KJVER Bible Text
Walter D. Huyck Jr., D.Min.
2010 - Lastest Comments,
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.
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
In examining the text
of the KJVER I recognized it as the nearest modern text that is as close to a 21st
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
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.
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.
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.
KJVER But if you be without chastisement whereof all are partakers, then are
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
them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
John 5.21 KJVER
– For as the Father raises up the dead, and
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
dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
KJVER (As it is written, I have made you a father of many nations,) before
Him whom he believed, even God, who
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:
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.
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
In this case I find a linguistic and doctrinal error.
The Greek word
“is used in the NT in an exclusively
sense (on the concept of life →
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
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
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
owever, 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
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
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.
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
I do not like this definition.
I will recommend this text to people who just
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,
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,
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.
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.
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
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?
Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G.
(1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament.
Translation of: Exegetisches Wr̲terbuch
zum Neuen Testament. (2:110).
Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans. Highlight added