Refutation of arguments against the King James Bible
Amidst the Bible version debate, much has been said about the modern versions undermining the deity of Christ and the Trinity in different places of scripture (for example 1 John 5:7–8 & 1 Timothy 3:16). Modern version proponents, in an attempt to turn this accusation around on the KJB translators, have given examples of where this same phenomenon supposedly appears in the Authorized Version. Not only so, but they’ve also attempted to give examples of where the KJB contradicts itself, and where the modern versions have “corrected” its “mistakes”. We will be taking a look at some of those here, and as we will see, not only do none of these arguments qualify as good ones, but most of them are frankly the result of not being familiar with the KJB, and in some instances, simply not reading the text carefully enough.
One video on YouTube which I feel gives a good overview of these arguments can be found here. Accordingly, I will be specifically responding to and addressing the arguments given in this video, which are representative of the most common arguments given against the King James Bible.
Does the KJB “remove” the deity of Christ?
Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Jude 4, and the Granville Sharp rule
Titus 2:13 KJB Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
2 Peter 1:1 KJB SIMON Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
A common attack upon the KJB is that it ambiguously translates Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1so that it may be read as “God” or “the Great God” being distinct from “our Saviour Jesus Christ”. The modern translations supposedly “correct” this “mistake” by translating these verses as “our great God and Savior” and “our God and Savior”, based upon the Granville Sharp rule, which the KJB translators were supposedly ignorant of. The problem with this criticism is that only a person who doesn’t actually use the KJB would make such a silly argument. For one thing, simply checking most older commentaries, by Gill, Poole, Henry, and others, will show that they were indeed aware of the construction later made famous by Granville Sharp. Here are a few examples:
On Titus 2:13, John Gill wrote:
“…not two divine persons, only one, are here intended; for the word: rendered “appearing”, is never used of God the Father, only of the second person; and the propositive article is not set before the word “Saviour”, as it would, if two distinct persons were designed; and the copulative “and” is exegetical, and may he rendered thus, “and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ”; who, in the next verse, is said to give himself for the redemption of his people: so that here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ, who will appear at his second coming”
In the Annotations upon all the books of the Old and New Testaments put together by the Westminster Divines, we find the following note on Titus 2:13:
“To the confutation and confusion of all who deny the Deity of Christ, the Apostle here calleth him, not only God, but the Great God, that is, immense, and of infinite power”
John Calvin even notes the debates between the Arians and the orthodox on this verse, and that the ancient Christians argued vigorously for the Deity of Christ in this passage:
“It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, “the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior,” or separately, as of the Father and the Son, “the glory of the great God, and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (254) The Arians, seizing on this latter sense, have endeavored to prove from it, that the Son is less than the Father, because here Paul calls the Father “the great God” by way of distinction from the Son. The orthodox teachers of the Church, for the purpose of shutting out this slander, eagerly contended that both are affirmed of Christ. But the Arians may be refuted in a few words and by solid argument; for Paul, having spoken of the revelation of the glory of “the great God,” immediately added “Christ,” in order to inform us, that that revelation of glory will be in his person; as if he had said that, when Christ shall appear, the greatness of the divine glory shall then be revealed to us.”
The KJVToday.com Website also provides a translation of Theodore Beza’s annotations on 2 Peter 1:1:
“We need to read this conjunctively because there is only one article; as more fully stated in Tit. 2.13, this place also contains a clear testimony of the divinity of Christ.”
The KJB translators indeed knew of this construction, and the KJB does indeed teach the Deity of Christ in both of these verses. We see the same sentence structure used of God the Father elsewhere:
Galatians 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father
Philippians 4:20 Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father
Ephesians 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
The same argument is brought against Jude 4 in the KJB, however as we can see from the above examples, it is in the exact same construction in the English translation, and is thus indeed teaching us the deity of Christ here:
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
The so-called “Granville Sharp Construction” is simply a form of the literary device known as Hendiadys or one by means of two; this occurs when two words are employed to refer to the same object. There are several Biblical examples of this, such as the ones provided above. Another example would be Isaiah 49:7:
Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
Obviously this verse is not referring to two different entities.
Furthemore, the King James Bible is not only not in error in the way it translates these texts, but is actually more emphatic in the designation of Christ as God. By translating Ο Θεος into English with the definite article “the”, the KJB is emphasizing Christ’s identity as God — THE Great God, and our Savior, and THE only Lord God, and our Lord, in the respective verses under consideration.
To claim that this is an “error” in the KJB is flat out wrong, and the Unitarian would be just as wrong for attempting to appeal to the King James Bible in these instances to justify his heresy. The Trinitarians who make this accuasation against the KJB are simply ignorant, and really ought to do some actual study before parrotting such bad arguments.
Jude 5, “The Lord” or “Jesus”?
Another argument brought against the KJB is that it has “The Lord” in Jude 5 rather than “Jesus” as the ESV and some other modern versions do, thus making the text ambiguous. However as we have just seen, Jude 4 in the KJB is in fact calling Jesus “the only Lord God, and our Lord”, and the antecedent to “the Lord” in verse 5 is clearly “our Lord” in verse 4. Not only that, but a Unitarian could actually use this as an attempt to reject the deity or pre-existence of Christ, since “Jesus” here could be interpreted as a reference to Joshua son of Nun. Likewise, and Arian could intepret this as denoting Jesus’s pre-human existence, while not acknowledging his deity. The King James Bible not only demonstrates the deity of Christ in this text due to the antecedent pointed out above, but likewise the use of the phrase “the Lord” would have easily made any first century Jew think of God, who led His people out of Egypt, referenced throughout the Old Testament. Jude is thus explcitly identifying Jesus Christ with the Lord — Jehovah, of the Old Testament.
Is Jesus the blessed God or is he “blessed by God”?
Romans 9:4–5 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; (5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
The claim is made that the KJB removes the deity of Christ in this verse because it gives the impression that Jesus is only “blessed by God” rather than being God, and apparently some Unitarians appeal to the KJB to prove such a thing. This argument is not only ignorant, it’s incredibly embarassing that we have people who are supposed to be “educated” making such stupid arguments. The text doesn’t say “God-blessed”, the text says Jesus is “God blessed”, and none of the major historic expositors using the KJB had any issue with this verse whatsoever, nor have any Christians who regularly use the KJB. Here are some examples:
Matthew Henry on Romans 9:5:
Mentioning Christ, he interposes a very great word concerning him, that he is over all, God blessed for ever. Lest the Jews should think meanly of him, because he was of their alliance, he here speaks thus honourably concerning him: and it is a very full proof of the Godhead of Christ; he is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever. Therefore, how much sorer punishment were they worthy of that rejected him!
Matthew Poole on Romans 9:5:
This is the fullest place to express the two natures that are in the person of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ; he was God as well as man: yea, this is the title by which the one and supreme God was known amongst the Jews.
Albert Barnes on Romans 9:5:
This is evidently applied to the Lord Jesus; and it proves that he is divine. If the [Authorized Version] translation is fairly made, and it has never been proved to be erroneous, it demonstrates that he is God as well as man.
Not one of the above cited expositors, nor any other historic Protestant expositor that I am aware of, or have ever seen, says that the KJB is ambiguous or erroneous here, they all read the English translation and had the reading comprehension to see that this text is clearly showing Jesus to be God, who is blessed forever. As much as we would like to be charitable to our opponents, this sort of argument can only be interpreted as blatantly dishonest, intellectually lazy, or simply demonstrating a basic lack of comprehension. There is simply no excuse for this sort of absurd objection to be raised.
Only-begotten Son, Only-begotten God, or only God?
The KJB at John 1:18 reads as follows:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The ESV renders it this way:
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
The NASB says something rather different:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
So the argument goes that the KJB removes the deity of Christ in this verse by using the word “Son” rather than “God”. There are several problems with the modern versions on this point, however. For one thing, the ESV is just plain wrong for translating μονογενης (monoyenese) as “only”, other translations say “one of a kind” or “one and only”, and these are also wrong. The church has literally, since the earliest years of Christianity, understood the word μονογενης to mean “only-begotten”; not only that, but this is actually one of the primary arguments used by the early church to prove the deity of Christ! If Jesus is begotten of the Father, then he is consubstantial with the Father, and thus fully God, as the Father is. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed literally uses this as the basis for Christ’s deity. Once again, this is an embarassing and flat-out ignorant argument.
Furthermore, both the ESV and the NASB present massive problems here. If Jesus is “the only God, who is in the bosom of the Father”, then what does this suggest? That there are other gods who are not in the bosom of the Father? Jesus is the only one? He’s a separate god from the Father? The NASB has the same exact problem, it says that Jesus Christ is the “only-begotten God” who is in the bosom of the Father. Is the Father also the only begotten God? No? Then you have a second god besides the Father. Both the ESV and the NASB, far from actually promoting and teaching the deity of Christ in this verse, actually promote Arianism. This should be no surprise as modern-day Arians prefer these translations over the KJB, and the Jehovah’s [False] Witness New World Translation also adopts the “god” variant here.
Aside from these considerations, scholars have refuted the notion that monoyenes means “one of a kind” or “unique” — you may consult the work of John V. Dahms here, Michael Marlowe’s work here, and Lee Irons’ work here.
1 Peter 3:15 — “Sanctify the Lord God” or “Sanctify Christ as Lord”?
The KJB reads in this verse: 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
The NASB says:
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence
It is likely that there is a reference here to Isaiah 8:13. The argument is that the KJB diminishes the deity of Christ here by omitting the name “Jesus”, and thus identifying him as Jehovah. However, the NASB actually makes the reference to Isaiah 8:13 incredibly ambiguous here. It is not at all clear in the NASB that Peter is telling us to sanctify Jesus as Jehovah in our hearts, only that we are to sanctify him as Lord, which may be interpreted by the non-Trinitarian in a way which does not require us to conclude that Jesus is God. The KJB, on the other hand, explicitly shows that “Lord” means “Jehovah” here because it is coupled with “God”. Not only so, but it even parallels Isaiah 8:13 in a much more obvious way:
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify the Lord God…
Isaiah 8:13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
Furthermore, we can easily show that “the Lord God” in 1 Peter 3:15 refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, by simply going back to chapter 2, where Peter explicitly quotes Isaiah 8:14:
1 Peter 2:7–8 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
-
Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
The antecedent to “he” in Isaiah 8:14 is the LORD of hosts. Thus we see that we can easily prove the deity of Christ from these passages using the KJB, and the NASB actually makes the clear reference to Isaiah 8:13 rather obscure. The KJB also provides yet another places where Jesus is not only called “The Lord” (i.e Jehovah), but also “God”.
Colossians 2:9 — “Godhead” or “Deity”?
Another claim made by modern version proponents is that the KJB mistranslates the Greek word theotes in Colossians 2:9, because somehow Modalists can use it to prove that Jesus is the Father. The KJB is also criticized for translating three similar, but different, Greek words as ‘Godhead’ in Acts 17:29, and Romans 1:20, along with this place. The claim is made that these words are “not identical in meaning”. The gentleman in the video in question quotes Richard C. Trent in Synonyms of the New Testament pg. 7–8 as follows:
“Theotes or theotetos is stronger for the Deity of Christ: The root word is Theos (God). Whereas the root word for theiotes from Romans 1:20 is theios (an adjective). It is better to translate theiotes as divine nature”
So according to the modern versionist, Colossians 2:9 should say “Deity”, and the other two verses should say “divine nature”. This argument is easily refuted by simply looking up the definition of the word “Godhead”:
GOD’HEAD, n. god’hed.
1. Godship; deity; divinity; divine nature or essence; applied to the true God, and to heathen deities.
As we can see, the word “Godhead” is perfectly sufficient for translating all three words. And it is especially powerful in Colossians 2:9, since it is affirming Christ’s Godship, and showing that he is God in the flesh. The word “deity” can be easily misinterpreted (I know from experience) by Unitarians to refer to a generic notion of “divinity”, while “Godhead” is a much more straightforward translation. How a Modalist can use the word “Godhead” in Col. 2:9 to prove that Jesus is the Father, is beyond me.
John 14:16–18: Is Jesus the Comforter?
John 14:16–18 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (18) I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
The KJB is accused of teaching Modalism here because it renders the word orphanos as “comfortless” rather than “orphans”, and gives the impression that Jesus is actually the promised comforter, thus identifying him as the Holy Spirit. However, it should first be pointed out that the translation of “orphans” can just as easily be, and sometimes is, used by Modalists to prove that Jesus is the Father. This doesn’t mean that it actually does prove such a thing, but the point is that the text can be misread either way.
Furthermore, translating the word orphanos in this verse as “orphans” is vague, the KJB rendering fits the context. Jesus later states in verse 23 that both he and the Father will come unto them; how is this accomplished? Via the sending of the Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son:
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Thus, there is no basis whatsoever for a Modalistic reading of this passage in the KJB.
Luke 10:21 — Does the King James Bible remove a reference to the Holy Spirit?
Luke 10:21 in the KJB reads:
Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
The same verse in the ESV reads:
Luke 10:21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
While it may be argued that the modern versions are more explicit in referencing the Holy Spirit here, it isn’t necessarily the case that the KJB is omitting the reference. For instance, in Matthew 23:43–44. Jesus says:
Matthew 22:43–44 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, (44) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Yet we know that Jesus is referring to David speaking by the Holy Spirit:
Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
It is clear, then, that David speaking “in spirit” means that he spoke by the power and working of the Holy Ghost. We see the same thing in John 4:
John 4:23–24 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. (24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
God is a Spirit, and therefore they that worship him are to worship “in spirit”, i.e in accordance with the Spirit, in his power and graces, etc.
The fact that the Father and Son are mentioned in the immediate context of Luke 10:21–22 further evidences the fact that Jesus was rejoicing in the Holy Spirit by “rejoicing in spirit”.
John 14:14 — Did Jesus tell his disciples to pray to him?
KJB:
John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
ESV:
John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
It is argued that the KJB is deficient for omitting the word “me” in this verse, thus undermining the deity of Christ. However, the KJB is perfectly consistent with what we understand about the economic Trinity. It is certainly not unlawful to address Jesus, as we have some examples in scripture. However, ordinarily we find reference to petitioning the Father (John 2:1; Acts 4:24–30; Ephesians 3:14; Colossians 1:12). Moreover, we never read about anyone peitioning Jesus in Jesus’ name, and the modern versions present us with a rather bizarre reading here, it isn’t likely at all that Jesus would say something as odd as “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it”. To do something in Jesus’s name is to do something on his behalf, by his authority, there would be no reason whatsoever for him to say “Ask me something on my behalf/by my authority”, since we would be going to him directly. It’s obvious that this is just another weird critical-text reading which doesn’t even fit the context of the rest of the passage.
Supposed Contradictions and Errors in the King James Bible
Acts 9:7 & 22:9
These verses in the KJB read:
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
The modern versions say that the men did not “understand” the voice which spoke to Saul, in an attempt to resolve an apparent contradiction between the two accounts. It is alleged that the KJB does not remove this contradiction because it says that they heard the voice of Jesus in Acts 9, but that they didn’t hear his voice in Acts 22. First of all, it is still very possible to interpret “heard not” as “understood not” in the KJB. Secondly, however, if we simply look a little closer, we will see very clearly that Acts 9:7 says the men heard “a voice”, not that they heard the voice of Jesus. The men heard Saul’s voice, but not the voice of the one speaking to him. Nor is this a novel interpretation invented by King James Bible believers. John Crysostom, a native Greek speaker in the 4th Century, also interpreted the account this way, in his Homily on the book of Acts , chapter 9, he states:
“And they which were with him heard the voice of Paul, but saw no person to whom he answered-for (the Lord) suffered them to be hearers of what was less important. Had they heard the other Voice, they would not have believed; but perceiving Paul answering (some person), they marvelled.”
Critical text advocates get the idea that there is a contradiction because the relevant text of Acts 9:7 in Greek reads:
ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς, μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες
τῆς φωνῆς literally translated would read as “the voice”, and indeed this is how the modern translations, such as the ESV, render the verse:
Acts 9:7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Because they have chosen to translate the definite article, this creates the impression that Luke is saying that the men indeed heard the previously mentioned voice, namely that of Jesus. They resolve this apparent contradiction by translating the Greek workd akouo (ah-koo-oh) in Acts 22:9 as “understand”:
Acts 22:9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
They do so on the basis of the word being used with the Genative in this verse, rather than the Accusative as in Acts 9. However, it ought to be noted that this interpretation of akouo with the Genative is not definitive, as A.T Robertson notes in his Word Pictures in the New Testament:
However, this distinction in case with akouō, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in Joh_3:8 where phōnēn undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ēkousen phōnēn about Saul in Act_9:4. Besides in Act_22:7 Paul uses ēkousa phōnēs about himself, but ēkousa phōnēn about himself in Act_26:14, interchangeably.
Secondly, it is not always necessary or appropriate to translate the definite article into English. Many languages, such as Spanish, use the definite article quite frequently with nouns, which do not carry over when translating into English. Greek is the exact same way. Two examples of this would be John 3:10 and Romans 16:23:
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
The Greek text here says ὁ διδάσκαλος — literally the teacher/master — but the KJB, as well as the modern versions, correctly translate it as “a master” or “a teacher”.
Romans 16:23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.
“a brother” is ὁ ἀδελφός in the Greek — literally the brother — the use of the definite article in and of itself does not mean that it ought to be translated into English. The King James Bible is correct and perfectly accurate in its translation here.
There is no contradiction to be found here in the King James Bible whatsoever.
Thou shalt not “kill” or Thou shalt not “murder”?
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Matthew 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The KJB is criticized for not translating the word for “murder” consistently as “murder”, and creating a contradiction in Ecclesiastes 3:3. This is simply not a problem, because we can clearly see from context, and by letting scripture interpret scripture, that “thou shalt not kill” is obviously to be taken in a qualified sense. The fact that the term “murder” is used in Matthew and Romans, as well as the fact that the book of Exodus, and the rest of the Pentateuch, show various instances in which killing of some kind is allowed and even necessary, tells any rational reader that the commandment in Exodus 20 is not to be taken in an absolute sense. Modern lexicons also tell us that the Hebrew word can mean both “murder” and “kill”, so once again the argument is shown to be severely lacking.
Conclusion
As we can see, the modern versionists are rather desparate to get people to abandon the King James Bible. We often get ridiculed and mocked for believing we have a perfectly reliable and accurate translation, as if we are anti-intellectual, and yet these sorts of arguments are so bad that several of them are the result of not being able to read properly, literally. To be fair, the gentleman in the video was charitable, nevertheless, it doesn’t make his arguments any better.
