King James Only: If You Are Not Reading the KJV You Do Not Know What You Are 'Missing'

Repost from 8-10-08: Sticking With the King James Bible - Case Closed
re: KJV vs. so-called 'modern' versions
Below are some screenshots from the "King James Bible Page" website (an excellent resource - recommended) taken from what the author calls the 'magic marker' page. The author's introduction to the page is below also. As he points out, the "strikethroughs" provide an excellent 'visual' to help understand the weightiness of the issues with regard to the so-called King James Bible controversy.
The history of the bible is a topic that requires a lot of study, but every Christian should at the very least know something about a certain two men by the names of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. These two men came along in the early 1870's and basically set about to rewrite the King James Version of the bible, evidently convincing the right people that it was necessary to do so. After many years of work, Westcott and Hort produced their own Greek text designed to replace the textus receptus, i.e. the 'received text', which is the Greek text that the King James New Testament is based upon. This new Westcott-Hort Greek text was markedly inconsistent with the 'textus receptus', with thousands of words having been changed and entire verses either rephrased or missing altogether. It was the basis for the first ever revision of the King James Bible, released by Westcott and Hort in 1881. They called it the "English Revised Version".
Many more revisions and newer 'versions' were to follow, and to this present day the anti-KJV'ers are seemingly still searching for just the 'right one'. Meanwhile, the incomparable King James Bible, aka the Authorized Version, will soon be celebrating it's 400th birthday in 2011 - and it still has all of it's words. Psalms 119:89 Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Have a look at the handiwork of Westcott and Hort. It's an eye-opener. The links at the bottom will go to the website where the rest of it can be seen. (who were: Westcott/Hort)

from: King James Bible Page
"Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?"
©2002 by Brandon Staggs
"This chart illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was replaced with a text assembled by Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century and used as the basis for the English Revised Version, which nearly all modern translations closely follow.
The text shown here is the King James Version. Words, sentences, or entire verses in strikethrough illustrate portions that have been removed from the text underlying the KJV New Testament. Not all modern versions are the same. Sometimes the NASB will include a word the NIV doesn't, or the NRSV might omit a phrase the NIV and NASB both retain, etc... but for the most part, the examples below represent nearly all of the popular modern versions. (Psudeo-KJV versions such as the NKJV are far more subtle and are a different case. See the articles section for NKJV examinations.)
Compare your modern version and see what the KJV has that yours doesn't. This list is not comprehensive, it is just a sample! The modern critical text [Westcott/Hort] that forms the basis for nearly all modern versions omits the equivalent of the entire books of 1st and 2nd Peter."

Go to 'King James Bible Page' for the remainder of: Luke - John; also: Part 2: Acts - Revelation
compare: Bible history-William Tyndale


Anonymous said...

After reading about the Darby translation and the similarities to occult words and their meanings, I am rapidly moving from DT only to KJV only. I do believe in the soon coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for His saints (pre-tribulation rapture)


Daily I pray for God-given wisdom and understanding and discernment, so desperately needed in these wicked times, not "intelligence".


Even some of the KJV only people appear corrupt. I believe Gail Riplinger is a disinfo agent and a fraud.


I do not agree with everything in these links; they are simply to beware of the Darby translation and avoid G Riplinger.

There seems to be so much confusion out there and looking for esoteric meanings and symbolism is not the way to the truth that is in Christ Jesus.

tom m. said...


Couple of things in response to your comments. First, moving from DT to KJV would be a very good move. As to the Darby translation itself, no man can rewrite the KJV so from that perspective the DT really is a non-issue. Having said that though it is very interesting to note that the only Darby translations that are available today, both OT and NT, were published after his death. Darby died in 1882 (1800-1882) and the Darby translation in use today is an 1890 edition, or based on it. Darby never even finished the OT, that was done by others. Apparently even this first published complete NT version (1884) was pieced together from separate works and then 'collated' and revised by others after his death to make up the 'Darby NT' [link].

Seems it was further revised in 1923, and then again in 1961, as shown in this quote from bibledatabase:

"Darby English Bible - "Darby's Holy Scriptures, A New Translation from the Original Languages" was published originally in two parts: the New Testament (1884) and the [Old and] New Testament (1890). These are English translations of a collation done on his earlier German and French translations. Both are posthumous, as John Nelson Darby himself died in 1882. This current e-text reflects the even more recent Guildford/London edition of 1961"

Without question Darby did not name this volume. Anyway, here is the interesting issue: given the history of the Darby, i.e. 'finished' and repeatedly revised after-death, can there be any real certainty that the "Darby translation" is even accurate to his original.

Again, no man can rewrite the KJV, so it is not a question of whether Darby's translation is good or not, but of whether or not those who would vilify Darby might skew it according to their own agenda. It is definitely not out of the question.

At any rate the real motive of the Darby issue is to attack dispensationalism and pre-trib. The truth of which, on both subjects, is not dependent in any way on what Darby did or did not teach but on the Word of God alone. This they (e.g. Liberty To The Captives) do not comprehend.

Rev. 22:20