KJV or Modern Versions?

Why do I use the King James version of the Bible rather than the modern versions? Please watch this brief video which gives a few examples of how the modern versions have changed or deleted words of the Bible. Can this be good?

NOTE: There is concern about some Gail Riplinger's teachings so watch these videos prayerfully and with discernment.





Matthew Snyder said…
Great Videos Keep up the good Work

A Bible Believer
Anonymous said…
The King James has more words, but this is not because other translations have deleted anything, it's that words have actually been added to the KJV, through the transmission of the text.

Also it's not good to lump all translations into the big category "modern translations". Some modern translations are absolutely heretical (New World Translation from the Jehovah's Witnesses for example) and don't deserve to be called the Word of God because they've been purposefully manipulated. Others are very good translations, based on excellent scholarship by conservative, God-fearing men.

The KJV actually went through several revisions over the years to get the version we know today. Scripture was written once. Translations are written, then edited, again and again.

For a thorough investigation, look into "The King James Controversy" by James White, which deals with this issue of the KJV vs modern translations. He dives deep into history and explains why we can trust or not trust certain translations. He also addresses Gail Riplinger (the woman in the video) and her concerns. In addition he explains how English speaking peoples were very resistent to the KJV when it first came out, as they already had their traditional, standard translation then, which was based on the Septuagint, a translation which they believed to be the literal Word of God (sound familiar?). The controversy of Bible translations is very, very old.

Here's an article by James White responding to Gail's book, New Age Bible Versions:

I was bound for some years by a fundamental independent Baptist church, aka Legalists. They insisted on the King James as the inspired translation for English speakers, and the only one "authorized" for us. I believed them because I was a baby Christian, but was somewhat suspicious, and put it on the back burner to investigate later. When I started to research the issue, I learned that Bible versions is one issue of many that some Christians sieze and use as a means of legalistic oppression on others. Over time, I learned the history of the texts, the history of the Church, how the different translations came to be, and who facilitated the process.

Take care, and God bless you.

Anonymous said…
Misinformation Marisa! I was bound by a satanic coven, and I can discern that unlike new age versions, the KJV was not edited by occultists or homosexuals, does not omit the name 'Lucifer', does not tell christians to accept 'aliens', and does not tell christians to worship the 'One'. I believe this because I am a very mature Christian who has directly experienced the other side and recognise satanic doctrine when I see it...
Anonymous said…
It's really easy for we as christians to get bound up by legalistic subjects such as should we read the KJV or maybe the NKJV,etc... sure we need to be on guard for the snares of satan, but somethings aren't worth the fight! An evangelist once said that when he was just starting out, an old preacher told him "Son, always use the King James version,cause if it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for us". He was serious. Like Paul even had a bible...muchless the KJV which wasn't printed until King James ruled England hundred's of years later. Just saying. God Bless!