By: Brandon T. Ward
If you have been a reader of this site for a while or gone through our Bible Studies you probably realize by now we love and only use the King James Version Bible (KJV). You would have also noticed we use a Strong’s Concordance in our studies.
Many people are surprised or even offended when it is pointed out that the KJV Bible has errors. Some will offer scripture to refute those claims. One verse is, 2 Timothy 3:16 which states: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Another is Psalms 12:6, “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
Those are true statements. However, what the reader must understand is our Bible was not written in English. It was translated into English from the “manuscripts” which are the writings our Bibles came from.
Did God translate the KJV Bible?
No, it was man.
Is man perfect?
With that said, God’s Word, the ancient and original manuscripts are perfect, however, they no longer exist. Instead, we rely upon copies of the original manuscripts to make up the Bibles we all cherish today. Further, once man places his hand on the many manuscripts that are available and creates a new document through translation we can and do have errors.
The original KJV Bible was translated in the Year of our Lord 1611. The translators were so concerned about the task they performed they wrote a lengthy letter to the reader, stating they did the best they could, but the reader should use due diligence in reading their translation. Meaning, the reader should verify the KJV Bible against the manuscripts.
The original KJV Bible of 1611 included the Apocrypha. The KJV Bible we all read and love today was translated in the Year of our Lord 1769. Obviously, we no longer have the Apocrypha in our Bibles. Can you imagine the outrage by the reader of that time? Was the Word of God corrupted when the Apocrypha was removed?
Letter from the Translators
I would highly encourage you to read the letter from the translators yourself so you will have a better understanding of the KJV Bible and how it came into existence.
Original Copy: This is the original 1611 KJV Bible Letter from the Translators.
Translated Copy: The original version will be very difficult to read as it is in old English. This is a modern version of the text above.
Why We Like the KJV Bible
We like the KJV Bible as the Strong’s Concordance is based upon it. With both the KJV Bible and the Strong’s Concordance the reader can translate the words back to the original languages themselves. Thus performing our own due diligence as the translators recommended.
We highly recommend the “Companion Bible” by E.W. Bullinger. This is a KJV Bible, however off to the side are the notes of Mr. Bullinger who was an outstanding scholar of the Word. This Bible also comes with 198 appendixes to aid the reader in the Word of God.
We also recommend using a good Strong’s Concordance. Many of the newer versions are being altered and no longer reflect the original meaning of the words in the manuscripts.
We would like to point out to our readers that you can download “E-Sword” (Bible Software) for free which includes a KJV Bible and a Strong’s Concordance.
Why Not The NIV Bible?
While the KJV Bible does contain errors as we have documented in several of our studies, it is still one of the best Bibles available to the english reader.
On the other hand, the NIV Bible is riddled with errors and in my opinion, some of them are deliberate. Let’s document that.
One example brings us to Isaiah 14:12.
KJV – “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” – Isaiah 14:12
NIV – “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” – Isaiah 14:12
Notice, in the KJV Bible it is very specific with whom we are talking about, “Lucifer”. Satan and Christ are both known as the “Morning Star” so why remove the word “Lucifer” when it makes it abundantly clear who we are discussing?