Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Why the English King James Bible is the Most Trustworthy

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
July 17, 2019


Admit it or not, except for the KJV, most other popular English Bible versions begin with the un-biblical premise that our Omnipotent God is incapable of preserving His Word. Beginning with this false presumption, they have assigned themselves the task of helping God restore that which He promised numerous times would never require restoration. This fabricated attempt to re-discover God’s (lost) truth is tantamount to calling God a liar. It is a declaration that His Word has been lost as early as the second century for approximately 1700 years until Westcott and Hort began restoring it with Vaticanus B in the mid-1800s and God’s Word cannot ever be wholly trustworthy until it has been wholly restored by them (if such is even possible). Their favorite Greek version, the Nestle-Aland text, is already in its 28th revision.



The Bible itself teaches that, from its beginning God inerrantly inspired holy men to write His Word.  He did not inspire unholy and unsaved men to reconstruct it for their own purposes. This includes the profit motive which is common today.

The New Testament was first written by Jesus’ own first-generation apostles and disciples. Clinging to the Bible’s own promises of eternal preservation, conservative Christians believe that the inerrant Greek Bible has continually existed throughout the centuries and does not require rescue by those who do not believe the promises of the very book they pretend to be rescuing. We also believe that God has preserved His Word for English-reading persons in the King James Version. It is far safer to learn a handful of archaic words from the KJV than to trust entirely new versions based on Greek documents which have no pedigree whatsoever.

While we admit that Satan has used heretics to create alternate false versions of God’s Word as early as Marcion’s time in A. D. 150, we hold firm to our conviction that the true infallible inerrant Word has always survived through Divine preservation. We believe that, from the beginning, faithful Greek-speaking Christians meticulously copied and preserved God’s Word. We believe that, with minor spelling and punctuation changes, the preserved Greek Bibles used by and edited by Erasmus in 1516 are essentially the preserved Word of God.

The following texts are a small sample which declare that our Omniscient Omnipotent God has promised that His Word cannot and will not ever be lost to require uninspired and often unsaved men and women to restore it. It is absurd to infer that God’s Word had been lost to the world until Westcott and Hort began rescuing it in the mid-1800s. And, if the world does not currently have God’s preserved Word, then God is a liar, prophecy is false, miracles are not real, truth is unrevealed, the plan of salvation is not known and all mankind is headed for Hell. Yet these are the very doctrines held less and less in churches which have strayed away from faith in a preserved literal interpretation of God’s Word.

Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

2 Tim 3:15-17 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make
thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


“Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus A and less than 50 other old documents dating prior to 400 are the oldest and, therefore, the best New Testament manuscripts. They are nearest to the originals. The oldest existing Textus Receptus manuscripts underlying the King James Bible are about 1000 years more recent and are, therefore, not the most accurate.” (my condensed re-wording)



First (and of utmost importance), the above lie presumes that God is incapable of preserving His Word as promised in His Word.

Second, the lie presumes that unsanctified men are required to rediscover and reconstruct a lost document which states that it cannot be lost.

Third, there are no ancient copies of the Textus Receptus simply because it has been very meticulously mass-copied since before the time of Vaticanus B by the Greek Church and worn-out copies have been destroyed. That is why over 5000 newer copies of the Greek manuscripts exist today.

Fourth, when the oldest non-Greek Bibles are translated into English, they read like the King James Version instead of the modern Bibles based primarily upon the Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A. This proves that they had been originally translated from the Traditional Text, the Textus Receptus! It is clearly recognized as the underlying source of the Old Italia Bible used by the Waldensians as early as 157, the Old Syriac Diatesseron Gospels (153-172), the Syriac Aramaic Peshitta Bible (2nd century), the Early German Bible from the TEPI Old Latin and the Ukrainian Gothic Bible (350).  Therefore, the note, “is not found in the most ancient manuscripts” is a blatant lie!

Fifth, the Greek papyri, the oldest New Testament documents written on early paper, contain much evidence that the Greek Textus Receptus is either older than (or at least as old as) the underlying text of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A. The Textus Receptus basis of the King James Bible is on the very oldest Bible papyrus, the Rylands P52 dating 125 (John 18:31-33, 37-38). A. F. J. Klijn compared texts which exist in Aleph, B and Textus Receptus to challenge the claim that the papyri predominantly support the modern versions (A Survey into the Researches of the Western Text, pp 45-46, Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p55 and Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible, pp 150-154), P45 (250), P66 (200), P75 (175-225).

Comparing 43 texts where Aleph and B disagree with each other, Klijn and Pickering demonstrated that the TR often agrees more with each of them than they agree with each other. Since the TR agrees with 315 of 663 texts from P66, it is undeniable that both lines of texts existed side by side as early as A. D. 200. Again, the note, “is not found in the most ancient manuscripts” is a blatant lie!

The Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A originated in heresy-prone North Africa where Clement (150-215) and Origen (184-254) inserted their false theology. Eusebius (260-340) and Jerome (382) further manipulated Scripture.


As far back as 40 years before the Revision Committee of 1881, two English Anglican priests and professors at Cambridge University (Westcott and Hort) began secretly working on a new version of the Bible based primarily on an un-sourced text discovered in the Vatican library in 1481. (Who wrote it? Where did it come from? Why was it stored away and not copied?) They determined to turn almost the entire Christian world against the King James Bible and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus. The following describes them.

(1) They began with a deliberate lie. When the King of England was convinced to edit (not revise) the KJV, Westcott and Hort agreed to abide by his rules, follow the Bishop’s Bible and only make cosmetic changes in spelling and punctuation. They lied.

(2) Unlike the King James compliers, they worked in secret. The public had no access to their work.

(3) Although they did not revere the pope, they were Roman Catholic in doctrine and practice.

(4) The Bible was not the verbal Word of God.

(5) The fall of man was an allegory involving long periods of evolution.

(6) The doctrine of the “priesthood of every believer” was a “crazy horror.”

(7) Darwin’s theory of evolutionist was unanswerable.

(8) Atonement is through Mary and Christ’s incarnation rather than through His death and crucifixion.

(9) Biblical miracles are doubtful.

(10) The original copies of the Bible may have been corrupted.

(11) Spiritism and ghosts are real.

(12) P47, the oldest manuscript of Revelation, is not considered the best manuscript by “the oldest manuscripts are best” advocates. Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible, 40-60.

Again, “Why are there so few of this genre? (about 45) What is their pedigree? Who wrote them and why? If they had been accepted as the best when written, why did not the early church command its scribes to mass produce them?”  

It is highly likely that the north African genre of texts such as Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A were recognized as faulty and deliberately not mass produced. Why was Vaticanus B hidden in the Vatican library and not used? And why was Sinaiticus A and its relatives not found and used all over the Western and Eastern Roman Empires?


If you think your NKJ and modern version is superior to the King James Version, did you know that in the KJV and many others:

Isaiah 7:14 changes “virgin” to “young woman.” If context is important, there is nothing sign-worthy about a “young woman” having a child. While the Hebrew word for “virgin,” almah, can mean “young woman,” the O. T. context demands it be translated “virgin” by most modern Bibles in its other six occurrences. Almah’s counterpart in Matthew 1:23, parthenos, can only properly be translated as “virgin.”

Matthew 1:25 “Firstborn” is replaced with “a son.” Perhaps an early scribe who wanted to promote the perpetual virginity of Mary changed it.

Matthew 6:13 “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” is missing. This reading offends those who do not believe that God will set up a literal Messianic kingdom on earth.

Matthew 9:18; 20:20; Mark 5:6 and Luke 24:52 replace “worship” and “worshipped.”. Perhaps an early Arian who did not believe in the deity of Christ tampered with an early manuscript. 

Matthew 19:17 replaces “me good” with “what is good.” It is clear from 19:16 that Jesus is referring to how the rich young ruler addressed him.

Mark 1:2-3 “As it is written in the prophets” is changed to “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” The KJV is correct because verse 2 is a quotation from Malachi 3:1.

Mark 9:44 “Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched” is missing. The entire quotation is from Isaiah 66:24.

Mark 16:9-20 is removed but two Church Fathers quoted it in the second century. How do you quote something that does not exist? Inexplicably, Vaticanus B has a blank space large enough to hold it; Sinaiticus A changes to a very large lettering to cover up the same space; and Alexandrinus contains all of it in the 5th century (400-500). Mark would never end his account of Jesus’ life before His glorious appearing to all.

Luke 1:34 “I know not a man” is replaced with “I have no husband.” Since women can have children without being married, the changed text is ambiguous.

Luke 2:14 changes “peace, good will towards men” into “peace among men of good will” in the Amp, NAS and NI.  This is wrong because the Bible teaches that there are no men of good will (Rom 3:10-16).

Luke 2:33 changes “Joseph and his mother” to “his father and his mother.” Yet God’s Word is teaching that Joseph was NOT his father.

Luke 4:4 deletes “but by every word of God.” This omission leaves Jesus’ teaching incomplete; He tells how “not” to live, but not how “to” live.

Luke 9:54-56 omits “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” If this had been retained in the Roman Catholic Bibles, the Inquisition may not have occurred.

Luke 22:64 of the NIV deletes “and struck him on the face.” Without this statement, the text merely says “they blindfolded him.” If they only blindfolded him, why ask “Who hit you?”

Luke 23:38 deletes the phrase “in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew.”

Luke 23:42 omits the thief’s address to Jesus as “Lord.” This error removes his conviction and realization of Christ’s identify. Yet not one Greek manuscript omits this word.

Luke 24:6 omits “He is not here, but is risen.”

John 8:1-12 is missing or noted as not in the oldest manuscripts. It is the story of the woman caught in adultery. Yet Jerome wrote (c415) “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” Hills, The King James Version Defended, p151; Jones, ibid 229. And, since the 4th-5th century, the Roman Catholic Church has read this text each year on St. Pelagia’s Day, October 8th. Jones ibid 228.

Acts 8:37 is omitted or downgraded. “And Philip said, If thou believe with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Romans 8:1 deletes the second half in all modern versions because it does not exist in either Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus A. “Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Colossians 1:14 is missing or notates “through the blood.”

1st Timothy 3:16 replaces “God” with “he who.” The erroneous translation offers no precedent for the pronoun “he” and diminishes the deity of Christ.

2nd Timothy 3:16 is an extremely important text which declares that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The NKJ reads “every inspired scripture” which implies that not all Scripture is inspired.

Hebrews 1:3 changes “the brightness of his glory” into “the reflection of his glory. It denies the deity of Christ.

1st John 5:6-8 does not appear in modern versions and even Scofield says it is not legitimate. Although few, there are 19 cursive manuscripts and 60 lectionaries which contain the text. The 1666 Armenian Bible quotes it and is based on a 1295 Greek manuscript. The Old Latin Bible contains it from the 2nd century. It is referenced by Tertullian (d220), Cyprian (d228), Priscillian (d385), a 5th century Old Latin manuscript and Eugenius of Carthage in 484, Vigilus of Thapsus (490), Cassiodorus (c530) and Fulgentius (d553). Since you cannot quote something that does not exist, it must have been removed early after 553 – and Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A were written between 350-380. Moorman, Where the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, 119, 121, 168, 171 and Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible, p231-235.

Finally, the Greek syntax demands an insertion of something between 1st John 5:6 and 5:8. Otherwise, a masculine “three” modifies three neuter words – “Spirit,” “water” and “blood.”



First, it is evident that both the Textus Receptus (KJV) and the Vaticanus B genre versions existed as early as the year 200. Second, it is also evident that deliberate presumptive changes occurred as early as 150. Third, since God has promised in His Word that He will preserve it forever, we must conclude that one line of manuscripts was preserved and another line was perverted. It is the opinion of fundamental conservative Bible-believing Christians that God has kept His promises and has indeed preserved His Word from the beginning. It is inconceivable that so much time and effort has been wasted in attempting to restore the Bible when the Bible itself says that it will never need to be restored because God will not allow it to be lost.


(1) Makes no statement about the Bible’s teaching that God will always preserve His Word as He promised.

(2) Uses a different Hebrew O. T. than the KJV. While the KJV uses the Masoretic text from the 500s to the 900s, the NKJ admits to using the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, the Bomberg edition of 1525, the Greek Septuagint and the (Roman Catholic) Latin Vulgate. This is a very serious departure from the Textus Receptus and the O.T. Masoretic text.

(3) The NKJ recklessly states that nothing has really changed in God’s Word even after the thousands of changes made to the Textus Receptus by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A by Westcott and Hort and those who continue to follow them. The NKJ states “There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics and by Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals. Minor variations in hand copying have appeared through the centuries before mechanical printing began about 1450.” I seriously doubt that anybody actually believes that statement!!!

The NKJ admits that “two paragraphs” are missing in the Gospels” (Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:39 to 9:12) but those are a small fraction of what is really missing. It also says “It is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five per cent of the New Testament Text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text and the Majority Text. If that were true, then God is not Omnipotent and is only able to preserve 85% of the truth for mankind; the other 15% is error.

(4) Changed 64,000 words. The new words are brought over from the NIV, RSV, NAS and other modern versions.

(5) The NKJ replaced “thee,” “thou,” “thine” and “ye” with “you” and “your.” This change makes it impossible for the reader to know if the pronoun is singular or plural and causes confusion in understanding scores of texts like John 3:7.

(6) The paid compilers of the NKJ were divided in their loyalty to either the Textus Receptus or the Vaticanus B and their genre of documents. Many of the same compilers of the NKJ also worked on compilations of other modern translations.

(7) REMOVES: ”God” 51 times, “Lord” 66 times, “repent” 44 times, “damned” completely, “heaven” 50 times, “devils” completely, “blood “23 times and changes  2289 NT words

(8) OMITS: Mt 6:13b; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Lk 17:36; 23:17; Jn 5:4; Acts 8:37; 28:29

(9) Suggests deleting Mark 16:9-20; John 8:3-9:12; 1st John 5:7