True Bible

"Seek ye out the book of the LORD, and read." —Isaiah 34:16

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why is it important to have a perfect (complete) bible?

A: Jesus commanded that we live by every word of God (Matthew 4:4). The Bible condemns the adding to (Proverbs 30:6), taking away from (Deuteronomy 4:2), and changing of God's word (Jeremiah 23:36; 2 Corinthians 2:17).


Q: What happens if I choose to use an imperfect bible?

A: Your spiritual growth may be hindered, you will not be able to live by every word of God, and you will be less effectual as a Christian because you will lack many clear testimonies to the truths of God and His doctrines (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:16), as well as possibly having contradictions which are not reflective of God's character (e.g. Hebrews 3:16).


Q: What about my pastor, friend or family member who uses modern versions?

A: Salvation is not contingent upon what bible version you use, it is contingent upon whether or not you have trusted upon the Lord Jesus Christ and His vicarious death upon the cross and the shedding of His blood for the remission of sins (Acts 16:31; Romans 3:25). Christians who use modern versions are hopefully just ignorant (no derogation intended), and there is nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as you recognize the truth when it is presented. I have seen plenty of humble Christians repent (change their mind) of using modern versions and believe the King James Bible as God's pure, preserved word when presented with the issue.


Q: Isn't this a divisive issue?

A: Yes it can be, just as any other doctrine or position we uphold as Christians. If I hold to a pre-tribulation rapture, and someone disagrees with that position, then there will be contention. As Christians though we may disagree on various positions yet still maintain fellowship as children of the Most High. Division can arise when a position is made to be a deal-breaker concerning fellowship. It can also arise when the dissenting party chooses to distance themselves from the person (or any person) upholding the position. With that said, we as Christians should be persuaded of what we believe (Romans 14:5) and uphold the truth even when it is not popular or "politically correct" (2 Timothy 4:2).


Q: Aren't modern versions easier to read?

A: No, and there are multiple reasons as to why this is so. Readability may seem like the "trump card" of modern versions, but research reveals the King James Bible to be the easiest to read and comprehend. For one, the King James Bible is based heavily in Anglo-Saxon English which is much more straightforward and tends to have shorter words with less syllables than todays Latinized English. Therefore, the King James Bible more frequently uses shorter, monosyllabic words making it easier to read and understand. For example, compare "riot" and "unruly" from Titus 1:6 in the King James Bible to "dissipation" and "insubordination" in the New King James Version published by Thomas Nelson. Much of the difficulty in modern version's readings can be attributed to copyright issues. By law a work must have a minimum %10 difference from the original work to qualify for a copyright (and thereby acquire profit). When the King James Bible has already chosen the most simple words on average for any given reading, what is a version like the NKJV to do? You will find that not only do they "thesoratize" (frequently use a thesaurus) their translation, but they rearrange sentences as to make a difference without entirely changing the meaning. The "thesoratization" of modern versions is ridiculous, and is why, many times, a simple word in the King James Bible is rendered difficult in modern versions. Consider the following quotes concerning the readability of the King James Bible all from experts in their fields:


"Readability statistics generated from Grammatik and Word for Windows show why the KJV is 5th grade reading level, while the NKJV and NASB are 6th grade, and the NIV is 8th grade reading level! . . . According to readability statistics generated by Pro-Scribe, the KJV is easier to read than USA Today, People Magazine and most children’s books."
(The Language of the King James Bible, p. 159)


"According to the F-K [Flesch-Kincaid] formula 74.3% of the books [in the KJV] are on or below the sixth grade level, and 94% are on or below the seventh grade level! . . . And the FRE [Flesch Reading Ease] rated 97% of the KJV books as Fairly Easy or Easy! These were all first place statistics!" (The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, p. 80)


"The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 100 words) is the King James Version of the Bible . . ." (The Art of Plain Talk, p. 43)


"The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8,000 words—God's teaching in homely English for everyman."
(The Story of English, p. 113)


Q: What about the various editions of the King James Bible?

A: There are only four official editions, all of which simply standardized spelling and punctuation, as well as corrected early printing errors. None of these changes reflect variant readings from the original manuscript finished in 1611. The printing errors do not reflect errors in the original text but are attributed to human faulty as printing was an arduous task during this time period. The differences between the now commonly used 1769 edition and that of 1611 are simply those of spelling and grammar; both texts would read the same. The "logic" of those who typically ask this question is that, "if there were revisions of the 1611 edition, then what's wrong with modern versions, as they are simply a continuation of that revision process?" Two things to consider: one, these editions do not constitute a true revision from the original text, as they read the same, and two, modern versions add to, take away from and change God's preserved words based not only on an "updating" of the language, but also on variant readings based on Egyptian codices (manuscripts). The New King James Version, for example, is a true revision because it introduces variant readings based on conflicting codices, such as the Septuagint (LXX), as can be seen in 1 Kings 22:38, as well as variant readings based on erroneous alteration ("updating"), as can be seen in many verses such as 1 Samuel 14:14.


Q: Where was the Bible before 1611?

A: Church history shows us that God's preserved word has always been in the hands of the believers since the Church began. God's word was published and preached from Jerusalem, Antioch and beyond. Such groups of Christians as the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Vaudois, Paulicians, Cathari, Albigenses, Anabaptists, and the Puritans had the preserved word of God in their possession. Specifically, we can point to the Italic (Old Latin), Peshitta (Syriac), Wulfila (Gothic), Waldensian (Romaunt), Olivetan (French), Diodati (Italian), Luther (German), Valera (Spanish), and Geneva (English) as examples of God's word before 1611.


Q: What about languages other than English?

A: God indeed chose to preserve His words in English for these last few hundred years. Although many other language versions existed and were greatly used in times passed, no modern language versions being used today can be called the perfect (complete) word of God. We can go on and on about why this may be so, but at the end of the day we must come to terms with the facts. Modern language bibles rely heavily on eclectic (mostly Egyptian) manuscripts, and are therefore very different (in a negative sense) from the King James Bible. The closest I believe we have today, as far as bibles in other languages go, would be the 1602 Purificada Spanish version produced in Monterey, Mexico. This may seem unfair, but we are dealing with the Sovereignty of God here. God inspired and preserved the Tanakh (Old Testament) primarily in Hebrew, and if you wanted to follow the command of Isaiah 34:16, you had to learn Hebrew. Was that just (Luke 7:35)? Although the New Testament was translated into many languages from the original Koine Greek, much of the world has historically been without a bible. What about the nearly one million Amdo people of China? Where is their bible? Or the nearly 800,000 Fur people of Sudan? And the list goes on and on. The hour is late, the day of the Lord is nigh at hand. Picture a church group painstakingly working nearly 25 years or more on a translation for a tribe in Africa, and after all that, unbeknownst to them, because they utilized corrupt Greek texts (such as the United Bible Society's), their translation work is flawed, having hundreds of verses in direct opposition to the traditional text the Church has historically used, even having some verses gone from the text. Now imagine, if they would have instead focused on teaching the people English. This would have taken much less time as the basics of the English language can be grasped in less than a year (much less if your native language is rooted in Latin). Also, the King James Bible is the easiest to learn and read from. This flies in the face of many who use modern versions, but research proves it to be the easiest to read (The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, D.A. Waite, Jr.).


Q: What of "double-inspiration"?

A: Often I hear dissenters use a smear term "double-inspiration" against those of us who believe in a perfect Bible. This term can be traced to Dr. Peter Ruckman, an ardent King James Bible proponent and advocate of its inspiration. The term he coined is in relation to the Bible being inspired in the original autographs as well as in 1611. At first glance, this may seem ridiculous, but I believe that is because most people don't have a clear and pragmatic understanding of "inspiration." I am in no sense defending the teachings or definitions of Dr. Ruckman, but I am simply making a plea for truth. In the King James Bible we find the word "inspiration" only two times, once in 2 Timothy 3:16, and once in Job 32:8. Many people have a fantastical idea of inspiration. They feel that it was a special once-and-for-all thing; inexplicable if you will. The Bible presents inspiration very differently. Today we use the term "inspired" very loosely, as in "his life inspired me to do more for the Lord." When this word was chosen in the translation process, it not only was recognized to inevitably be paralleled with Job 32:8, but was clearly understood to be the "moving of the Holy Spirit" as seen in 2 Peter 1:21; and the majority of commentators have taken this to mean "God dictated to them the words to speak and write." This same moving of God's Spirit is what gives us understanding of God's word. God has also promised to preserve His word as can be seen in such verses as Psalm 12:6,7. How else can God preserve His written words if not by inspiration. We are not putting our faith in the wit of men, but in the faithfulness of God to do that which He has said he would. When scribes copied and transmitted the words of the Lord, could God not inspire them to keep His words pure? Likewise, when His word was translated into Old Latin, could God not inspire the translators to keep His words pure? Indeed, God can and must have, if we are to believe in preservation. I have often heard dissenters say that God has preserved His message but not His words, but what is His message if not words? Was Jesus wrong to emphasize the need for every word in Luke 4:4? Of course God must have preserved every word. We do not say the King James Bible is inspired because we need to call some book the perfect word of God. We can rightly maintain the inspiration of the King James Bible by the very evidence of the Bible itself. I think this is the make-it-or-break-it point for many people. I don't think it should be because there is ample evidence and reason to at least believe that the King James Bible is the best translation, as opposed to the position that it is perfect, and therefore inspired. Although, I believe the latter position is the logical outcome of our faith. If for some reason you felt that the Old Latin Italic Bible was God's only preserved word today, then you must believe that, even as a translation, it is inspired. That is one of the main reasons bible critics today refuse to say any translation is perfect, because they do not ultimately believe it is %100 inspired. For more info on my view and understanding of inspiration, please Email me and I will be glad to converse and share with you. Many people today teach "originals only" but that is clearly and concisely addressed in the next answer.


Q: Aren't only the original Greek and Hebrew perfect?

A: No, I'm afraid you've got the late B.B. Warfield to thank for such a hypothesis. When challenged by the modern "science" of textual criticism in his day (late 1800s), he detracted from his original stance on defending the inspiration (and thus perfection) of an extant text and began to claim that only the original autographs are the inspired, perfect words of God. This was not the traditional view, as most evangelicals defended their existing King James Bible. This feeble attempt to defend the inerrancy  of the scriptures, I believe, has done much more harm than good. Any logical person can see that it is impossible to defend non-existing "originals," and this has opened the door for textual "scholars" to give us dynamic translations based on their own critique of biblical manuscripts and ideas about what they think God really said. If you have a modern version with footnotes, check out 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7 (and I could honestly give hundreds of more examples); how should these verses really read? Should 1 Timothy 3:16 say "God" or "He"? Should 1 John 5:7 be in your bible or not? You see the scholars of today are essentially "bible-agnostics" (not an original term), that is, they are not sure what the Bible really is and how it should really read. This is because they are dealing with more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and a few varying Hebrew texts, many of which are in conflict with each other. If you believe in "the originals only," then I must ask you, where are these originals? Any scholar will tell you that there are no surviving original autographs. That leaves us with copies of copies of copies etc. So, if you then correct your position to say, "I believe in the inspired Greek and Hebrew only," then I must ask you, which Greek and Hebrew texts are the inspired, preserved and perfect words of God? You will have a hard time answering that one, as no two manuscripts agree %100. Two things I find wrong with this position: one, elevating Greek and Hebrew above the English requires for us to be scholars of these languages or trust in the scholar of our choice, and two, this leads to private interpretations (as seen in the plethora of translations) based on your own knowledge of these languages or reliance upon lexicons to pick-and-choose which definition you like best for any given word. Much evidence points to the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text as the reliable underlying Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, so at very least, if you do your homework, you should be what is known as "TR/M-text only," that is, you believe these are the preserved, inspired words of God today. But even this position is found wanting because, as I said before, no two manuscripts agree with each other. You see the King James Bible is more trustworthy since it not only relies on these texts but also incorporates the various language bibles from the textual tradition. When there was a dispute of any given passage, they had multiple witnesses to verify the authenticity of a word. For this any many other clear reasons, every honest Bible student should at least be of the persuasion that the King James is the best and most reliable translation. But, the logical outcome of faith, and faithfulness to God, is that this very text is inspired and therefore perfect. If you do not wish to make this leap of faith, that is fine, I can understand, but this suggestion should not deter you from believing that the King James Bible is the only reliable Bible in the English language today. For more information on this subject, feel free to contact me, and we can discuss this matter as peaceable children of Abba-Elohim (Father God).