Thank God for what we have ?

Gratitude for faithful Bible translation rests on several foundational realities that deserve careful consideration.

First, the very availability of Scripture in our native languages represents a remarkable achievement. Since most believers cannot read the original biblical languages, they depend entirely on translations to access Scripture—making accurate translation essential to how nearly all Christians encounter God’s Word through reading, meditation, memorization, and quotation.[1] This dependency underscores why translation work matters profoundly.

Second, translation itself reflects God’s commitment to communicating across language barriers. Scripture assumes its message can be translated, as evidenced by how the New Testament freely quotes the Old Testament across languages without concern that translation corrupts meaning.[2] God demonstrated his concern for multilingual communication through supernatural events like Pentecost and the gift of tongues, showing that he himself prioritizes translating his message into the languages of all peoples.[2]

Third, we should recognize the theological sophistication required of faithful translators. Understanding Christian history helps translators make theologically informed renderings by considering how earlier Christians familiar with the original languages understood those texts.[1] Translation involves far more than mechanical word-swapping—it requires balancing linguistic precision with theological development and cultural understanding.

Finally, imperfection in translation need not undermine confidence in Scripture’s content. Scripture’s internal redundancy means that what readers miss in one passage typically appears more clearly elsewhere, so the overall content repeats sufficiently to ensure God has clearly communicated with us.[2] Additionally, the Holy Spirit continues blessing Scripture’s communication even in translation, while preachers and teachers in the church clarify God’s word and provide deeper insight into the original meaning.[2]

Our gratitude, then, acknowledges both the faithful labor of translators across centuries and God’s providential work in ensuring his Word reaches all peoples.

[1] Robert F. Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Love and Learn from Our Past (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2014), 152–153.
[2] John Frame, “Bible Translation,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018). [See here, here, here, here.]

Pray and prey like him !

Breaking free from KJV-only thinking requires understanding its core intellectual problem and recognizing what it actually offers versus what it claims.

The fundamental issue underlying KJV-onlyism is a desire for certainty that contradicts how Scripture actually exists in the world. Rather than accepting the Bible as a historical document shaped by real translation choices, KJV-only advocates attempt to escape history itself by imagining God’s providence could deliver a perfect English Bible untouched by the contingencies of ordinary translation work.[1] This creates an impossible theological burden: every translational choice—including mistakes and revisions—must be reinterpreted as divinely inspired, making God appear deceptive by marking the Bible as historical while actually removing it from human reality.[1]

To escape this trap, recognize that the KJV translators themselves engaged in informed guesswork, made mistakes, changed their minds, and followed a translation process strikingly similar to modern versions.[1] This isn’t a weakness—it’s how translation works.

Second, resist the conspiratorial framing that opposes KJV-onlyism. While KJV-only rhetoric often frames the debate as a cosmic battle against modernism and human reason, the real issue is whether ultimate authority rests in God’s Word or in our own interpretive certainty.[1] Both extremes—KJV-only dogmatism and unchecked interpretive relativism—miss the point.

Instead, embrace a balanced approach that values careful translation work without demanding impossible perfection, maintaining basically literal translation while refusing the idol of perfect consistency.[2] Use multiple faithful translations, consult original languages when possible, and trust the Spirit’s illumination rather than any single version’s supposed perfection.

[1] Jason A. Hentschel, “The King James Only Movement,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America, ed. Paul C. Gutjahr, Oxford Handbooks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 233, 236–237.

[2] Mark Ward, “Word Nerd: Language and the Bible,” Bible Study Magazine (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press; Faithlife, 2021), 14:1:64. 

How to answer a fool like JK ?

The most famous passage on this topic contains an apparent contradiction: avoid matching a fool’s foolish behavior, lest you become equally foolish (Prov 26:4–5), yet sometimes you must respond to foolishness to prevent the fool from becoming self-satisfied in their delusion (Prov 26:4–5). This tension reflects wisdom’s core insight—there’s no single formula. The appropriate response depends on whether silence would embolden destructive behavior or whether engagement would merely waste your energy.

The broader biblical counsel leans heavily toward avoidance and restraint. Speaking to fools proves futile because they dismiss wise counsel (Prov 23:9). Maintaining distance from fools protects you from absorbing their lack of understanding (Prov 14:7). Correcting mockers invites insults and abuse, whereas rebuking the wise produces love and respect (Prov 9:7–8). Even when a wise person confronts a fool in dispute, the fool only rages and ridicules without achieving peace (Prov 29:9).

When engagement becomes necessary, Paul’s instruction to Timothy provides the framework: avoid foolish arguments that generate conflict, while remaining kind, teachable, and patient with everyone (2 Tim 2:23–24). Similarly, after warning a divisive person twice, discontinue the relationship entirely (Titus 3:9–10).

The overarching principle mirrors Jesus’s teaching: don’t waste sacred things on those who will trample them and turn hostile (Matt 7:6). Wisdom involves recognizing when engagement might bear fruit versus when it merely exhausts you without changing hearts. Discernment—not rigid rules—guides the choice.

Westminster Confession’s actual teaching and the KJV-only movement

The Westminster Confession affirms that Critically, while the Confession makes final appeal to original languages, it explicitly requires that Scriptures be translated into vernacular languages so that all believers can read and study them.[1]

This directly contradicts KJV-only doctrine. Belief in KJV superiority is a relatively recent position in fundamentalist circles that goes beyond historic fundamentalism, which concerned itself with God’s Word as final authority—but never vested that authority in a particular translation.[2] The movement itself began in earnest in the latter half of the twentieth century and gained significant momentum only in the mid-1970s.[2]

The Westminster divines would reject KJV-onlyism on multiple grounds: they insisted on consulting multiple versions and translations, emphasized the priority of original languages over any single English rendering, and affirmed that Scripture interprets Scripture—not that any translation perfects the originals. KJV advocates place incomparable stress on the Bible’s materiality—that a physical KJV volume becomes trustworthy through sight and touch, making scriptural tangibleness a fundamental doctrine.[3] This represents a departure from classical Reformed theology, which grounds authority in the inspired originals and the Spirit’s illumination, not in a particular translation’s physical form.

[1] J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 90.
[2] Jeffrey P. Straub, “Fundamentalism and the King James Version: How a Venerable English Translation Became a Litmus Test for Orthodoxy,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (2011), 16:60–61.
[3] Jason A. Hentschel, “The King James Only Movement,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America, ed. Paul C. Gutjahr, Oxford Handbooks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 230–231.

Misinterpretation in KJV (XX)

John 20:17 (King James Version)

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 20:17 (New International Version)

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

17

Jesus

saith

unto

her

,

Touch

me

not

;

for

I

am

not

yet

ὁ3 Ἰησοῦς4

λέγει1

→

αὐτῇ2

ἅπτου7

μου6

Μή5

γὰρ9

→

►10

οὔπω8

←

ho Iēsous

legei

autē

haptou

mou

Mē

gar

oupō

3588 2424

3004

846

680

3450

3361

1063

3768

ascended

to

my

Father

:

but

go

to

my

ἀναβέβηκα10

πρὸς11

μου14

τὸν12 πατέρα13

δὲ16

πορεύου15

πρὸς17

μου20

anabebēka

pros

mou

ton patera

de

poreuou

pros

mou

305

4314

3450

3588 3962

1161

4198

4314

3450

brethren

,

and

say

unto

them

,

I

ascend

unto

my

τοὺς18 ἀδελφούς19

καὶ21

εἰπὲ22

→

αὐτοῖς23

→

Ἀναβαίνω24

πρὸς25

μου28

tous adelphous

kai

eipe

autois

Anabainō

pros

mou

3588 80

2532

2036

846

305

4314

3450

Father

,

and

your

Father

;

and

to

my

God

,

and

your

God

.

τὸν26 πατέρα27

καὶ29

ὑμῶν31

πατέρα30

καὶ32

•

μου34

Θεόν33

καὶ35

ὑμῶν37

Θεὸν36

ton patera

kai

hymōn

patera

kai

mou

Theon

kai

hymōn

Theon

3588 3962

2532

5216

3962

2532

3450

2316

2532

5216

2316

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 20:17.

John 20:17 commands “Touch me not,” but the Greek verb is a present-continuous-imperative, indicating Mary Magdalene was already holding onto Jesus and should “stop holding” or “do not keep on holding” him.[1] This mistranslation has fueled theological speculation about why the risen Jesus forbade physical contact, when the text actually describes Jesus gently releasing himself from her grasp.

Our observation aligns with scholarly analysis of the Greek grammar. The verb in question appears in the present tense within a prohibition structure, which grammatically signals that an ongoing action should cease rather than forbidding an action that hasn’t yet begun.[1] This means Jesus was instructing Mary to release her grasp rather than prohibiting initial contact—“Let go of me!” rather than “Don’t touch me.”[1]

The theological implications shift considerably under this reading. Traditional interpretations imagined Jesus needed to ascend to heaven for divine approval before allowing human contact, then return to the disciples.[1] However, the ascension statement more likely indicates that the resurrected Lord’s mode of relationship with his followers would fundamentally change—physical clinging to his earthly form would no longer characterize their interaction.[2] Mary’s instinct to hold onto the familiar embodied Jesus represents attachment to a pattern of relating that the resurrection itself had already transformed.

This interpretation also resolves an apparent contradiction within the Gospel accounts. Matthew describes women grasping Jesus’ feet in worship (Matt 28:9), and Luke records Jesus inviting disciples to touch him to confirm his physical reality. (Luke 24:39) These parallel accounts suggest the issue wasn’t whether touching was permissible, but rather Mary’s attempt to maintain the pre-resurrection relationship through physical contact.[2] Jesus’ command redirects her from nostalgic clinging toward her apostolic commission—she must release him not because he’s untouchable, but because her role has shifted from disciple-at-his-side to witness-to-the-resurrection.

[1] Beauford H. Bryant and Mark S. Krause, John, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1998). [See here, here, here.]
[2] Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 25b:301.

Misinterpretation in KJV (XIX)

Mark 6:20 (King James Version) For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

Mark 6:20 (New International Version) 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

20

For

Herod

feared

John

,

knowing

that

he

was

a

γὰρ2

ὁ1 Ἡρώδης3

ἐφοβεῖτο4

τὸν5 Ἰωάννην6

εἰδὼς7

←

αὐτὸν8

•

►9

gar

ho Hērōdēs

ephobeito

ton Iōannēn

eidōs

auton

1063

3588 2264

5399

3588 2491

1492

846

just

man

and

an

holy

,

and

observed

him

;

and

when

he

δίκαιον10

ἄνδρα9

καὶ11

→

ἅγιον12

καὶ13

συνετήρει14

αὐτόν15

καὶ16

→

→

dikaion

andra

kai

hagion

kai

synetērei

auton

kai

1342

435

2532

40

2532

4933

846

2532

heard

him

,

he

did

many

things

,

and

heard

him

gladly

.

ἀκούσας17

αὐτοῦ18

→

ἐποίει20

πολλὰ19

•

καὶ21

ἤκουε24

αὐτοῦ23

ἡδέως22

akousas

autou

epoiei

polla

kai

ēkoue

autou

hēdeōs

191

846

4160

4183

2532

191

846

2234

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mk 6:20.

συντηρέω (syntēreō), preserve; protect; defend. Cognate words: διατηρέω, παρατηρέω, παρατήρησις, τηρέω, τήρησις. Heb. equiv. fr. LXX: שׁמר (1×)

The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (2011).

συν-τηρέω, -ῶ: impf. 3 pers. sing. συνετήρει; pres. pass. 3 pers. plur. συντηροῦνται; [fr. Aristot. de plant. 1, 1 p. 816a, 8 down];

a. to preserve (a thing from perishing or being lost): τί, pass. (opp. to ἀπόλλυσθαι), Mt. 9:17; Lk. 5:38 [T WH om. Tr br. the cl.]; τινά, to guard one, keep him safe, fr. a plot, Mk. 6:20 (ἑαυτὸν ἀναμάρτητον, 2 Macc. 12:42 [cf. Tob. 1:11; Sir. 13:12]).

b. to keep within one’s self, keep in mind (a thing, lest it be forgotten [cf. σύν, II. 4]): πάντα τὰ ῥήματα, Lk. 2:19 (τὸ ῥῆμα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, Dan. 7:28 Theod.; τὴν γνώμην παρʼ ἑαυτῷ, Polyb. 31, 6, 5; [absol. Sir. 39:2]).*

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers., 1889), 606.

  † συντηρέω.

  συντηρέω1 means “to keep” in the memory ἡ δὲ Μαρία πάντα συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα συμβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς, Lk. 2:19;2 the prep. gives the verb an intensive sense. One also finds the meaning “to think of someone”3 and care for him, Herm. m., 8, 10, “to guard, protect someone,”4 Mk. 6:20; Herm. m., 5, 1, 7; s., 5, 6, 2 and pass. “to be preserved”5 (wine-skins). Mt. 9:17; Lk. 5:38 textus receptus. - Riesenfeld Ernst Harald Riesenfeld, Uppsala (Vol. 5–6, 8).

Christian Maurer, “Τίθημι, Ἀθετέω, Ἀθέτησις, Ἐπιτίθημι, Ἐπίθεσις, Μετατίθημι, Μετάθεσις, Παρατίθημι, Παραθήκη, [παρακαταθήκη], Προτίθημι, Πρόθεσις, Προστίθημι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 151.

4933.      συντηρέω suntēreō; from 4862 and 5083; to keep close, i.e. preserve:—kept … safe(1), preserved(1), treasured(1).

Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

4933.  συντηρέω suntērĕō, soon-tay-reh´-o; from 4862 and 5083; to keep closely together, i.e. (by impl.) to conserve (from ruin); ment. to remember (and obey):—keep, observe, preserve.

James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 69.

The Greek verb suntēreō in Mark 6:20 carries protective force that “observe” entirely misses. The term means “to preserve a thing from perishing or being lost, to guard one, to keep him safe,”[1] a meaning fundamentally different from passive observation. The KJV rendering obscures Herod’s active role in shielding John from danger—specifically, from Herodias’s murderous intentions.

Herod kept John safe from the evil plots of Herodias, who was seeking to kill him, and the imperfect tense indicates he “kept on keeping him safe,” maintaining a constant watch over John.[1] This wasn’t mere surveillance; it was deliberate intervention. Mark describes Herod as “protecting him,”[2] a rendering that captures the protective dimension entirely absent from “observed.”

The broader narrative context amplifies this distinction. Herodias harbored a continual desire to kill John that had been frustrated up to that point, but “she was not able to,”[2] precisely because Herod’s protective custody prevented her from acting. She had no power herself to order the execution; Herod knew that John was a righteous and holy man and kept protecting him and even listening to him.[3]

The verb choice reveals Herod’s internal conflict. Herod feared John, with the imperfect tense indicating he was in a continual state of fear.[1] This fear—rooted in John’s moral authority—motivated protective action. The turmoil in Herod’s mind makes his action all the more damnable,[2] since he eventually surrenders to pressure despite his own better judgment and his demonstrated commitment to John’s safety.

The KJV’s “observed” reduces a complex portrait of reluctant protection to mere watching, obscuring how Herod actively resisted Herodias’s demands until manipulated at his birthday feast. The Greek demands recognition that Herod was John’s guardian, not simply his observer.

[1] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 1:128.
[2] Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 304.
[3] Henry E. Turlington, “Mark,” in Matthew–Mark, ed. Clifton J. Allen, Broadman Bible Commentary (Broadman Press, 1969), 317.

Misinterpretation in KJV (XVIII)

2 Corinthians 12:2 (King James Version)

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2 (New International Version)

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

I

know

a

man

in

Christ

who

fourteen

years

ago

→

οἶδα1

→

ἄνθρωπον2

ἐν3

Χριστῷ4

τὸν23 τοιοῦτον24

δεκατεσσάρων7

ἐτῶν6

πρὸ5

oida

anthrōpon

en

Christō

ton toiouton

dekatessarōn

etōn

pro

was

caught

up

to

the

third

heaven

.

Whether

it

was

in

the

body

→

ἁρπαγέντα22

←

ἕως25

►27

τρίτου26

οὐρανοῦ27

εἴτε8

•

•

ἐν9

→

σώματι10

harpagenta

heōs

tritou

ouranou

eite

en

sōmati

•

•

or

out

of

the

body

I

do

not

know

—

God

οὐκ11

οἶδα12

εἴτε13

ἐκτὸς14

►16

τοῦ15

σώματος16

→

►18

οὐκ17

οἶδα18

ὁ19 θεὸς20

ouk

oida

eite

ektos

tou

sōmatos

ouk

oida

ho theos

knows	.
οἶδεν21
oiden

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 2 Co 12:2.

2 Corinthians 12:2 renders “I knew a man” when the Greek verb tense demands “I know a man,”[1] fundamentally altering whether Paul speaks of a past revelation or present knowledge. This mistranslation obscures the passage’s rhetorical and theological dimensions.

The Grammatical Issue

The Greek present-tense verb indicates Paul’s ongoing knowledge of this person’s experience, not a past acquaintance. By rendering it in the past tense, the KJV creates temporal distance between Paul’s speaking and his knowledge, suggesting he merely recalls an old event rather than maintaining present awareness of it. The shift from present to past tense fundamentally changes the force of Paul’s statement.

The Rhetorical Context

Paul is employing third-person speech as part of a satirical style in which he pretends to be less than he really is, and the uncertainty regarding details is part of the satirical nature of these verses. In verses 1–6 Paul uses paradoxical language, treating ecstatic heavenly visions—which his opponents valued—in a satirical fashion as having no value in authenticating one’s apostleship, speaking in a way his readers would have recognized as “tongue in cheek.”[2] The present-tense formulation strengthens this ironic posture: Paul maintains present knowledge of his own experience while feigning detachment through third-person narration.

The Theological Significance

Paul states that he actually ascended into the highest heaven but does not know whether he went in his physical body or whether the experience was in his spirit only. Indeed, it did happen; he was caught up to the highest heaven. The question for Paul was whether it was a bodily ascension or “in spirit only.”[2] The present tense underscores Paul’s certainty about the event itself while maintaining genuine uncertainty about its nature—a distinction the KJV’s past tense obscures. By using “knew,” the KJV weakens Paul’s rhetorical irony and makes his uncertainty appear more comprehensive than the text intends.

[1] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Philippians, Treasures from Scripture Series (Springfield, IL: Rod Mattoon, 2004), 301.
[2] Roger L. Omanson and John Ellington, A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 217–218.