KJVER Bible Text

Dr. Walter D. Huyck Jr., D.Min.

July 07, 2010 - Lastest Comments, Final Report

As a pastor I have often been asked by New Christians, "Which version of the Bible should I use?"  I have always found myself recommending only the King James Bible, because I view it as the Word of God. The King James (KJ) Bible is a translation, but the translators and their method, combined with my 22 years of Bible study, led me to believe that the KJ Bible is the nearest possible preservation of the Word of God available to English speaking people.  Granted the vernacular of the KJ Bible is written in old English, but with diligent study and continued usage people quickly adapt to its language.  I love the KJ Bible.

Over the years I have often said that I would not be opposed to another emendation of the KJ Bible to adjust the language for people in our day.  Many have claimed to do just that but in the process have incessantly found it necessary to change words in the text that were serious violations and departures from the Greek text (The Textus Receptus).  These changes were observably the result of the opinion of the editors or translators that the modern Greeks texts were more accurate than the Greek Text the Church of our Lord has always held in its hands, the Textus Receptus.  Therefore, they inevitably would corrupt the Word of God, which is incredibly reprehensible to God.  Hence, I have never found a modern Bible text that I felt was accurate and focused on the preservation of the Word of God.

The KJVER was brought to my attention just this last week.  My initial response was skeptical.  So I checked my favorite proof texts and in a matter of minutes realized that this text was different.  So I purchased a copy and have been searching through it over the last couple of days.  The following is the result of the last few days examination.  I must say that I am initially excited with this text.  However, it will take some time of diligent study to fully examine its content.  The findings of the last few days follow.

Considerations

In examining the KJVER bible I have discovered, by initial and brief examination but six objectionable departures in the text, with two additional preferences.  These are listed below in detail with brief comments.  I also found one very objectionable Biblical Term Definition dealing with the Red Sea, which ought to be left out of the definition list altogether.  I find this definition unscholarly and unnecessary, however it is not a text issue.

In examining the text of the KJVER I recognized it as the nearest modern text that is as close to a 21^st century emendation as I have seen.  The thee(s), thou(s), and eth(s) are handled with the utmost care for preservation of the text.  There are only six occasions that I have discovered  where a violation of a word may have occurred.  Of these six, three are minor (those dealing with the word bastard), the last three are grave in my opinion (dealing with forms of the word quicken).  On two occasions the word quicken is handled in a way that runs against my personal preferences, and thus are minor.  Therefore, there are only eight places in the text, thus far, where I would like to see adjustments made.

As a KJ Bible preacher, or more accurately a Textus Receptus Christian, I would find this text almost completely acceptable and recommendable.  However, the importance of preserving every word of the Bible causes me hesitation.  If the editor(s) and publisher of this text were to make the eight suggested adjustments to this text, I would be able to call this a true emendation and would be able to support this text with the same certain resolve I have given to the KJ Bible.

The one definition concerning the Red Sea offends me, and I would love to see it removed.  However, it is not in the text and therefore is not critical in my opinion.  It would please me greatly if it were removed.

While I have been searching this text I must admit I have not read the whole text.  Today I will begin using the text for my daily Bible readings and will search the whole text in detail over the next year.  The response of the editors and publishers to my observations will influence my pursuit of this text in weeks to come.  I post this opinion for those who are seeking out opinions concerning this version of the Bible.

Findings:

Deuteronomy 23:2 ² A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Deuteronomy 23.2 KJVER An illegitimate child shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

Zechariah 9:6 ⁶ And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.

Zechariah 9.6 KJVER An illegitimate child shall dwell in Ash’dod, and I will cut off the pride of the Phi-lis’tines.

Hebrews 12:8 ⁸ But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Hebrew 12.8 KJVER But if you be without chastisement whereof all are partakers, then are you illegitimate children, and not sons.

Bastard is a strong word in our culture, but it is an accurate word for word translation.  In  my opinion bastard should have been left in the text, perhaps underlined and defined.  But it is the most accurate translation.  I strongly recommend putting bastard back in the text.

John 5:21 ²¹ For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

John 5.21 KJVER – For as the Father raises up the dead, and makes them alive; even so the son makes alive whom He wills. 

This is a departure.  Quicken should have been left in this text.  The lack of quicken in the high lighted and italicized text implies the lack of the word altogether.  Quicken is contained in the original Greek text.  The word quickens should be left in this text in both of its usages.  Underlining the word and defining it at the end of the verse would have been far more appropriate, as in the case of John 6.63.  In this case I would say that a word has been dropped from the text.  Is this a great violation?  For those of us who believe that every word must be preserved, because every word belongs to God, yes, it is a meaningful departure. 

Romans 4:17 ¹⁷ (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Romans 4.17 KJVER (As it is written, I have made you a father of many nations,) before Him whom he believed, even God, who makes alive the dead, and calls those things which be not as though they were. 

This is another case where the italicized words imply that the words do not belong in the text, but quickeneth is in the Greek text.  Again I recommend that quickens be put back in with an end note definition.  This represent the loss of a word from the text in my opinion. 

1 Corinthians 15:36 ³⁶ Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

1 Corinthians 15.36 KJVER You fool, that which you sow is not made alive, except it die: 

In this instance I find no violation.  But just a preference, I would like to see quickened left in the text.  However I find this instance acceptable.  I just like the idea of one word for one word when possible, and I find quicken to meet that literal qualification. 

1 Corinthians 15:45 ⁴⁵ And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJVER And so it is written, The first man Ad’am was made a living soul; the last Ad’am was made a living spirit. 

In this case I find a linguistic and doctrinal error.  The Greek word ζῳοποιοῦν “is used in the NT in an exclusively soteriological sense (on the concept of life → ζῶ 1).”^[1] The replacement of quickening with living in this case removes the life giving sense of the text.  Christ is not just a living spirit, he is a life giving spirit.  I strongly recommend the reinsertion of quickening, with definition, in this text.

1 Timothy 6:13 ¹³ I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

1 Timothy 6.13 KJVER I give you charge in the sight of God, who makes alive all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Ponti-us Pi’lat witnessed a good confession: 

In this instance I find no violation.  But just a preference, I would like to see quickens left in the text.  However I find this instance acceptable.  I just like the idea of one word for one word when possible, and I find quicken to meet that literal qualification. 

Changes Discovered In Reading The Text

The KJ Word Privily - October 15, 2008

 In Judges 9.31 the KJVER changes Privily to Craftily

In 1 Sam 24.4 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Psalm 10.8 the KJVER changes Privily to Secret

In Psalm 11.2 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Psalm 31.4 the KJVER changes Privily for Secretly

In Psalm 64.5 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Psalm 101.5 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Psalm 142.3 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Proverbs 1.11 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Proverbs 1.18 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Matthew 1.19 the word Privily is preserved

In Matthew 2.7 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Acts 16.37 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In Galatians 2.4 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

In 2 Peter 2.1 the KJVER changes Privily to Secretly

These word changes are properly noted in the Word Change Index in the forward of the KJVER.  I had missed these changes previously when I investigated the index.  However, I caught these while reading through the text.  As I considered each change I find no violence done to the text with these changes.  They are accurate and understandable changes in each case. 

However, there will be many KJ Bible people who will take offence at even these changes because the preservation and integrity of the Word of God is one of their foundational concerns.  These objections would have been completely avoided if the word "Privily" had been underlined and the substituted word place at the end of the verse for definition and understanding.

Again, for those desiring a diligent determination about these changes, there is no violence done to the text in any of these cases.  Each of these changes are literal, word-for-word, changes that express clearly the intent of the Hebrew and Greek text.  I find these acceptable and accurate.

Working Through the Text - April 27,2009 Report

I have indeed been working my way through this translations of the Bible.  I have found a couple more word changes in the text, for instance “paps” was changed to “breasts,” but nothing that concerns me.  Of all modern translations the KJVER still holds high regard in my opinion.  There are a couple of places in the Psalms where the pros of the poetry seems a bit awkward without thee, thou, and shall, but they are manageable.   

I am a bit irritated that the publishers and editors did not return any response to my friendly inquires.  I wrote them both, more than once, but received no acknowledgment at all. 

I am a few months from completing a through reading of the text.  So, far it holds a high regard with me.  I believe that it is true to the Textus Receptus, I have not discovered so much as a single marginal note that does violence to this manuscript.  I still hold that this is a good emendation and for those who desire a translation without the thee’s and thou’s I would recommend the text.  I have personally read the majority of the text now and judging from what I have discovered, thus far, I am confident that nothing too surprising is likely to appear in the remainder of my reading. 

Still, to be thoroughly honest, I prefer the good old KJ Bible.  I have become accustomed to the thee’, and thou’s and just personally prefer it. 

The KJ Bible and its language commands honor and respect, in my opinion.

Continuing Through the Text - July 1, 2009 Report

I have continued to read through the KJVER and have no new findings that are worthy to report.  However, I did hear from the publisher.  The word I received from them is that a new version of the text will be published within 90 days that will correct most of the concerns I have listed in this document.  This greatly encourages me.  Therefore, all we need to do is wait for the new edition, diligently examine the concerns outlined, and if all is as projected by the publisher then we will have a great text to use in conjunction with the KJ Bible.  I am watching for this revision with great anticipation.

I will ask the publisher to let me know when the revision is available and will publish the ISBN numbers for you on this page.

Contact with publisher - May 25, 2010

Recently I have received numerous requests about whether a second edition for the KJVER has been printed or not.  I have attempted to contact the publisher numerous times without success and I have not been able to find or confirm an updated second edition for this version of the Bible.  It would be great if a second edition were produced that worked out most, if not all, of the problems I have outlined.

 

The Revised Edition is Available - July 07, 2010

The Publisher has not responded to any of my email messages of enquiry about the revised edition.  However, a friend of This Christian Journey emailed me the other day and informed me that he had discovered a new revised edition of the KJVER and had actually received a comment from the publisher.  So I went to my local Christian Book store and found a copy of the KJVER that indicated it was a revised edition on the title page.  I then compared the new edition to my current list of discoveries with the following results.

I went through my list and found that only one change had been made to the list of items I had found and reported.  The critical error of 1 Cor 15.45 was corrected; the text used the word quickening instead of the previous and objectionable living.  However, no other changes could be found.  The critical error of Romans 4.17 where "quickeneth" in the KJV was rendered "makes alive" in the KJVER in italics is still present and this is a major error.  The word bastard is still rendered illegitimate child or the appropriate form thereof. 

I also noted that the definition for Red Sea in the dictionary remains unchanged as well.  I noted in my previous comments that this was not as critical to me because it was not in the actual text of the Bible, however the more I consider this secular, liberal, and unscholarly definition the more it offends me.  It has always been laughable to me, from my first exposure to the idea of a Reed Sea in my Bible College studies, to my present graduate studies, but what it suggests about the Word of God and the work of God and how it might affect new Christians still growing in their faith stirs up a zeal  within me.  I do not like this definition. 

I will recommend this text to people who just refuse to use the KJ Bible because I find that it is the closest text to an emendation that I have found thus far.  It contains, as I have discovered thus far, only one critical error (Rom 4.17), yet provides a text that is easier to read and will not contradict the KJ Bible when referenced in Worship Services and Bible Studies.  I find it largely true to the Greek Textus Receptus as is the KJ Bible.

I now intend to purchase a copy of this revised edition and will use it in my daily God and I time for a year to thoroughly examine the text as I had for the original edition.

I hope this helps.  God Bless and may God use you greatly in His kingdoms work.

Final Report - Nov 21, 2011

I have now completed reading the entire KJVER revised edition all the way through.  There were a few other word changes that caught my eye, but they were minor, in my opinion.  I have returned to my King James Bible and will strongly recommend the King James Bible over any other English version.  Why?

• The Inspired Word of God - The King James Bible is the only English translation that came from the only inspired manuscripts available to us, the Textus Recptus and its supporting source documents.  I know many would argue that we do not have the Original Manuscripts so we cannot have the Inspired Word of God, yet God's Word says,

Psalm 12:6-7 ⁶ The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. ⁷ Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God has promised to preserve His inspired Word to every generation, that includes ours, and I trust God's ability to keep His Word more than I trust Satan to destroy it or man to manipulate it.  Hence, the Textus Receptus, which the Church has always had in its possession and use, is the inspired Word of God and the King James Bible in English is the Inspired Word of God for us today.

• A Literal Word For Word Translation - The King James Bible is the only literal, Word for Word, translation that was translated from the Textus Receptus.  It focuses on a word for word translation and has the integrity to point out every word that was added for grammatical understanding by placing them in italics.  The King James Bible gives English readers a level of integrity not provided by any other modern translation.  There are other literal translations but they use the non-inspired Greek texts that resulted from the textual criticism of the late 19th and 20th centuries and the relatively few manuscripts, from that system, that stand in apparent opposition to the Majority Text.

• The Plenary Nature Of God's Word - Almighty God warns us to be careful not to change a single word in the Bible.  He warns

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Revelation 22:18-19 ¹⁸ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ¹⁹ And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Matthew 5:18-19 ¹⁸ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ¹⁹ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, indicated that we must meticulously keep every dot on an "i" and every cross on a "t" when dealing with the Word of God.  Hence, to change a single pen stroke or a single word is to elevate the opinions of man over the inspired, "God-breathed," Word of God.

Modern translations, when they claim to be the Word of God, ignore the inspiration of Scripture and elevate the thoughts and ideas of fallible human beings over the Authority of Jehovah God.

The plenary nature of the Word of God and the warning given to us about the violation of its integrity is the reason for my diligence when it comes to changing even a single word in God's Word.  I see no reason to change words for political correctness or for the sake for tender ears.  I find the word of God often bold but never vulgar.  We must let God say what He intended to say.

For these reasons, and more, I will always recognize the King James Bible as the inspired Word of God in English.  I consider modern translations manipulations and perversions of the Word of God.  The KJVER revised edition is very close to an emendation of the King James Bible.  However, it still falls somewhat short.  I will continue to use my King James Bible.  Even the "Thee's" and "Thou's" are not difficult to those who are seeking the inspired Word of God.

In the end, I want the inspired Word of God rather than some person's opinion about the Word of God.  How about you?