Is the 1611 KJV Bible God’s Only Inspired Word?

Is the 1611 King James Bible God’s Only Inspired Word?

In the early 1970s, a movement swept across the country. This is called the King James Only movement. Though not a new idea, a man by the name of Peter Ruckman began to aggressively teach that the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the only inspired Bible. They commonly refer to every new version as “perversions.”

Just go to YouTube and search “KJV Only.” With few exceptions, you will notice from the profile of the video authors, this movement has basically affected only a generation of believers. Most of the creators are 40 and older. While most conservative Bible colleges and universities still use the KJV as their primary text, they are, for the most part, no longer King James Only.

What does the KJV Only crowd teach? Why do they make the claim that the KJV Bible is the only Bible people should use? They believe that the KJV Bible is God’s perfectly preserved Word and is based on the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to have ever existed. This article examines that position.

Is it correct that the KJV Bible contains no errors?

At least one person thinks so. “The King James Bible, AV 1611 is the preserved words of God. It has no errors, that means the text is perfect.” (Lawrence Bronsing, Peter Ruckman)

Already, the KJV has undergone many revisions. The KJV that most people have today is not the 1611, but a revised version that dates back to the 1800’s. The earliest known revision was made in 1612, one year after the original was printed. This was necessary because typographical errors were made.

Was it a surprise to those who translated the KJV that mistakes would be made? No. According to the preface in the 1611 Bible, the translators knew this was a possibility. “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may be corrected, and the trueth set in place.” “…some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”1

Unlike the translators in 1611, the original authors of the Bible (Moses, Paul, John and many others) knew full well that what they were writing was guided by the hand of God. When they composed, they knew their work was Scripture. That is not true of the 1611 translators. While they performed a great task, they knew their humanity would pass errors along. Since the original translators of the 1611 KJV knew their work was open to scrutiny and there may be “some imperfections and blemishes,” why do we have a movement of people today that think otherwise? Simply, they have a distorted (or in many cases puerile) understanding of inspiration and preservation.

Is it true that the KJV Bible is based on superior Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

James Jaspers Ray states that the Greek text behind the KJV (Textus Receptus {TR}) is made of the original Greek manuscripts that Paul the Apostle and others wrote. He says, “Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to be founded upon corrupted manuscripts.”2 Is the TR really based on the best manuscripts?

A man named Erasmus gathered several manuscripts of the New Testament. Of all the manuscripts he had, not one of them contained the last six verses of Revelation. He translated those verses from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek.

When Erasmus translated 1 John 5:7-8, several men charged him that he left out the phrase “…the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth…” He simply replied that no Greek manuscript was available to support the reading. A few days later a manuscript appeared. Was this “made to order?” Erasmus thought so, and included the phrase only as a marginal note. 3 Though Erasmus was diligent in compiling a Greek translation, he did so with the best resources available to him. Today, the resources are greater and more reliable, thus providing the basis for more reliable versions.

What does the Bible teach about translating, inspiration, and preservation?

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused [them] to understand the reading. And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them. (Nehemiah 8:8,12)

The Israel exiles returned to Jerusalem. During their 70 year captivity, their language changed. When Ezra (and the scribes) read from the book of the Law, it was necessary for Ezra to explain what was being read. The book of the Law was in Hebrew, however the people who returned to exile no longer understood everything in the older Hebrew. What was the response of the people? Was it, “You can’t do that to God’s Word!”? No, the people were able to understand God’s Word because it was updated to the language of their day. The response of the people was a repentant attitude from sin and obedience to God’s Word. The people understood the message, then they became changed individuals!

One comment that is made to support the sole use of the KJV is “The people through prayer and Holy Spirit illumination will understand the KJV!” If that is true, then why don’t people read the language of the originals–Greek and Hebrew? It is necessary to know the meaning, then the Holy Spirit has a tool by which to cause the Christian to understand how the Scriptures apply to their lives.

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)

Paul the Apostle wrote this verse 1500 years before the KJV was translated. The originals were “God-breathed.” Therefore, if a modern version is an accurate reflection of the original document, there is a sense in which the translation is inspired.

What about preservation? Doesn’t God promise in His Word that “not one jot or tittle shall pass away?” (Matthew 5:18) Yes, and that is true, not one has passed away! We have God’s Word. However, God did not promise that one manuscript or version would be preserved in this fashion. With the thousands of manuscripts and fragments in our possession today, God has given us His Word. We should take heed to God’s Word when He says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“Practical KJV Only” Position

Many churches, colleges, and other institutions are declaring positions that the KJV is the only Bible to be used. While these same pastors and teachers may reject the KJV Only position, they are actually teaching by practice that the KJV is the Only Bible to use. This is problematic for at least a few reasons.

  1. If one demands that the KJV is the only translation to be used, then what real difference is there between this position and the KJV Only position?
  2. Instead of responding biblically to those who are KJV Only, this position concedes to them and allows them the freedom to propagate error.
  3. Conformity becomes the rule rather than unity to truth. Many good translations are available, why not teach the next generation about other reliable translations?


The translators of the KJV knew that the KJV itself would not be readily accepted. The Geneva Bible was the most widely circulated Bible in their day.6 The preface to the 1611 KJV says, “Many mens mouths have bene open a good while and yet are not stopped with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather persuals of Translations made before…”

The purpose of this article is not to destroy one’s faith, but rather show that some modern translations are also reliable. The many books and pamphlets that are circulated today promoting the “KJV Only” position are actually destroying people’s faith. It is a divisive issue over which many Christians are confused. The KJV Only position is a heresy that must be combated. The proponents of this position are misleading sincere Christians by using poor logic, misguided facts and contentious language.4

For further study on this topic see:

James White, The King James Only Controversy

Donald Carson, The King James Version Debate

Jack Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV

Bruce Metzger, The Test of the New Testament

  1. All words in these quotes are retained with their original spellings.
  2. J.J. Ray, “The New Eye Opener”, (Eugene, OR: The Eye Opener Publishers), p. 3.
  3. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, (New York: Oxford University, 1968), p. 101.
  4. Some examples of this are found in the writings by Peter Ruckman. Note the recent publication called New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger. The presupposition of the book tries to link any translation, except the KJV, with the New Age phenomenon. The author of this book fails to recognize that most modern versions were made before the New Age Movement existed.


  1. How do KJV-only proponents respond to this post? I’m curious.

    I genuinely don’t understand the KJV-only position. In my mind, it’s equivalent to a “Shakespearean English-only” position. The English language has changed drastically over the past 400 years.

    Do KJV-only proponents speak and read NT Greek? Even a Greek-only position would make more sense.

    And what about Christians who don’t read either English or NT Greek? Are there similar controversies among Christians who speak other native languages?

    The consequence of the Tower of Babel didn’t prevent God from sending Jesus to us. Different languages do not prevent us from experiencing God’s forgiveness today, either.

  2. You make some great points Gadfly.

    As far as how the KJVOnly advocates respond to this…let’s see if they comment.

  3. God’s elect know the voice of the Shepherd. The corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and the versions based on them are not the voice of the Shepherd.

  4. Why does the NIV refer to Satan as "The bright and morning star", a title which in the KJV is only given to Jesus? Why time after time do other translations dumb down or completely remove the diety of Christ from the translation? Why does the NIV literally remove at least 15 verses out of the new testament alone and change the meanings of hundreds of verses? Why does the NIV replace the word "Hell" in almost every instance and instead change it to "Gehenna", "Sheol", or "Hades". If it is not broke don't fix it, especially if it is the word of God. The "Thees"and "Thous" leave no room for interpretation as to the plural or singular, though "You" that is used to replace them in the modern versions leave meaning open to interpretation as do others.The point of preservation is made by realizing that God has preserved his word, not buried it. It has been in existence and available in a transcript or by memorization of the scribes for thousands of years. Digging up a text in Egypt that does not match the majority that has been available and that is different (not a good thing by the way, the scribes burned whole scrolls for one mistake)and saying it is better because it is older is ridiculous. How old is satan? The fact that it was older but better preserved goes against it, why didn't anyone use it. Only older people are KJV only? I am 31, my Husband 33, and we have five children that we are raising up for the Lord. I know many women younger than me with and without children that are KJV only and active soul winners. I have never been to a NIV church that actively goes out door to door soul winnning after the example that Christ gave when he sent out the disciples from him to witness in twos and spread the gospel. What a shame that the cults have one up on the majority of Christians in this country.

    • I Whole Heartedly agree with you. The reference on Satan as the Bright and Morning Star is just one of the many examples of the major differences. They remove the diety of Christ and many other important things that time will not allow for me to type. Satan knew He could not stamp out the Word of God but he sure has put out many Imposters that put people mistake for the Word of God. I just wish God would remove the scalesfrom people's eyes so they couldsee the truth

  5. James: I debated on letting your comment through. Your comment is simply divisive. I let it through to give Gadfly an illustration of how the KJV Only “debates.” On what basis do you say the Alexandrian text was corrupt?

  6. Jenny: You raise too much for me to deal with (time wise). First, I have many Calvinist friends who use the KJV, NIV, NASB and ESV. I, myself, assist with church plants. Notice the emphasis of the gospel and church planting on this website? So, let’s get that one off the table.

    Second, I was raised in a fundamentalist, Baptist church. I “cut my teeth” on the KJV. In the 70s and 80s, the KJV Only movement gained ground. In my opinion, by the year 1998, KJV Onlyism basically reached its climax with Dell Johnson’s Pensacola debacle. It is now subscribed to by relatively few. As in the days of King James, I predict it will only be about 40 more years before the KJV Only movement dies out completely. Why do I say this? In 1611, most people used the Geneva Bible and did not readily accept the KJV. This is just history repeating itself. With the variety of good translations and the wide use of these various translations, I doubt that this Onlyism will occur again. But then again, human nature tends to like extremes.

    Third, about your references above about why the NIV leaves things out or uses different words. The same can be said about the KJV. Why did the KJV translators add these verses and why didn’t they translate “Hell” as “Ghenna.” Remember, the KJV translators used “baptism” and “church” instead of “immersion” and “congregation.”

    Fourth, about “digging up the text.” It is called archeology. They came out of a library in Alexandria, Egypt. The NIV and other modern versions are not exclusively Alexandrian. Even Erasmus, who put together the TR, used texts that were “dug up.”

    The main objection to your arguments that I have is that you do not view God’s Word as being intended for the common man. God always raised up learned men to provide the Scriptures in the most common language. Why deny your children an opportunity to have a translation that makes sense so they can understand the scriptures more clearly? (Nehemiah 8.8)

  7. Jenny writes:

    I know many women younger than me with and without children that are KJV only and active soul winners. I have never been to a NIV church that actively goes out door to door soul winnning after the example that Christ gave when he sent out the disciples from him to witness in twos and spread the gospel. What a shame that the cults have one up on the majority of Christians in this country.

    This is a fair criticism. But is that a result of the translation used in church or other factors? You’re confusing correlation with causation.

    My church is based upon a “seeker-sensitive” model, and we are specifically trained to invite non-Christians to our Sunday morning services and other events. At those services, we use a wide variety of translations and paraphrases, including KJV and NIV, to reach the lost for Christ.


    Don’t worry, Barry. I recognize my Shepherd’s voice. James’ post doesn’t bother me. It simply illustrates a lack of depth and willingness to respond to my sincere questions.

  8. Glad to have you around Gadfly!

  9. Gadfly said; The consequence of the Tower of Babel didn’t prevent God from sending Jesus to us. Different languages do not prevent us from experiencing God’s forgiveness today, either.
    I believe in the OT God chose himself a people out of the world, namely Hebrews and set them as a light to the world and recorded his Word in their language. If one wanted a relationship with God one followed the Hebrew law. Meaning, if you wanted salvation under OT grounds, you had better learn Hebrew quick. English is the commerce language of the day. Even countries as backwards as the Philippines have a english speaking majority.
    Your argument their gladfly has a huge gaping hole in it.

  10. Gadfly said: I genuinely don’t understand the KJV-only position. In my mind, it’s equivalent to a “Shakespearean English-only” position. The English language has changed drastically over the past 400 years.

    Sixth grade english is still sixth grade english. Their is an eloquence to the KJV which forces the reader to slow down as he reads it. It has a natural rythem to it that allows the reader to better recall and remember text. Even now in our schools children are taught to gloss over the text in an attempt to speed up reading. You wont be able to do this with the old King Jimmy.

  11. Hi Andy: I have a spam eliminator deployed which requires me to approve your first comment. From here on out, your comments will not be moderated by Akismet as you have been approved as a poster.

  12. Andy, you’re right that the KJV is more elegant and requires people to slow down and think about what they’re reading. There is great value in that.

    But I strongly disagree with your other post.

    How arrogant and odd it is to claim that one must speak English to experience the Word of God.

    How about the billions of people who don’t speak and read English?

  13. Andy: I am getting mixed messages about your post. On the one hand, you claim that it is 6th grade reading level, then in the next sentence you say that it is "eloquent" and forces the reader to slow down.

    I don't know about you, but when I pick up one of my daughter's 6th grade level books, there is no slowing down to understand completely what it is saying.

    Could it be that your "6th grade reading level" idea for the KJV is contrived? There are a couple of things you can do to get an unbiased opinion:

    1) Google "reading level kjv" and you can browse the snippets and find that opinions about the KJV readability range from 5th grade to 12th grade. You will see that the 5th grade analysis is promoted only by King James Only advocates.

    So, lets take the bias out of the equation and….

    2) Google "reading level Shakespearean English" The results are nearly identical. Every snippet states that Shakespearean English is 12th grade/college level.

    The problem is that KJV only types found a tool called the Flesch-kincaid. What they don't tell you is that the Flesch-kincaid model strictly measures on the basis of sentence/word length and syllables. The other thing they do not show you are the results. With small samplings, I get 11-12th grade results every time. Try it for yourself here: Flesch-Kincaid Tool

    What about vocabulary? That is certainly a readability issue. Where do you find the following words in any Junior High or High School vocabulary lists: almug, chode, charashim, chapt, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, nard, neesed…. (just to name a few, there are plenty more).

    I think I spent too much time trying to prove the obvious. To suggest that the KJV is "easy-to-read" is absurd.

    In fact, it is a strange thing for a KJV only advocate to worry readability. For you, the issue is not all about proving the KJVs readability. Your crux is to prove that the KJV is perfect. While language changes, those who want to read it must learn to read "the Kings English" or "Majestic English" as the KJV is commonly called. In fact, your friend KJVOnly01 on YouTube just commented: "Ultimately, it is a spiritual book where God will grant understanding based in the demeanor of the individual who favorably responds by faith to Gods charge."

    There is no 6th grade reading level book that requires God to grant an understanding based on faith for the common man to understand its meaning.

    • So Barry are you in high school at a level less than 12th grade? Even if that is what some people say and if it is on the internet it must be true. What a farce. Are you educated way beyond King James English? I have 2 college degrees, and to be quite honest with you I find the KJV to be an easier read than NIV or other modern versions. If you believe the Bible to be true then compare some scripture with scripture and when you find some versions cut out 20-30 verses at a time then that is one to avoid. Even if the KJV is on a 6th grade level it is still far easier to understand what is being conveyed. King James vision for the world is that the common man or woman could have a Bible that they could read. In the 1600's everyone was not college educated.

  14. One small detail, Barry…I thought Andy meant that the NIV is written at a 6th grade reading level, but that the KJV is more challenging to comprehend.

    You both seem to agree on this point.

    The Flesch-Kinkaid link is very cool. Thanks!

  15. I think he meant the KJV was written at a 6th grade English level. We have had discussions about this elsewhere. What did you mean Andy?

  16. JohnJoe says:

    I would recommend a book for you called “Let’s weigh the evidence.” Christianity needs an absolute or we have no legitamate leg to stand on. There is one God and he spoke one word. Things that are different are never the same. We must put our faith in one word of God. Which one will you take?

  17. We do have an absolute. Our absolute is founded on the originals. The commonality between us is that we do not have the exact originals. The difference between us is that while we (the Modern Versionists) are willing to admit that our versions suffer here and there, the KJV also suffers here and there.

    I have posted a thread on our forum to discuss this issue further:
    In Search of the Absolute Standard Bible

    • HIsKid4ever says:

      Hi there, I used to belong to a legalist church that preached KJV Onlyism, and I used to attack others for their "inferior bible". I ending up leaving the church and finding another bible based church. The pastor uses both KJV and NIV. I personally love them both. I stuck to the KJV because I like it, but like I said I am not partial to one. My husband prefers the NIV, but after he looked online and saw attacks on the NIV, he is now discouraged. I think the KJV Only are being a stumbling block to christians who want to enjoy the Word of God.

  18. The NIV is a fine translation. I grew up with it. I learned both Greek and Hebrew and saw that the criticisms are invalid. You are right about the KJVOs. Their continued bashing of the Bible in various translations is not supported biblically. They even bash pre1611 Bibles. This is not new…In the early days of Christianity, there were septuagint only people, then in the 1600s there were Vulgate only people…People want to cling to tradition and make up nonbiblical rules.

  19. "In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths". "If any of you lack wisdom,let him ask God,….
    There has been many translations since 1611 & needless to say ,they fell along the way side. If you believe, as i do, that we are living in the last of the last days, then stop & think about it for a minute.God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise,to god be the glory!!!! the 1st sin committed by Eve was to cast doubt on God Word.."hath God said ?" The Dead sea Text of Isaih that was found was "verbatium" after all them years!!!!
    I'll stick with preservation& sovernity!!!!!!!!!

  20. So many christians today want man to teach them what God's word means,therefore they turn to other " bibles " they want instant learning. We,as true born again christians,need to stay with the kjv bible and let the holy spirit teach us what God's word means. God said ask and we shall receive.God will teach us what His word means in His way and in His time!

    • Since God did not say he was going to restrict His word to an Anglican translation made in 1611, we are to enjoy His word as it is presented in all viable translations. The Holy Spirit uses the word when it is made clear. Nehemiah 8

  21. I am sorry! But Barry, you are ridiculous! Any man can understand the King James Bible!! If you read John 1:9. Every man is given a light at birth! Cross reference that with Job 32:8 and there you see that God gives the people understanding or light!

    THE KING JAMES BIBLE CAN BE UNDERSTOOD! So let us not debate on an argument of comprehension!

    The problem I have with your Modern versions, are that 95% of the Greek texts are in agreement with the King James Bible! The other 5% which are in disagreement, are from where your Bibles come from, which is the Sainaticus, Vaticanus, and the Alexandrian Manuscripts!

    There are so many verses missing, and so many corrections needed to be mad in those manuscript, that it is not even funny!

    If you check your Bible, David did not kill Goliath (2 Samuel 21:19)

    Jesus Christ is Satan and Satan is Jesus Christ (Isaiah 14:12, Revelation 2:16)

    If you want more I could give you more! But all I am saying If your Bible for modern man calls your Saviour, Christ Jesus, Satan, then don't you think that the Bible you hold in your hand is not the word of God?

    And if your Bible can pass a little misinformation concerning a story that everybody knows, saved or lost, doesn't that concern you!

    Why do you think people are so confused today, because there are so many different modern Bibles but they all say different thing! Where is God's inspired word today?

    It certainly not the one that can leave such a little (David) and big (Jesus) mistake!

    Don't you agree

    • There is a great difference between understanding Spiritual truth and English. 1611 English requires training and education for a person to understand the many archaic words. Spiritual understanding requires conversion and Holy Spirit illumination.

      People are not confused about the different Bibles. Confusion about modern versions comes when the KJVO tells us that modern versions are not God's word.

      Having taught teens for 15 years, using various modern translations, including the KJV, the confusion exists only in the minds of those who want to follow a tradition that says the Anglican church in 1611 gave us the only valid version word of God.

      • I have had no special training to understand the KJV Bible. The Anglican Church did not ever give us the only valid version of the Word of God. It happens to be the Preserved Word of God.

        • Are you the same edwardpf123 on YouTube?

          It was certainly the Church of England… Remember, KING JAMES? He gave instructions to retain the ecclesiastical terms that the Church of England taught.

  22. Joe Holland says:

    What part of " Thou shalt not " do you not understand ? !

    • I like your post!!

      • I am in agreeance. Anyone with half a brain can sit down and interpret than original KJV. I did so when I was a teen. Also, look at how many movies and plays have been heavily influenced by the language. Sure, it's unusual compared to the modern style. But it's comprehensible for anyone who "tries" to understand it. God expects us to "try" to understand His Word. Else what's the point? God's Word isn't for parttimers. This is your life we're talking about.

  23. Barry Pendley says:

    Eric: The name “Lucifer” comes from the Roman Catholic Latin. The problem is that they poorly snipped the proper name from the Hebrew. The full title is “Bright Son of Morning Star.” That is the full proper name. The RCC Latin snipped the word “bright (lucifer)” from son of morning.

    This has NOTHING to do with removing the diety of Christ. In fact, in Rev 22:16, Jesus is called the “bright morning star.” CONTEXT is everything.

    It is unfortunate that you did not understand the RCC Latin background to this verse. The KJV translators simply transliterated the Latin instead of translating the Hebrew.

  24. I have been registered to a website that sends me an email each day containing a single scripture. It breaks it down from nearly every edition of the Holy Bible. It demonstrates well how the Bible corruption began with the first 1800s revision of the KJV. Every single edition beyond that has followed the same pattern. It seems obvious that other manuscripts came into play in the 1800s to change the wording. The entire context has been altered. And this coincides with the age of greed and profit and commercialization. I see absolutely no reason to use any Holy Bible other than the original KJV. I use a copy that corrected the "u" and "v" usage to make it easier to read. The obvious spelling corrections have been made. But absolutely no scriptures have been altered or left out or added to compared to the 1611.

    The age we live in today surely resembles that of the end of all ages. Satan has certainly embedded himself into nearly every aspect (and fabric of) modern cultures. It now requires major sacrifices to pave the way to God. You cannot even open your mailbox without being exposed to sinful things. Therefore, I would prefer to think the modern editions aren't doing much good. The older and simpler societies were content with the Geneva and KJV editions. And they incorporated Godly living well. This does not seem to exist anymore. Just modernized, watered down Christianity.

    I will stick to the Bible that has proven itself to be the Truth. And its in the public domain. The KJV. GOD IS FREE OF CHARGE.

  25. Wow, I can not believe anybody would say that any of the translations are the "true" or "only" translations. The bible is made up of books and chapters written in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. How anybody can say there is just one translation is beyond me. Seems to me we are splitting hairs here. If a man can come to God through ANY translation, then that is what GOD wants. I

  26. Edwin Dalumpines says:

    Do we have an inspired bible today? Is ITim.3:15-16 a translation of the original or the original itself?
    Because if we do not have the true word of God today then why should I be a christian in the first place? The God of the Bible must be lame for he is not able to preserve his word.

    • Posting this multiple times does not help your argument. I will delete your second post since it is identical to this one.

      God inspired His word the moment he gave it. Copies and translations are considered inspired in the sense that they accurately reflect the originals. If a translation is an attempt to change God's originally intended meaning, it cannot be considered inspired. With that said, the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Geneva, Tyndale (on and on) are all God's word and have authority over us. Yes, even the Good News Bible is God's word.

      Since you are KJVO, I must ask why you believe that God did not care about the preservation of His word until 1611…

  27. Eric F. Van Pamel says:

    This whole article is subterfuge. The controversy has been around since the late 1800s. The reason it became a hot issue lately is because 99% of the new bible versions have ONLY COME OUT LATELY. The NIV did start the ball rolling so to speak, and that came out in 1974. Peter Ruckman also is not the spokesman for our side. The writer of this article picks out the most controversial figure to represent his opponent in order to shed an ill light on the KJV proponents. If I were his professor he would get a "D" on this paper since it does not even come close to truthfully and honestly prevent both sides. Compare the folk who translated the KJV with those who worked on the NIV. The KJV translators were geniuses, and did what they did with reverence for God's word. The NIV and later translators are infantile in comparison, and were motivated by MONEY and nothing else.

    • You had over 250 words to give us a solid rebuttal and all you give us is another look at how KJVOs respond. To suggest that the NIV translators were motivated by money is blasting the character of men you do not even know. No one debates the ability of the KJV translators. They were certainly devout men. They were also tied to the Anglican church and were restricted by King James to maintain Anglican traditions/beliefs in their translating work.

      About Ruckman… I am glad that you see the controversial nature of the man. Yet, you cannot deny his influence in the KJVO movement.

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.