The KJV Bible's translation changes from Tyndale shifted authority from believers to the Church of England, reinforcing institutional power.
The King James Version Was A Work in Progress—How the 1611 Translators Anticipated Future Revisions
Discover how the KJV translators planned for future updates, ensuring the Scriptures remain relevant.
William Tyndale: How We Got the Bible
William Tyndale’s English Bible work broke ecclesiastical control and put God’s Word in the hands of ordinary believers.
Do You Know the “King James Version?”
Discover the lesser-known aspects of the King James Version of the Bible. Learn about its history, opposition, and changes over time. Gain insights into the importance of understanding the purpose of Bible translation and the significance of getting the thoughts of God.
KING JAMES VERSION: Read the Bible to Understand It
Discover the significance of reading the King James Version Bible to gain understanding of God's Word. Explore the importance of interpreting scripture correctly and the potential challenges posed by language changes. Gain insights into the need for modern translations to overcome misunderstandings and embrace clarity in comprehending the teachings of the Bible.
KJVOIST/TROISTS and Agnostic Textual Scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman On Preservation of Scripture
Agnostic New Testament textual and early Christianity scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman states God “didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.” The KJVO/TRO argues, “Because the Scriptures are forever relevant, they have been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence.”
Why Have Modern Bible Translations Removed Many Verses That Are In the King James Version?
This article explores the reasons why modern Bible translations have removed certain verses that are found in the King James Version, including the impact of textual criticism, the desire for accessibility, and the need to avoid theological bias. The article discusses examples of removed verses and the complex factors that influence the decisions of modern translators.
THE LAST NAIL: Setting Straight the Indefensible Defenders of the Textus Receptus and King James Version
This makes more certain for us the Apostle Peter’s words: “But the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Peter 1:25) We can have the same confidence that the One who inspired the Holy Scriptures, giving us His inerrant Word, has also used his servants to preserve them, irrespective of the intentional and unintentional textual variants that entered the copies of the text, throughout the last two thousand years, and especially those many dozens of textual scholars that restored the text to its original form, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4)
How Did the King James Version Come Down to Us?
The King James Bible (KJV) and the King James Bible (KJB), and the Authorized Version, is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, commissioned in 1604 and published in 1611 by the sponsorship of King James VI and I. The 80 books of the King James Version include 39 books of the Old Testament, an intertestamental section containing 14 books of what Protestants consider the Apocrypha, and 27 books of the New Testament. Noted for its “majesty of style,” the King James Version has been described as one of the most important books in English culture and a driving force in the shaping of the English-speaking world.
OMISSIONS or ADDITIONS?: Why Are Thousands of Variant Readings Missing from the Modern Bible Translations?
The Byzantine text family that makes up the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV, and the NKJV is 80-85% in agreement with the Alexandrian text family that is behind almost all modern translations. The King James Version Onlyists (KJVOists) & the Textus Receptus Onlyists (TROists) call the differences omissions in the Westcott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA). They would argue that many of the differences are actually additions to the original texts, which have now been restored to their original form by removing spurious interpolations. Who is correct?

