east of Judea in ancient Summer. She expanded her influence during the Akkadian empire and even during the Babylonian empire(s).
      2. But she was NOT worshiped outsize those cultures. Not by the Greeks, or Romans, or even by the Egyptians. The Egyptians had a sister goddess, like Ishtar but named Astarte. However, Astarte was not part of any western culture at any time period.
      3. The Persians who did not recognize Ishtar or Astarte whipped out the last remaining cultures that worshiped Ishtar. About 500 years before Christ appeared Ishtar worshipers were destroyed not just by Persians but then later by Greeks and then Romans. These 3 cultures did NOT adopt any worship associated with Astarte or Ishtar. They had NO festivals associated with them. They made no temples for them.
      4. The name Easter comes from the Germanic culture (as the article you posted almost got right). The goddess of the spring time was Oestra.
      5. However, the Germanic culture did not come into contact with the Grecco-Roman world or the Judean world until hundred of years after Christ was crucified. And the Christians did not mingle the resurrection and Easter together for at least another hundred years after that. The idea that somehow the Romans or Judeans had public festivals for an ancient Babylonian goddess that no longer existed or a Garmanic goddess which they have never heard of yet, is just plain silly.

      This Ishtar myth is nothing more than people who don’t know history or culture trying to play word association games.

      There is a reason why almost NO seminary grads use the KJV. It’s because any amount of time reading the original languages of scripture will lead one to realize that it’s not a good translation. The original translators even said that it wasn’t perfect and that it would need to be revised a number of times.

      Go to school. Learn Greek and Hebrew. Learn your history and culture. Learn how to do a proper exegesis. Learn how to use original sources and not have to reference opinion pieces. Then YOU can finally study properly and show yourself approved.

      • Hi brother! I believe you are the author of the piece, but it was this comment that caught my attention.

        I am a seminary grad, and have my PhD in New Testament exegesis from one of the old British universities, Aberdeen. I teach Greek, exegesis, textual criticism. My students and I read and decipher Greek manuscripts. I also read – just not as rapidly! – Hebrew. A bit of reading Dead Sea Scroll biblical manuscripts. I took a course in Aramaic and can wade through some of that. I recently studied Vulgate Latin for two years. I have been a seminary prof, commentator, etc. for decades. I regularly blog – in English, but even more in Spanish, my “ministry language” – on textual criticism and translation. I regularly give conferences on why the Reina-Valera version in Spanish (the NT is based on the Textus receptus) is not the only inspired Bible or the only profitable one to use. Ah, and I am the final editor of a new Bible to be put out by Wycliffe Associates, drawing on the Hebrew and Greek texts for illumination.

        I think this gives me a solid platform for qualifying a statement of yours, viz., “There is a reason why almost NO seminary grads use the KJV. It’s because any amount of time reading the original languages of scripture will lead one to realize that it’s not a good translation.”

        #1 – it was an excellent translation, astounding, and if you can handle the language, still completely usable and very reliable. It is not the best today, but still. My version of choice in English is the NRSV, but I use about 25 in English and 10 in Spanish, plus other European languages.

        #2 – the main reason for #1 is not translation as such – although the discovery of the papyri has helped lexicography of koine – but the Greek text on which the NT is based. An edition of the Textus receptus was the basis for the KJV. For the past century or so, the critical text, which is based on the 5000+ manuscripts and manuscript fragments, in the Greek alone, let alone the other ancient versions and the quotations in the patristics. Hence: very good versus much better.

        I regularly use the New KJV with much enjoyment and blessing. It is hardly a poor translation.

        So then, my point:

        I cannot imagine ever telling another Christian, whether a novice or a veteran, “Go to school. Learn Greek and Hebrew. Learn your history and culture. Learn how to do a proper exegesis. Learn how to use original sources and not have to reference opinion pieces. Then YOU can finally study properly and show yourself approved.” I never tell my own students anything so chocante (Spanish for a slap in the face). Yes, there are people trying to show off their pseudo-erudition, but that’s no cause to hyperbolize. Most of the Corinthians, e.g., did not know Hebrew, but they did just fine listening to Scripture through a translation. Same with the vast majority of Christians throughout the ages. One, because only a tiny minority have the ability to study the languages. Second, because only a minority of the “Greek readers” I meet, frankly, know the language really well. They too should lean heavily on translations produced by true experts.

        On the other hand, I have met plenty of believers whose knowledge of the Bible outshines my own. They did not know the languages.

        Perhaps you know the original languages better than I do – that is not a farfetched possibility! – but I wonder if you can surpass me at spending “any amount of time reading the original languages.” How about most of the OT, the entire Septuagint, the NT multiple times, all the apostolic fathers and other Greek (occasionally Latin) fathers. Last year, some poetry and major prophets MT. This year, all Psalms and Proverbs MT.

        All to say that, one doesn’t have to be KJVO – which in some groups has sectarian tendencies, but doesn’t make people “nuts” – to love and respect the King James, among other versions.

        Thanks for hearing me out! Gary Shogren, Professor of New Testament, ESEPA Seminary, San Jose, Costa Rica.

        • I should add, an MDiv, a very useful degree to have, in no way is sufficient training to make one a Bible scholar, Bible translator, textual critic, etc. I know, because I have one – from a very good program, imo! – which was drenched in original language study. I have taught all the relevant courses on the Masters’ level for decades. I know what an MDiv can and cannot do. Even my PhD in NT exegesis pushed me further along, yet it was still insufficient training to make me a Bible scholar, Bible translator, textual critic, etc. That took many years more of study.

          I bring this up because I thought I saw that you have an MDiv (is this blog really written by an anonymous “Admin”??) but okay. As I said, it’s excellent training, for example, for a pastor.

          • I don’t claim to be a textual critic or an expert in the languages. That being said, I also have an undergraduate degree in biblical studies. I took 2 years of Hebrew in my BA and 2 more for my M.div. I also took some Akkadian and learned some Ugaritic after I graduated.

            Greek, I did not study as much.

            Does that make me an expert? No.
            Did I claim to be one? No.
            Does it give me the ability to handle the original languages? Yes.
            Have I studied beyond my M.Div since graduating over 10 years ago? Yes.

          • I cannot seem to reply to your response, so I’ll leave my thoughts here and sign off.

            First: do you really publish these articles anonymously? Without naming your name? I just found that odd.

            I agree that the sectarian wing of KJO is dangerous and that people need to be brought, well, not away from the King James as such, but away from the Ruckmanite/Riplinger/Chick sect. For even a version of the Bible can be an object of adoration: “little children, keep yourselves from idols.”

            The points you make above are valid, but ones you could produce using the English text.

            If you took 4 years of Hebrew, that is fairly substantial, but please take my word for it: this hardly clarifies you to do broad textual criticism of the Old Testament.

            If you took “not so much” Greek, then with all respect, that means you are by no means qualified to do textual criticism of the New Testament.

            Nor am I an expert – although I have taught text criticism and other courses involving textual criticism for many years – but if you wish, pick out some verse from the Tanach or the Greek New Testament and we can dialogue why it should read one way or another.

            Or take this brainteaser, which is designed to show that many people who claim to be able to handle Greek actually swim in the shallow end of the pool: they can “read” the NT because they already know what it is supposed so say. https://openoureyeslord.com/2020/04/06/greek-brainteaser/


          • 1. Yes I publish these without using my name. I made that decision many years ago because I did not want the site to be about me but about content.
            2. I agree that the KJVO movement is dangerous and toxic, which is why I don’t treat them with kid gloves.
            3. As I have already stated, I don’t claim to be a textual critic. But I know that I don’t need to be a textual critic to know that the KJV flubs quite a few passages.
            4. I don’t “DO textual criticism of the New Testament”, and I never claimed to do so, so you’re making baseless claims.
            5. I know enough Greek to know that Easter doesn’t belong in the books of Acts. No degree in textual criticism needed for that one.
            6. I’m not interested in your opinions on the Hebrew Bible. If I want to study textual sources I would consult Immanuel Tov, Ernst Wurthwein, John J Collins, etc. Not at all interested in your textual criticism pissing contest.
            7. I am OK admitting that my knowledge of Biblical Greek is shallow. Again, I never claimed to be an expert in Greek. My primary focus has always been the OT and Semitic languages. Nevertheless, even someone with my level of Greek can find problematic passages in the KJV Greek translations.

        • You’ve conveniently ignored both the comment that precipitated my comment and also the meaning of KJVO.

          1. The comment that I am replying to stated that I am both deceived and unstudied. Neither of those are remotely accurate.
          2. KJVO does not mean you like it a lot. I means you believe that the KJV is the ONLY appropriate version in english and all others are a work of the devil.

          Never once have I ever insinuated that you shouldn’t read the KJV because you like it best. But when you tell me that I have to read it because all others are corruption and I am deceived by the devil, then I will take issue to that.

          All that being said, the KJV was a good translation for 1611 but it is NOT a good translation for 2024. Even for 1611 they made many mistakes because there were things about history and the languages that they didn’t know. If the KJV was good translation for the modern day then seminaries would not be instructing students to use newer translations. Simple as that.

      • Hi brother, You are dodging my points. “Yeah, but I know ‘EASTER’ should not be in the Bible!” is not the point I am making. (This is a rhetorical device known as “minimal counterargument”). You are writing articles that deal with textual criticism. Why don’t you write an article on, “I don’t understand NT textual criticism.”

        I cannot fathom why someone would write a blog anonymously. “Bias avoidance” is the reason you cite. The Watchtower Society – and I’m not equating you with the Witnesses! – also does not publish the names of its Bible translators for “bias avoidance”. I can think of two or three other reasons for anonymity. You’re apparently not a whistleblower who wants to maintain his privacy. You are probably not concerned about your physical safety against KJVO attack.

        Unless one is dealing with secret info, bloggers declare who they are, so that people can look up their biographies. This is not a “distraction” from the content of the posts (!), it is simple forthrightness.

        Thanks anyway. Gary

        PS – not sure if you were addressing me with this, but if you were:

        “1. The comment that I am replying to stated that I am both deceived and unstudied. Neither of those are remotely accurate.” No-one has said that. You went to seminary. But you are not equipped to do textual criticism nor to translate the Greek Bible. I do not think you are deceived. I said you were being unloving. Two different things.

        “2. KJVO does not mean you like it a lot. It means you believe that the KJV is the ONLY appropriate version in English and all others are a work of the devil.” Yes, I am aware of that. I blog, write, give conferences on that very topic. I have had tracts about the evil NIV stuck in my Bible! Everyone I know, also knows what KVJO differs from KJV preference!

        • I’m not dodging your points. You’re claiming that I said things that I did not say and I am calling you out on it.

          I don’t write articles on textual criticism, even though I often discuss why modern Bible translations differ from the KJV and in those cases I merely provide the evidence for my position. If this bothers you, I suggest you seek therapy.

          You can cry all day about my website not using my name but it won’t change anything. You are welcome to run your website whatever way you want and I will run mine the way that I want. If this is triggering for you…… again, seek therapy.

          The points that you quoted are not about you. They were relevant to the discussion though.

          • I now see why you want to stay anonymous!

            Btw, the topic of your article most certainly IS by any definition the textual criticism of the NT. It makes no difference for you to claim you to claim, “I don’t write articles on textual criticism, even though I often discuss why modern Bible translations differ from the KJV and in those cases I merely provide the evidence for my position.” What you are saying is exactly equivalent to, “I don’t write articles on textual criticism, I just write…uh… articles on tedtual critism.”

  3. how low does your IQ have to be to be into this KJV only? May God help these idiots. You might be “saved” as protestants put it but that’s as far as you came. Get an education kjv only people either wise i am not taking you that serious. if God calls you into the ministry He will bring you along to His truth. It don’t just come floating down from heaven. Honestly there’s some that don’t know the difference between a calling or getting all emotional at times thinking that’s God.

    over all if you are stuck on this stupidity you don’t need to be in the pulpit and need to go to college then seminary personally to learn at least some real theology even if it is protestant theology at least it will bring you further than this insanity.

    remember some translations are better than others depending on the persons intake. however the true scripture is the Hebrew Tanakh (Daniel and Ezra partially in Aramaic) and the Kione Greek New Testament. (however they did find an Aramaic copy of Johns Apocalypse as old)

    • I’m very saddened by the tone of your reply, which short-circuits what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps you have an education that allows you (!) to circumvent the love commandment as it applies to our speech.

      But perhaps not, given that you misspell “koine” and make reference to a non-existent Aramaic version of Apocalypse. Perhaps you are confusing Palestinian Aramaic with Syriac, two different dialects.

        • No. He is not referring to the so-called “Aramaic Apocalypse”, which is 4Q246.

          He clearly stated “however they did find an Aramaic copy of JOHN’S Apocalypse…”

          He apparently is confusing one with the other. If we are to combat with KJVO, it must be done with love and with precision.

          • No he’s not? Are you a mind reader? Did you call him on the phone?

            The commenter referred to a text that does not actually exist. I logically concluded that he merely got the text confused 4Q246 with John’s apocalypse, which is an easy error to make.

            Your correction is that he’s confusing 4Q246 with John’s text, which is quite literally what I suggested he was doing. So you’re just demonstrating that you’re here to argue and not read.

  4. “You disagree with the facts or the opinion? Because every item above is factually accurate.”

    No, it’s fucking not. You’re a liar. Clearly, you’re not working for Christ.

  5. You are incredibly deceptive. You’re either working for satan directly and this is all intentional or you really need to go into prayer and receive the truth from the Father. ASAP. The dude’s site perfectly explained why Easter is CLEARLY the more appropriate word. You dismissing it offhand is nothing. You’re wrong.


  6. I don’t want to get embroiled in an argument, as I am fairly new to reading and studying the bible. I had a huge family KJV bible, but someone from the church gave me an NIV, saying that it was “easier to read”. I am trying to find the closest thing to the original Hebrew and Greek translations that I can read.

    I am thinking about the Geneva 1560 bible that I think has 80 books instead of 66, so at least some of the left out stuff is there. One reason I want this Bible is because the Vatican banned it. I want to learn Hebrew and greek, I want to find out if what I’ve heard is true, that the original text has no story of the resurrection, and no “rapture”.
    I know a whole lot of people are expecting to be raptured in September before any tribulation. But from what I read it seems like I have to endure “to the end” even unto death. It also bothers me that God, Lord, and Jesus are used in these, I want to see the original names and titles like Elohim, Yeshua. I looked up the Hebrew meaning of Lord and it was Baal. So I’m thoroughly confused.

    • Oh, and in order to post that, I had to sign up for Disqus, confirm my email, AND “follow” 3 other channels. Not much I wanted to follow really, but I did find several child porn things. So gross, going to try reporting to police tomorrow.

      • Sorry to hear about your experience. I used disqus on here because the native wordpress comment system is vulnerable to hacking and spam. When I first implemented the system it was easier to use.

        If you saw ads for child porn then that means someone on your computer was looking at child porn because those ads are populated based on the cache in your browser. It’s called targeted advertising. I would question the people that use your computer before I questioned disqus. That being said, you should report the websites that the ads are linked to.

        • I am the only one using this computer and never would watch or search for child porn. I didn’t see an ad. In order to be a Disqus member I was forced to pick 3 other things to “follow”. I didn’t want to follow any, just post a comment.
          Disqus had a list of things I could choose from to follow, including sports, video games, all kinds of things I have zero interest in. There were a couple of weird groups. It’s not me, it’s who Disqus allowed to form groups.

    • Lost Dreams,

      I feel you on not wanting to start an argument. I won’t start one with you. However, I do want to help you out a bit.

      I want to start by saying older English Bibles are not necessarily better because they are older. In the 1500s we didn’t even have enough Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to complete an entire Bible. Portions of the Bible were translated into English from the Latin text which was produced by Jerome in the 4th century (AD). Today we have thousands of manuscripts, including some that span the entire New Testament. Archaeology has been very helpful.

      I too wanted to learn Greek and Hebrew when I was younger. I went to seminary after college and they teach you those languages as a requirement. I can tell you as a person who translates from the original texts that nearly any modern English Bible is going to be more accurate than one from the 1500s or 1600s. There are more books in the older Bibles which are considered historical and canonical and since it confused many people they were removed. However, a few modern translations added them back in, like the NRSV. I highly recommend reading them since they cover the time period from 400BC till Christ.

      About the rapture. No one can predict when it’s coming. Every year someone makes a prediction and it never comes true. Been happening for decades and even longer. Don’t pay attention to these gimmicks. But be assured that their will be a rapture and when it happens you will be just fine.

      About the name(s) of God. The original name of God from the Old Testament is YHWH or Yahweh. This is what God told Moses at the burning bush. Elohim is not actually the name of God or anything else. That is the Hebrew word for “gods” or sometimes “God”. It’s even used to talk about the angels at times. The name Baal is another Hebrew word that means god. Both Baal and El are hebrew worlds for “god”. It just happens that Baal became the name for a an ancient idol and is used in the Bible to indicate another god besides The God.

      The name Yeshua is Hebrew for the name Joshua, which means Yahweh saves. The Greek name Jesus is just a transliteration of the name Joshua. A useful chart on how the name Joshua eventually became Jesus is linked below.


    • You disagree with the facts or the opinion? Because every item above is factually accurate.

      Also, if you want to have a credible disagreement on these points it would help to list what you disagree with.

      • Justin,
        Some of the claims in the article are incorrect. I’m just not sure, considering the tone of the writer, if it would be worthwhile to try to offer corrections or not.

        • Why does tone matter? You’re either correct or incorrect, right? No matter what the author thinks, facts are facts.

          Other than the over simplified hyperbole on the lexical use of Pascha, I don’t think the main points have any factual issues. If they do I am sure they can be edited.

          So where are the incorrect claims?

          • Justin,
            Tone does not matter, in and of itself, as far as the intrinsic quality of a position is concerned. But to every argument, there is a person doing the arguing, and sometimes tone sometimes is indicative of the attitude of that person. Sometimes one has to ask, “Is this person teachable? Having stated his position so cavalierly, does he have the level of humility that would be required to acknowledge some imprecision in his remarks?
            If I attempt to offer a correction, will it be a waste of my time and leave him more entrenched in his errors than he was before? Is this a pearls-and-swine scenario?”.

            But, since you asked, I will try to follow up.

  7. I see a lot of interesting posts on your blog. You have to spend
    a lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of time, there is a tool that
    creates unique, SEO friendly posts in couple of minutes, just search in google
    – laranita’s free content source

  8. I have to tell you that it’s hard to find
    your articles in google, i found this one on 15 spot, you should
    build some quality backlinks in order to rank your webiste,
    i know how to help you, just search in google – k2 seo tips


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.