ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The King James Holy Bible : Facts VS Fiction

Updated on April 6, 2013

If you have noticed, over the past few decades, “new” Bible translations have been showing up all over the place. Though many newer versions have shown up, many Christians have stuck to the roots & stayed only using authorized KJV Bibles. Others, however, have chosen to use newer versions for various reasons. The most common heard reasoning is “The newer versions are easier to read & understand” & “The old context has many mistakes that had to be revised to the current times”. These same people believe the modern versions to be better than the original translation of the King James Bible. To understand what is going on, you must study the bible's themselves. You can decide for yourself which is the truest form of God's word. Don't just read your Bible, study it & learn its history.

Facts VS Fiction

Many Christians are simply using the original translation by faith alone rather than learning about it. If you have knowledge on your Bible you can better defend its trues. You want to become grounded in the Word. Below are a few facts about the original authorized King James Bible, as well as a few lies (fictions).


Fiction – The King James Bible was revised many times between 1611 & 1800; Making modern translations additional revisions of the original Bible of 1611.

Fact – The revisions of the King James Bible were to correct minor typographical errors. They also added in notes (not in the actual Word, but foreground text) & got rid of the Apocrypha that was between the Old Testament & the New Testament. The only actual change in the Word was correction typo errors like punctuations & misspelling of words. The 36,000+ changes of the actual Word that were made didn't start until modern times (the past few centuries).


Fiction – The new (modern) translations are more accurately translated. They have been translated from older, better manuscripts.

Fact – No one seems asks what these manuscripts are, where they came from & who actually wrote them. These modern translations are based upon the work of B.F. Westcott & F.J.A. Hort – Two Greek scholars from England. They both hated the way the King James Bible was translated so made up their own Greek text which was based on two Roman Catholic manuscripts : The Codex Vaticanus (1481) & Sinaiticus (1859). The Codex Vaticanus was found in the Pope's library in 1481 & the Sinaiticus was discovered from a trash can which was at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai (hence, the name). The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative & is most responsible for the new “modern” versions. This literature contains the Greek pagan books known as the Apocrypha. It omits the Book of Revelation & cuts off the Book of Hebrews at 9:14. Ironically enough, in 10 God forbids the Catholic Church's priesthood. These scriptures originated in Alexandria, Egypt. Origen & Clement, two Greek “scholars” are responsible ( the Authors) for the Apocrypha. In 313 A.D. Constantine, the Roman emperor ordered fifty copies of the bible from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaira. Instead, he chose to send him only manuscripts of Alexandria text rather then sending the original Bible un the Syrian text from Antioch. From there, the Alexandria text, also called Egyptian or Hesychian text, made its way into the Vatican manuscript. Eventually it ended up the Westcott & Hort Greek text. Today, we find it in many “revised” or “modern” bibles. So by all of this, when you read of someone correcting or fixing the mistakes of the King James Bible with more authoritative or older manuscript, you are reading about someone trying to use a Roman Catholic text to over-throw the honored text of God.


Fiction – The new translations are “needed” to fix the errors as well as the contradictions inf the King James Bible.

Fact – There has never been one person that has proof that there are errors & contradictions in the King James Bible. There are many preachers & even “Christian” colleges that try to point out contradictions to their followers. The arguments have been dis-proven many times.


Fiction – The new translations are needed to update that manuscript from Old English to modern English. The KJV is far to hard for people to understand.

Fact – The English in the KJV is not by any means hard to understand. Most of the Old English words are explained by reading the passage & noting how the word is being used. The Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company actually says the KJV is easier to understand than the updated and modern versions.


Fiction – The original KJV Bible included the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.

Fact – The KJV translators knew that the Apocrypha was not scripture which is why they placed it between the Old & New Testament using it as an historical document, not as actual scripture.


Fiction – The KJV can't be trusted because the translators were only men & all men are sinners. It likely has many mistakes.

Fact – If that is a true statement, then the original text in Hebrew & Greek is not to be trusted & was likely to have mistakes because it too, was written by men.


Fiction – The King James translators put in their own italics that were not in the original context.

Fact – The italics in the KJV are proof that the translators were honest with there work. They put the word in italics we we would know they were not in the original manuscript they used. There are actualy justified italics in the KJV. If we look in Deuteronomy 8:3, the word “word” is in italics, but if we look to Matthew 4:4 we see that Jesus included the italicized word – Why would Jesus quote it if it didn't belong in the Bible?


My Own Opinion

To me, personally, I don't need anymore reasons to trust in the KJV Bible. I will continue to use it as my only bible because it makes sense to me & feels right in my heart. For me, the old context has a stronger impact on my spirit. I just want to encourage people to not just read their Bibles but study them. Learn the history of your book so you can stand on solid ground. Regardless of what anyone could ever say about the King James Bible, I will never stop using it for an updated or modern version.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • Mathew James profile image

      Mathew James 

      6 years ago

      there are many of the other Gospels in the NAG other that the 4 found in the KJV

    • k12rswow profile image


      6 years ago from New England


      How does the NAG help?

    • ii3rittles profile imageAUTHOR


      6 years ago

      Thanks for both your comment! :)

    • Mathew James profile image

      Mathew James 

      6 years ago

      imo, the Nag Hammadi scripture is the best way to read the Gospel of God, but that also is incomplete.

    • Disappearinghead profile image


      6 years ago from Wales, UK

      The KJV is only 'authorised' because it was the translation authorised by King James, not authorised necessarily by God. Previously Christians were burnt at the stake for having English bibles. As an Englishman I fail to see the point in holding on to a bible written in Elizabethan English that nobody speaks except when quoting the KJV or Shakespeare.

      The KJV was influenced by the beliefs of the translators prevalent at the time just as modern translations are today. For example, the KJV used the word 'hell' 64 times in the Old Testament; 31 times translated from the Hebrew 'Sheol' (unseen place of the sleeping dead) , 31 times from the word 'grave', and 3 times from 'pit'. Now what was wrong with directly translating from the Hebrew into equivalent English words? I'm guessing the translators wanted to emphasis the 17th century concept of hell that persists today. Similarly, in the NT the KJV uses 'hell' as a translation from the Greek 'Hades' (synonymous with Sheol) except on a single occasion where 'Grave' is used in Acts 2:27. Clearly an agenda was being pushed here.

      We should not be surprised if a translation such as the Vaticanus omits Revelation as it wasn't until the 4th century that this book, supposedly written in the 1st century, was admitted into the canon. If it takes 300 years of debate about including a book, then that book must be highly questionable. (As a side note I'm not entirely convinced by it because the four living creatures are a rip off from Babylonian astrology - see the signs of the zodiac and their positions in an astronomical chart).

      At the end of the day, I think Christians would serve themselves well to only study from interlinear literal translations from Hebrew and Greek. They can make their own minds up on what the bible says and see the wilful mistranslations in the various versions of the bible for themselves.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)