A list of notable errors and weaknesses in interpretation or translation in the King James Version

A list of notable errors and weaknesses in interpretation or translation in the King James Version (KJV) that demonstrate it is not a perfect or infallible English Bible. These are drawn from textual, linguistic, theological, and historical perspectives, and reflect improvements made in later translations based on better manuscripts, clearer understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and updated English usage.

---

🔍 Errors and Weaknesses in the KJV Translation

📜 Old Testament Issues

1. Unicorns (e.g., Numbers 23:22; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9–10)

o   KJV: "Unicorn"

o   Better rendering: "Wild ox" (Hebrew re'em)

o   ❌ Mistaken translation due to reliance on the Latin Vulgate ("unicornis").

2. Genesis 3:15 – "It shall bruise thy head"

o   KJV: “it” (referring to the seed)

o   Better rendering: “he” (masculine pronoun referring to the Messiah)

o   ❌ Weakens messianic prophecy of Christ defeating Satan.

3. Psalm 8:5 – "Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels"

o   KJV: “angels” (mal’akim)

o   Better rendering: “God” or “heavenly beings” (Hebrew: Elohim)

o   ❌ The Hebrew word here is Elohim, not "angels" (mal’akim), and theologically significant in Christology (cf. Heb. 2:7 quoting LXX).

4. Isaiah 14:12 – "Lucifer"

o   KJV: “Lucifer”

o   Better rendering: “morning star” or “shining one” (Hebrew: helel ben-shachar)

o   ❌ “Lucifer” is a Latin-based translation; not a proper name in the Hebrew; likely refers to the king of Babylon.

5. Ezekiel 20:25 – “I gave them also statutes that were not good”

o   KJV: Suggests God gave evil laws

o   Better rendering: God allowed them to follow evil statutes (context of judgment)

o   ❌ Misleading implication about God's character without clarifying judgment context.

---

📖 New Testament Issues

6. Acts 12:4 – "Easter"

o   KJV: “Easter”

o   Better rendering: “Passover” (Greek: Pascha)

o   ❌ The Greek word pascha always means "Passover"; "Easter" is an anachronistic insertion based on Church tradition.

7. Hebrews 10:23 – "Profession of our faith"

o   KJV: “faith” (Greek: elpis)

o   Correct translation: “hope”

o   ❌ Mistakes the Greek word, changing the theological nuance.

8. 1 John 5:7 – Comma Johanneum

o   KJV: Includes “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”

o   ❌ This phrase is not found in any early Greek manuscripts and was added in late Latin tradition. Almost all modern scholars agree it is a textual interpolation.

9. Revelation 22:19 – "Book of life"

o   KJV: “book of life”

o   Better rendering: “tree of life” (Greek: xulon not biblion)

o   ❌ Based on a later textual variant; early manuscripts have "tree of life."

10.         Titus 2:13 – Weak rendering of the Granville Sharp rule

o   KJV: “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”

o   Better rendering: “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”

o   ❌ The KJV obscures the deity of Christ in this verse due to misunderstanding of Greek grammar.

---

🗣️ Outdated or Misleading English

11.         "Let" (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:7 – “he who now letteth will let”)

o   ❌ In 1611 English, “let” meant "hinder." In modern English, it means "allow," leading to confusion.

12.         "Conversation" (e.g., Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 3:1–2)

o   ❌ Meant “conduct” or “behavior” in 17th-century English, but today is understood as "talking."

13.         "Prevent" (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:15 – “we which are alive... shall not prevent them...”)

o   ❌ Meant “precede” in 1611; today means “stop” or “hinder.”

14.         Romans 5:8 – “commendeth”

o   ❌ Archaic; more clearly rendered today as “demonstrates” or “shows.”

15.         Genesis 6:4 – “There were giants in the earth”

o   ❌ “Giants” (Hebrew: Nephilim) is a misleading rendering; better translated as “fallen ones” or left transliterated.

---

🧾 Conclusion: Why This Matters

• The KJV was a remarkable translation for its time, based on limited manuscripts and early modern English.
• It contains several inaccuracies due to:
• Use of the Textus Receptus, which lacked access to earlier Greek manuscripts,
• Translation based on the Latin Vulgate in places,
• Archaic English words that no longer mean what they once did,
• Incomplete understanding of biblical Hebrew and Greek grammar.

The KJV is faithful and historic, but not perfect. It should be honored — but not idolized.

 

A few thoughts on the TR and the KJV

Brothers and Sisters, may I gently share a few thoughts on the TR and the KJV?

I appreciate your desire to uphold the Word of God and your reverence for the King James Version. I share that same reverence for Scripture as the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But I believe some clarification is needed, especially regarding the Textus Receptus and the perfection of the KJV.

---

1. The TR Was Revised Multiple Times — Which One Is Perfect?

The Textus Receptus was not a single, unchanging Greek text. It was revised several times by different editors:

• Erasmus published five editions (1516–1535), with significant changes between them.
• Stephanus produced four editions (1546–1551).
• Beza followed with at least ten editions (1565–1611).
• The Elzevir brothers produced the 1624 edition, which popularized the term Textus Receptus.

👉 Question: If the TR is the "perfect" text, then which edition is perfect? They do not agree completely with each other, even in Greek wording. So to say “the TR is perfect” raises the question — which TR?

---

2. Yes, They Were Practising Textual Criticism — Just of a Pre-Scientific Kind

What Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza did was essentially textual criticism:

• They compared different Greek manuscripts,
• Made judgments on variant readings,
• Sometimes even translated Latin readings back into Greek (Erasmus, famously, in the ending of Revelation).

This is, in essence, what textual criticism does today — compare manuscripts to discern the most likely original reading.

👉 So the TR itself was the product of textual criticism. If textual criticism is wrong in principle, then the TR cannot be trusted either, since it came from the same process.

---

3. The KJV Is a Faithful Translation — But Not a Perfect One

The KJV is a beautiful and historic translation. But it is not inspired — only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek autographs are. A few key facts:

• The KJV translators themselves said they were not making a perfect Bible but building upon former translations (see the Preface to the Readers).
• There are translation choices in the KJV that reflect limited manuscript access and 17th-century language (e.g., unicorns, Easter in Acts 12:4).
• Modern discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and earlier Greek manuscripts, were unknown to the KJV translators.

👉 If the KJV were perfect, there would be no need for correction or revision — but the KJV itself has undergone multiple editions and spelling standardizations since 1611.

---

4. Why Then Reject Modern Textual Criticism?

If the early Reformers and scholars used the best available manuscripts in their day and applied critical judgment, why should we reject careful, God-honoring scholarship today that does the same — but with far more data and manuscripts?

We do not reject the printing press because it is new. Likewise, we should not reject careful scholarship simply because it comes later.

---

5. Final Appeal: Trust God's Providence, Not Human Traditions

God has preserved His Word — not in a single English translation, but in the full body of faithful manuscript evidence and translations. The gospel has gone out powerfully in many versions — not just the KJV. We honor the KJV, but we do not idolize it.

“The Word of God is not bound” (2 Tim 2:9), and it is not confined to one version or tradition.

Bottom of Form

 

Understanding the Core Dispute: Textus Receptus, KJV, and Verbal Plenary Preservation

Understanding the Core Dispute: Textus Receptus, KJV, and Verbal Plenary Preservation

Jeffrey Khoo's stance is rooted in a specific view of bibliology, often termed "King James Onlyism" or a strong form of "TR-onlyism." This position claims that the Textus Receptus, and by extension the KJV translation, is providentially preserved to be perfect and without error in every jot and tittle.

• Textus Receptus (TR): This is a family of printed Greek New Testaments that formed the basis for many early modern translations, including the King James Version (KJV). The earliest editions were primarily based on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts.

• King James Version (KJV): A monumental translation of the Bible into English, first published in 1611. It has had an immense impact on the English-speaking world.

• Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI): The orthodox Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors in such a way that every word (verbal) and every part (plenary) of the original autographs was God-breathed and without error.

• Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP): This term is often used by proponents of TR-onlyism to extend the concept of inspiration to preservation, arguing that God has providentially preserved a perfect text (usually identified as the TR) throughout history, such that it is identical to the original autographs. This differs from the broader evangelical understanding of preservation, which holds that God has preserved His Word accurately through the multitude of extant manuscripts, allowing for the reconstruction of the original text with high confidence.

1. Theological and Historical Foundations: Addressing Claims of "Perfect" Underlying Texts

The assertion that the Textus Receptus (TR) underlying the KJV is "perfect" and without error conflicts with both historical evidence and orthodox Protestant theology.

• Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1646) Chapter 1, Section 8, which states:

• "The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical..."

• While this affirms the providential preservation of Scripture, the Confession does not claim perfection for any one printed Greek text (e.g., TR), nor does it identify the KJV or any version as the preserved text. Instead, the emphasis is on the original language texts being preserved sufficiently to serve as authoritative Scripture.

• Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1646) 1.8, explicitly refers to the original languages (Hebrew and Greek), not translations like the KJV. To claim perfection for the TR—a Greek compilation from the 16th century—misrepresents the Confession’s intent. The framers of the WCF (1646) used the TR because it was the standard text of their era, not because they believed it was inerrant.

• It does not state that any existing manuscript or translation is perfect without error.

• Crucially, it advocates translation into "the common language of every nation," recognizing that the original tongues are not known to all. This directly supports the need for and validity of modern translations.

• Therefore, Jeffrey Khoo from Far Eastern Bible College is misinterpreting and misapplying the WCF. The WCF speaks to the preservation of the original biblical truth and authority, not the impeccability of a particular textual tradition.

• Scholars such as Dr. Richard Muller (Calvin Theological Seminary) note that the WCF’s context implies a general preservation sufficient for doctrine, not a word-perfect identicality of any particular manuscript tradition.

2. Dean Burgon’s Oath and Its Limitations:

John William Burgon (1813-1888) was a prominent Anglican textual critic who vehemently defended the Traditional/Byzantine text type against the critical text emerging from scholars like Westcott and Hort. While Burgon was a brilliant and devout scholar, his views on textual criticism, while historically significant, are not universally accepted among contemporary textual critics.

• John William Burgon defended the Byzantine text-type (basis of the TR) but never claimed the TR itself was perfect. His polemics against modern textual criticism reflect a pre-archaeological era. Discoveries like the Codex Sinaiticus (1844) and Codex Vaticanus (19th-century accessibility) predate Burgon’s work and reveal older textual traditions that challenge the TR’s supremacy.

• He was critical of both TR and the Westcott-Hort text and called for a new, careful collation of manuscripts—a goal better fulfilled by today’s NA28/UBS5.

• Requiring people to take an "oath" to a particular textual view is an alarming practice. It smacks of dogmatism, suppresses critical thinking, and is antithetical to sound academic and theological inquiry. True education encourages rigorous examination, not unquestioning adherence. This practice fosters a cultic environment rather than a scholarly one. 

• Matthew 5:33-37 (Jesus on oaths), James 5:12 (James on oaths). While these primarily refer to personal vows, the spirit of the warning cautions against binding oneself or others with unnecessary and potentially divisive oaths that elevate human traditions above clear biblical teaching or sound reasoning. Forcing people to swear allegiance to a specific textual theory is a form of spiritual abuse and undermines Christian liberty (Galatians 5:1).

3. Biblical View of Preservation:

Scripture affirms God’s preservation of His Word (Psalm 12:6–7; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35), but this does not equate to a specific manuscript family or translation. 

• These verses do not specify the mode of preservation in terms of a single, unblemished manuscript tradition throughout history. Rather, they speak to the enduring truth and authority of God's Word. God has providentially preserved His message and truth through the transmission process, allowing for the reconstruction of the original text with a very high degree of certainty, despite scribal variations. The overwhelming majority of textual variants are minor (e.g., spelling, word order) and do not affect any major doctrine.

• The New Testament itself quotes the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Old Testament that differs from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (e.g., Acts 7:14 vs. Genesis 46:27; Hebrews 1:6 vs. Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX). If the apostles trusted the LXX despite its variations, we ought not to absolutize a single textual tradition. 

• Furthermore, no two ancient manuscripts are identical. Scribes, being human, occasionally make unintentional errors.

4. Evidence of Textual Variants and the Necessity of Critical Scholarship

The notion of a "perfect" TR ignores well-documented textual variants and historical realities:

• The TR itself is a compiled text. Erasmus' 1516 edition, the basis of the TR, was hastily compiled from a handful of late Byzantine manuscripts, one of which was incomplete and required reverse-translation from Latin back into Greek (e.g., Revelation 22:16–21). These facts disprove the notion that the TR is a perfectly preserved text.

• Erasmus himself acknowledged textual issues. His Greek NT was corrected several times over the years (e.g., by Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevirs), which demonstrates that the TR was not a static, unchanging text.

• The Problem with a "Perfect" TR is that those various editions of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir) themselves differ from each other. If the TR is perfect, which edition is the "perfect" one? This internal inconsistency undermines the claim of absolute perfection.

• Revelation 16:5 in Beza’s TR edition reads "O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be," a reading not found in any Greek manuscript and based only on conjecture.

• Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8). This Trinitarian formula (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”) is absent from all Greek manuscripts prior to the 15th century. Erasmus included it in the TR under pressure, despite its questionable authenticity. Modern translations omit it (e.g., NIV, ESV), aligning with older manuscripts.

• Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. These passages are absent from early manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) and are likely later additions. The KJV includes them because Erasmus relied on later Byzantine manuscripts.

• Differences in the Septuagint vs. Masoretic Text. For example, Genesis 5:25–27 in the Masoretic Text states Methuselah died at 969 years, but the LXX adds 100 years, creating a chronological conflict. The New Testament authors, however, freely used both traditions (e.g., Matthew 1:7–8 vs. 1 Chronicles 3:10–12).

• Proverbs 21:8. The Hebrew reads, “The way of a guilty man is crooked,” while the LXX translates, “The way of a man in his guilt is not pure.” Such variations show even ancient translators recognized textual ambiguities.

5. The Value of Modern Translations

The acceptance of modern Bible translations is not a compromise of faith but an embrace of linguistic and textual scholarship that aids in understanding God's Word more accurately.

Modern translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, CSB) rely on older, more reliable manuscripts and employ rigorous scholarship:

Contemporary scholarship, including the Nestle-Aland (NA28) and United Bible Societies (UBS5) Greek New Testaments, draws on over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, including early papyri from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (e.g., P52, P46, P75). These represent older and more diverse manuscript evidence than the TR.

• For example, 1 John 5:7–8 in the KJV includes the "Johannine Comma," absent in nearly all Greek manuscripts except a few very late ones. It was inserted into the text likely due to theological motivations, not original authorship.

• Modern translations avoid archaic language (e.g., KJV’s “thee/thou”) and clarify ambiguities. For example, the KJV’s “charity” (1 Corinthians 13) is rendered “love” (ἀγάπη) in modern versions, aligning with contemporary understanding.

• Jesus criticized those who elevated tradition over Scripture (Mark 7:8–9). Rigid adherence to the KJV risks similar legalism.

• Scripture itself recognizes the fallibility of human transmission:

• Jeremiah 8:8 – “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”

• Proverbs 30:5–6 – “Every word of God proves true... Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.”

• These verses uphold the divine origin and trustworthiness of God’s Word but also warn against human manipulation and error, reinforcing the need for careful textual study.

• Modern translations like the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB are based on critical editions of the Greek NT that reflect a broader manuscript base and older readings than the TR.

• They use teams of scholars from diverse theological traditions, ensuring checks and balances. Translations undergo rigorous peer review and are based on the best available evidence, not theological bias.

• Modern translations aim to communicate the inspired message faithfully in today’s language. The apostle Paul modeled contextual adaptation for communication (1 Corinthians 9:22–23).

While there are textual variations, no essential Christian doctrine is jeopardized by these differences. The core message of salvation through Christ, the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus, and the call to discipleship remain constant across all reliable manuscript traditions and translations.

6. Conclusion

The church’s foundation is Christ, not a translation (1 Corinthians 3:11). While the KJV is a venerable translation, bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) displaces reverence for God Himself. As Augustine wrote: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” Pursue truth with humility, trusting that “the Lord knows those who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19).

The doctrine of inspiration (VPI of the autographs) is essential. The precise textual tradition (TR vs. critical text) or the superiority of one translation over another (KJV vs. modern versions) are secondary issues. While they are important and warrant study, they should not be church-dividing.

God’s Word is indeed inspired and preserved—but not in a single, flawless manuscript or edition. God’s providence operates through human fallibility, not apart from it. The obsession with a “perfect text” often stems more from fear and tradition than Scripture.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8) God’s Word remains true and powerful, even when human copies have minor variations. Embracing the reality of textual history deepens—not weakens—our confidence in God’s sovereign preservation.

We must reiterate the church's commitment to the verbal plenary inspiration of the original autographs and the sufficient and authoritative nature of God's Word in all matters of faith and practice. Emphasize that the message of the Bible has been providentially preserved.

Don't Let Sentiment Replace Sound Judgment

In life and in faith, we often form strong emotional bonds—with our pastors, teachers, mentors, or church communities. These bonds are meaningful. But when it comes to truth, especially biblical truth, we must never let sentiment or past loyalty outweigh Scripture and sound doctrine.

Sometimes, people follow a leader’s teaching just because they trust the person, or they feel loyal due to past blessings or experiences. But the Bible warns us:

"Test everything; hold fast what is good."
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21

"We must obey God rather than men."
— Acts 5:29

It is not disrespectful or rebellious to question a teaching—especially when it doesn't align with Scripture. In fact, it is our responsibility.

The Bible is clear, loyalty to God’s truth must outweigh loyalty to any person, no matter how beloved or respected. Even the apostles, when ordered to stop preaching Jesus, declared, “We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29). Sentiment, past relationships, or personal preferences cannot justify following teachings that distort Scripture. Wrong is wrong, even if taught by a leader we admire.

• If a pastor insists on KJV-onlyism (claiming the KJV is the only valid Bible), but your conscience and scholarship affirm that modern translations faithfully convey God’s Word, you must honor Scripture over human tradition.
• Following flawed teachings out of loyalty risks “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25).

 

---

 

Wrong Is Still Wrong — Even If Taught with Passion

Someone may preach Verbal Plenary Preservation or KJV-onlyism with great passion, deep conviction, or a heart full of good intentions. But if the teaching is not true, it is still error. Passion does not make falsehood true. Sincerity does not excuse misleading doctrine.

In the BPC tradition—and indeed in all responsible Christian thought—we believe in reasoned faith. God gave us minds to think, Scripture to discern, and the Holy Spirit to guide. Faith is not blind loyalty—it is truth-based trust in God.

Leaders bear a sacred responsibility to teach truth (James 3:1). If they elevate personal opinions—like Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) (claiming every word of Scripture is perfectly preserved without error in one specific text)—over the historical reality of textual variations and faithful translation, they risk misleading the flock.

BPC trust God’s providence in preserving Scripture’s core message, even amid minor textual variations. Leaders who ignore this for rigid, extra-biblical theories (like VPP) are prioritizing tradition over truth.

Gently but firmly “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Ask: “Does this teaching align with Scripture and sound reason?”

 

---

 

Stand with God, Even When It's Hard

Choosing to follow truth may sometimes mean standing apart from beloved leaders or popular crowds. But remember this: We will all answer to God—not to pastors, not to lecturers, not to human authorities.

"If anyone teaches a different doctrine... he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing."
— 1 Timothy 6:3–4

Leaders must be held accountable. Those who teach God’s Word bear greater responsibility (James 3:1). It's not harsh to expect them to know right from wrong—it's biblical.

If your pastor or lecturer insists that only the KJV is God's Word, or that the Bible has been preserved without a single word ever being lost or changed (VPP), ask:

• Is that what the early church taught?
• Is that what the Bible itself teaches?
• Is that how God wants us to think?

If not, stand with God, not with man.

• Humility is key. Admit if your stance on KJV-onlyism or VPP is rooted in nostalgia, fear, or cultural bias—not Scripture.
• Acknowledge textual complexities. BPC thrives on “faith seeking understanding,” not dogmatic simplifications.

 

---

 

Encouragement to the Faithful

• Don’t be afraid to ask questions.
• Don’t stay silent out of comfort or convenience.
• Don’t follow error just because it’s familiar.

God calls us to be truth-seekers, not crowd-pleasers. When controversy arises, like over VPP or KJV-onlyism, choose truth—even if you must stand alone. Because when you stand with God, you are never truly alone.

"The truth will set you free."
— John 8:32

 

Final Encouragement

Standing for truth may mean respectfully challenging leaders or even leaving a congregation. This is painful but necessary. Remember:

• Correct in Love: “Speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Avoid bitterness; focus on restoring biblical fidelity.
• Trust God’s Faithfulness: Jesus warned that “a time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:3). Yet He remains Lord of His Church.

 

BPC’s strength lies in its commitment to Scripture, reason, and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. In debates over VPP or KJV-onlyism, anchor yourself in God’s unchanging Word, not human opinions. Let our hearts first be right with God’s truth—even when it costs us.

Stand firm. The Gospel is at stake.

 

A Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) perspective

A Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) perspective on the issues of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-onlysim.

1. What is Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)?

Definition:

VPP is the belief that every single word (verbal) of the Bible has been perfectly preserved (plenary means "completely" or "fully") by God in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) through time—without any errors at all.

Our View:

We generally do not hold to VPP in a strict or extreme way. We believe God inspired the original writings of the Bible and that the message of salvation and truth has been faithfully preserved—but not in a word-for-word perfect copy throughout history.

We recognize that copying errors, translation differences, and textual variants exist, but these do not change the core message of God's love, Jesus Christ, or salvation. We trust God’s Word is reliable, but not in a rigid, word-for-word preserved sense like VPP teaches.

We affirm the divine inspiration of Scripture, believing the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. However, we generally do not emphasize perfect textual preservation (VPP). Instead, we trust in God’s providence over the transmission of the biblical texts, acknowledging minor textual variations in manuscripts while affirming the core message remains intact.

"The Bible is inspired, but we rely on scholarly work to understand its transmission. God’s truth isn’t lost in translation or copying."

________________________________

2. What about KJV-onlyism?

Definition:

KJV-onlyism is the belief that the King James Version (KJV) is the only true or correct English Bible translation, and all others are corrupt or inferior.

Our View:

Most BPC do not believe in KJV-onlyism. We respect the KJV for its beauty and historical impact, but we recognize that language evolves, and newer translations (like NIV, NRSV, or ESV) help people today better understand God’s Word.

Our focus is not on one version being the “only” version, but on helping people read, understand, and live by Scripture in a language that speaks to their hearts today.

"The message of Scripture matters most, not the translation. We value clarity and accuracy for today’s readers."

________________________________

We believe that:

• The Bible is God’s Word, and while it’s not preserved in a "photocopy-perfect" way, its message has been faithfully kept.

• The books of the Bible we use are the right ones, chosen with God’s guidance.

• The KJV is a valuable translation, but it’s not the only or “holiest” version. God speaks through His Word, not through one specific translation.

• Emphasis is on the Bible’s transformative power for living out Christian faith, rather than debates over textual perfection.

The need to accept modern translations

The need to accept modern translations like the NIV (New International Version) and ESV (English Standard Version) alongside the KJV (King James Version) arises from a commitment to both accuracy and accessibility.

Here's a biblical and historical explanation of why it is not only acceptable but even wise to accept translations like the NIV (New International Version) and ESV (English Standard Version) alongside the KJV (King James Version), grounded in both Scripture and history:

1. What Kind of Scripture Text Was Circulating During Jesus’ Time?

During Jesus’ earthly ministry, several versions of the Scriptures were in use:

1. Hebrew Scriptures (Masoretic Text prototypes): The Old Testament in Hebrew, particularly in synagogue worship.
2. Greek Septuagint (LXX): A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in the 3rd–2nd centuries BC in Alexandria, widely used in the Hellenistic Jewish world.
3. Targums: Aramaic paraphrases and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible used by Jews who no longer understood Hebrew well.
4. Various textual traditions: At Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), we find evidence of multiple versions of Old Testament texts, including proto-Masoretic, Septuagintal, and Samaritan traditions.

There was not one single uniform text, and certainly not one "authorized version."

2. Did Jesus Criticize Those Texts or Translations?

No. Jesus never criticized the use of different versions of Scripture. In fact, He and the Apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek version, even when it differed slightly from the Hebrew text. For example:

Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 quotes the Septuagint’s "virgin" rather than the Hebrew "young woman."

Psalm 8:2, quoted in Matthew 21:16, follows the Septuagint, not the Hebrew.

This shows that Jesus endorsed the message and authority of Scripture, regardless of exact wording or translation. Jesus criticized hypocrisy and rigid legalism, not the Scriptures or their translations.

3. Was Jesus Silent on Bible Translations? Should We Be?

Yes, Jesus was effectively "silent" in the sense of not condemning or favoring one translation over another.

His concern was not which version people read, but whether they understood and obeyed the Scriptures. He often said:

“Have you not read...?” (e.g., Matthew 12:3, 19:4)

If Jesus did not reject the Septuagint or Aramaic paraphrases, neither should we be dogmatic about one English version. Jesus’ lack of explicit commentary on translation methods does not mean He opposed it. 

4. Why Accept NIV and ESV Alongside KJV?

1. Clarity: NIV and ESV use contemporary English that most readers can understand today. The KJV, while majestic, uses 17th-century English, which is no longer natural to modern readers.
2. Scholarship: ESV and NIV are based on better manuscript discoveries, like the Dead Sea Scrolls and older Greek manuscripts not available in 1611 when the KJV was translated.
3. Faithfulness: Both NIV and ESV were created by teams of faithful evangelical scholars committed to the authority of Scripture.

Comparing translations highlights nuances. For example, the KJV’s “charity” (1 Corinthians 13) is more precisely rendered “love” in NIV/ESV, avoiding confusion with modern connotations.

5. Apostolic Principle: Understandable Language

Paul said:

“If you speak in a tongue that people don’t understand, how will they be edified?” (1 Corinthians 14:9)

By principle, Scripture should be understandable to the people. A modern translation serves this mission.

6. Conclusion: We Follow Christ, Not a Translation

Jesus upheld Scripture’s authority while endorsing its accessibility through translation (via the LXX). His silence on translation methods is not a call for rigidity but an invitation to prioritize the Gospel’s clarity and truth. Modern translations like the NIV and ESV, grounded in older manuscripts and clearer language, honor this mission. To reject them would risk perpetuating the very legalism Jesus opposed—elevating tradition over the transformative power of God’s Word (Mark 7:13). We should embrace translations that faithfully convey Scripture’s message to all people.

While the KJV is a historic and beautiful translation, insisting on only one version may elevate a human translation above God’s living Word. Christ did not do this. He used available texts, quoted from translations, and never condemned those who did the same.

Therefore, it is not only biblically consistent but spiritually wise to accept and use faithful modern translations like the NIV and ESV, as long as they faithfully convey God’s truth.

When Jesus was silent on scriptural texts, we should also be silent! 

Didache

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

Khoo Eng Teck, Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy and others in Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore,

Grace and peace in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a fellow servant of Christ, I write with a heavy heart, moved by the concern for the unity of the Church and the purity of the gospel. It has come to my attention that you strongly advocate KJV Onlyism and the belief in a Perfect Textus Receptus, presenting these views as non-negotiable truths and condemning others who use different faithful translations or textual bases. While love for Scripture is commendable, your teaching, by its exclusivity and divisiveness, is not in harmony with the faith once delivered to the saints nor with the spirit of the early Church.

Let us consider the words of the Didache, a document treasured by the earliest Christians and a reflection of apostolic teaching. It exhorts all followers of Christ:

"You shall not cause division, but shall bring peace to those who fight. You shall judge justly. You shall not show favoritism when reproving transgressions." (Didache 4:3)

Or, “thou shalt not desire schism, but shalt set at peace them that contend; thou shalt judge righteously; thou shalt not accept the person of any one to convict him of transgression;”

Your insistence on one translation and one textual tradition as "perfect" above all others has caused division, not peace. By setting up the KJV and TR as divine absolutes, you elevate traditions of men above the unity and mission of Christ. 

Your teaching draws people away from the broader church, rejecting the gift of godly scholarship, mission, and translation work carried out by faithful believers throughout the world—offering no grace, but demanding uniformity.

Worse still, by teaching doctrines not commanded by Christ nor the apostles, you place yourself in grave danger of leading others astray. The Didache warns:

"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and undermines godliness, do not listen to him." (Didache 11:2)

You have replaced the gospel of Christ with a gospel of textual perfectionism. This is not the faith of the apostles, but a modern innovation. The early Church never demanded allegiance to one manuscript line or translation—how could they, when they worshiped in many languages and places?

The apostles never mandated a specific Bible translation or manuscript family. The KJV (1611) and TR (16th century) are products of post-Reformation debates, not apostolic practice. Elevating them as “perfect” contradicts the Didache’s call to cling to the “righteousness handed down.” True shepherds guide flocks toward Christ—not human traditions that “nullify the word of God” (Mark 7:13).

Brother, I appeal to you not as an enemy, but as one who desires your repentance and restoration to the unity of the Church. Return to the simplicity and power of the gospel. Teach the Word of God faithfully, but do not bind the consciences of others where Christ has not bound them.

The KJV-only and "Perfect TR" positions are modern innovations absent from early Christian tradition. By elevating textual preferences over the Gospel’s core message, you risk teaching “another doctrine” that divides the Body of Christ. The apostles prioritized the substance of faith, not textual perfectionism (Acts 15:28–29). Insisting on these doctrines undermines unity and strays from the “way of life” handed down by Christ and His Church.

The Didache repeatedly stresses harmony:

“Thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt confute, concerning some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love beyond thine own soul."(Didache 2:7).

Do not be angry, for anger leads to murder. Do not be jealous, quarrelsome, or hot-tempered, for all these things breed strife.” (Didache 3:2).

“On the Lord’s Day, gather together, break bread, and give thanks, having confessed your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with a neighbor join until they are reconciled.” (Didache 14:1–3).

Your teachings risk fostering pride and division over non-essentials. The early Church resolved disputes through humility and reconciliation (e.g., Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15). By fixating on secondary issues, you disregard the Didache’s call to prioritize peace and communal worship. Christ prayed for unity among believers (John 17:21)—a unity fractured by dogmatic insistence on human traditions like KJV-onlyism.

The Didache opens by contrasting the “Way of Life” (love, humility, and unity) with the “Way of Death” (pride and division). Ask yourself: Does your teaching foster love and reconciliation, or strife and elitism? Repent of divisive doctrines and join the global Church in proclaiming Christ—not textual preferences. As the Didache urges:

“Do not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but guard what you have received.” (Didache 4:13).

May you heed this ancient wisdom, aligning your ministry with the apostolic faith that unites, rather than divides, the Body of Christ.

May you be found a faithful steward of God's mysteries, not a divider of His people.

In the love and truth of Christ,

So and So

The KJV Is Not the Only Bible That Unites the Church

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a translation, not a denomination, sect, or group. It was completed in 1611 by a team of scholars under the authority of King James I of England. The KJV itself does not promote any heresies or false teachings—it is a respected and historically significant English translation of the Bible.

However, certain groups or sects that utilize the KJV have been criticized by mainstream Christianity for teachings perceived as heretical or unorthodox. Below is a list of such groups and their controversial doctrines, along with explanations of why these teachings are contested:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS/Mormonism)

Controversial Teachings:

Belief in additional scriptures (e.g., Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants).

God was once a mortal man who progressed to divinity (the concept of "eternal progression").

Plurality of gods and potential for humans to become gods.

Rejection of the traditional Trinity in favor of a tritheistic view (three separate beings).

Criticism: Mainstream Christianity rejects these teachings as deviations from Nicene orthodoxy, particularly the nature of God, the uniqueness of Christ’s atonement, and the closure of the biblical canon.

2. Oneness Pentecostalism (e.g., United Pentecostal Church International)

Controversial Teachings:

Denial of the Trinity, advocating Modalism (God manifests as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but is not three distinct persons).

Baptismal regeneration (salvation requires baptism in Jesus’ name, often coupled with speaking in tongues).

Criticism: Traditional Christianity condemns the denial of the Trinity as a rejection of the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

3. Jehovah’s Witnesses

Note: They read the KJV in the begining, later they make their own translation. While they primarily use their New World Translation, they occasionally reference the KJV. 

Controversial Teachings:

Denial of Christ’s divinity (viewing Jesus as a created being, not co-eternal with the Father).

Rejection of the Trinity.

Salvation through works (e.g., door-to-door evangelism) alongside faith.

Criticism: These doctrines conflict with core Christian teachings on Christ’s divinity, the Trinity, and salvation by grace alone.

4. King James Only (KJV-Only) Movements

Controversial Teachings:

Assertion that the KJV is the only inspired or valid English Bible, often dismissing modern translations and textual criticism.

Some factions accuse other translations of being "corrupt" or "Satanic."

Criticism: While not a heresy per se, this view is seen as bibliolatry (elevating a translation above the original texts) and risks isolating adherents from broader scholarship.

5. Christian Identity Movement

Controversial Teachings:

Racist interpretations (e.g., claiming Anglo-Saxons are the "true Israelites").

Anti-Semitic and white supremacist ideologies.

Criticism: These groups distort Scripture to justify bigotry, directly opposing the biblical emphasis on unity in Christ (Galatians 3:28).

6. Hyper-Dispensationalist Groups

Controversial Teachings:

Overly rigid division of biblical history into disconnected "dispensations," often denying the applicability of certain Scriptures (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount) to modern Christians.

Some reject water baptism or the Lord’s Supper as obsolete.

Criticism: Mainstream theology rejects such extreme compartmentalization as undermining the coherence of Scripture.

7. Prosperity Gospel Preachers (e.g., some televangelists)

Controversial Teachings:

"Health and wealth" theology, claiming faith guarantees material blessings.

Blaming poverty or sickness on lack of faith.

Criticism: This contradicts biblical teachings on suffering (e.g., Job, Paul’s thorn) and risks reducing God to a transactional figure.

8. Westboro Baptist Church

Controversial Teachings:

Extreme Calvinist predestination twisted into hate speech (e.g., "God hates sinners").

Homophobic and inflammatory rhetoric.

Criticism: Their teachings violate the biblical call to love neighbors (Matthew 22:39) and misrepresent God’s character.

9. Ruckmanism (extreme KJV-Only position taught by Peter Ruckman)

Controversial Teachings:

Claiming The KJV is not only inspired but corrects the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Criticism: This is a radical departure from historic Christian belief in the primacy of the original languages of Scripture.

Conclusion:

Not everyone who prefers or uses the KJV is heretical or in error. Many faithful Christians and churches use the KJV without falling into the above extremes and heresies. Most KJV readers hold orthodox beliefs. Criticism applies only to specific groups.

The KJV Is Not the "Only Bible" That Unites the Church. Unity is rooted in shared orthodoxy, not translation. The universal church is united by core doctrines such as the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture—truths affirmed across faithful translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV). No single translation is inherently superior for fostering unity.

The church’s unity rests on the substance of Scripture—the gospel of Jesus Christ—not the style of a translation. When reading the KJV, celebrate its beauty and history, but remain anchored in the orthodoxy it shares with all faithful Bible versions. As Augustine wisely said: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” 

By focusing on Christ and loving one another, believers transcend translation debates and embody the unity Jesus prayed for (John 17:21).

King James Only movement

The King James Version has a number of devotees who believe that it is a superiorly authentic translation in the English language, or, more broadly, that the King James Version is to be preferred over all other English translations of Scripture. I oppose this view, arguing that while the King James is an important translation in Protestant history, it is not to be elevated to such status, as new manuscript discoveries and scholarship have challenged that view.

"By This All Will Know..." — The True Mark of Discipleship

"By This All Will Know..." — The True Mark of Discipleship

Jesus said in John 13:35 (ESV):

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

This is not a secondary command. It is the defining mark of discipleship according to Jesus Himself. He did not say, “By your theological precision,” nor “By your knowledge of Greek or Hebrew,” nor even “By having the most accurate Bible manuscript.” He said, “if you love one another.”

1. Jesus' Standard of Unity Is Love, Not Version

Many in the modern church, particularly within certain fundamentalist or sectarian circles, have attached their identity not to Christ, but to a particular Bible version—as though allegiance to a manuscript tradition is equivalent to loyalty to Jesus.

But Jesus did not say:

"By this all people will know you are my disciples, if you read the King James Version."

Nor, "If you reject all modern translations."

Nor, "If you possess the original Textus Receptus."

Instead, He centered discipleship in love—because love is the visible manifestation of inward transformation by the Spirit of God. A church that fractures over Bible versions is not showing the world Christ; it is showing the world division over human preferences.

2. The New Testament Picture of Unity

Paul writes in Ephesians 4:4–6 (ESV):

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Let us examine what is listed:

One body (the unified Church),

One Spirit (the Holy Spirit that unites),

One hope (of eternal life),

One Lord (Jesus Christ),

One faith (the gospel message),

One baptism (our entrance into Christ),

One God and Father.

What is not mentioned?

One translation.

One manuscript family.

One English version.

Paul, guided by the Spirit, teaches that the unity of the Church is spiritual and theological, not textual in terms of translation preference. If Paul expected the Gentile and Jewish believers of the early church—who spoke Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew—to be united without one Bible version, how much more should we, with the blessing of many good translations, seek unity across those versions?

3. The Danger of Idolizing a Bible Version

It is right to respect the Bible—in all faithful translations—but it becomes dangerous when a church idolizes a specific version to the point that it breaks fellowship with other believers. That is versionolatry—elevating a human translation to the level of divine authority and using it as a test of orthodoxy.

The Bible is inspired, but no single English translation is perfect or untouchable. The original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are what were divinely inspired. All translations are interpretations to some extent. But the Spirit of God is not bound by English. He has worked through Luther’s German, Tyndale’s English, Reina-Valera’s Spanish, and through countless faithful versions across the centuries.

To claim that God cannot work unless we use one specific version is to limit the sovereignty of God and to erect a false standard of holiness.

4. A Call to the Church: Lay Down Version Wars for the Sake of the Cross

The church must repent of the idea that we can only be unified when we all carry the same Bible version. This is not the unity of the Spirit—it is the uniformity of man.

Let us remember:

Love unites. Pride divides.

The Spirit sanctifies. Versions do not.

The gospel is preached through many tongues and versions—and still saves.

The church must chip away the man-made wall that says we must agree on manuscript families before we can call each other brother or sister. We must stop gatekeeping the kingdom of God based on the cover of someone’s Bible.

Instead, let us:

Welcome all who call on the name of Jesus in truth.

Celebrate the Word of God in every faithful translation.

Recenter on the gospel, not the Greek.

Love one another as Christ has loved us.

5. Call to Unity Beyond Bible Versions

In John 13:35, Jesus declares, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” This command centers on love as the definitive mark of His followers, not doctrinal uniformity on secondary matters like textual traditions or Bible translations. Similarly, in His High Priestly Prayer (John 17:20–23), Jesus emphasizes unity among believers as a reflection of His divine mission. Strikingly, He prioritizes relational harmony—rooted in love—over institutional or textual uniformity. The absence of any mention of a “perfect Bible” in these passages underscores that the church’s witness depends not on textual precision but on embodying Christ’s love.

6. Paul’s Unity Framework in Ephesians 4:4–6

The apostle Paul reinforces this vision, listing seven pillars of Christian unity: “one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Conspicuously absent is any demand for “one Bible” or textual uniformity. Early Christians lacked a standardized New Testament canon for centuries, relying instead on oral teachings, letters, and diverse manuscripts. Their unity sprang from shared allegiance to Christ, the Spirit’s work, and core tenets of faith—not from uniformity in written texts. Paul’s silence on textual issues suggests that unity transcends preferences over translations, which are tools to convey the gospel, not the gospel itself.

7. The Early Church and the Purpose of Scripture

The New Testament writings were circulated to strengthen faith and correct error (2 Timothy 3:16–17), but their authority derives from their witness to Christ, not textual perfection. Early Christians preserved unity despite using varied Septuagint (Greek) and Hebrew texts, showing that the message of salvation, not textual uniformity, was paramount. The Bible’s purpose is to point to Jesus (John 5:39), guide believers in love (1 Timothy 1:5), and equip them for mission—not to become an idol of perfectionism. Translations serve to make this message accessible across languages and cultures (Acts 2:5–11), reflecting God’s heart for all peoples.

8. Addressing Concerns Over Translations

While no translation is flawless, major doctrines (e.g., Christ’s divinity, salvation by grace) remain intact across reputable versions. The Holy Spirit’s role in illumination (1 Corinthians 2:12–14) ensures that God’s truth transcends linguistic nuances. To insist on a single translation as a prerequisite for unity risks elevating human preferences above the gospel’s substance, fostering division where Christ commands love. The KJV-Only and Verbal Pleanry Preservation movement, for instance, fractures the body over 17th-century English, ironically undermining the very unity Jesus prayed for.

9. A Call to the Bible-Presbyterian Church

The church is summoned to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). This requires “chipping away” at secondary demands—like textual perfectionism—that hinder fellowship. Let us focus on essentials: proclaiming Christ, loving sacrificially, and pursuing justice. When we prioritize unity in the Spirit over uniformity in translations, we honor Jesus’ prayer and Paul’s exhortations. As Augustine wisely said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

10. Conclusion

The church’s unity rests on Christ alone, not on textual precision. Let us lay aside divisive debates over translations and instead “clothe ourselves with love, which binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Colossians 3:14, NLT). Only then will the world recognize us as His disciples.

The world will know—not by our arguments over versions—but by our Christlike love, that we are truly His disciples.

If doctrine divides, how can the Church unite as one?

The tension between doctrine and unity has existed since the earliest days of the Church. 

1. Doctrine Doesn't Have to Divide

While it's true that different interpretations of doctrine have led to divisions, it's also true that doctrine—rightly understood—can be a source of unity. Shared core beliefs (like the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the authority of Scripture) form the foundation of Christian identity across denominations.

2. Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials

A classic principle often attributed to St. Augustine or later Christian thinkers is:

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Not every doctrinal disagreement needs to lead to division. The Church can remain united in the essentials of the faith while allowing diversity in secondary matters.

3. Unity Is a Work of the Spirit

True Christian unity is not merely organizational or intellectual—it's spiritual. Jesus prayed in John 17:21 that His followers “may all be one… so that the world may believe.” That unity comes through the Holy Spirit, transcending denominational lines.

4. Unity Is Relational Before It Is Doctrinal

The early church often disagreed (e.g., Acts 15, Galatians 2), yet the apostles pursued unity through humility, dialogue, and love. Christian unity is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of grace amid it.

5. Pursue Truth and Love Together

Doctrine matters—truth matters. But Paul reminds us that knowledge without love "puffs up," while love "builds up" (1 Cor. 8:1). The goal is not to ignore doctrine but to hold it with humility and charity.

Conclusion:

Doctrine can divide when misused, but when approached humbly, it can help define the faith we hold in common. The Church unites not by ignoring doctrine, but by focusing on Christ, guided by love and empowered by the Holy Spirit.