Which King James Bible Version would I recommend?

 Which King James Bible Version would I recommend?


Why the King James matters and why so many attack it.  

The Foundation is The WORD OF GOD 

The Final Authority of the King James Bible

RUN AWAY from the Scofield Reference Bible (thethirdheaventraveler.com)

Modern Bible translations are satanic:


The History of the King James Bible.  Why it is the FINAL AUTHORITY of God's Word:

The True History of the King James Bible - all modern Bible Translations are Satanic (thethirdheaventraveler.com)

Why the King James Bible uses ONLY BEGOTTEN and NOT only Son.

Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections - John 3:16, Only Begotten (av1611.com)


"John 3:16 is quoted more than any other verse in the Bible, at least by Christians and other church-goers. There may be no verse that is more frequently perverted than this one, but most people still know the full verse as presented by the KJV. Why then, is it so hard to find the word 'begotten' in other versions? The word in question is 'monogenes'. This is a compound of two words monos and genes, the latter being drawn from the verb genao, which means to beget or cause to be produced. Monos means only or single, as is clear by its many appearances in English, such as monotony, monopoly, monotone, etc. Genao has come into the English language as well in words like generation, genesis, genes, generate, and so forth. The two words together mean only-begotten! "

Dr. John Hinton

The spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR. Doctrine Matters (thethirdheaventraveler.com)

Doctrine is: Learning The Teaching of the Word of God (thethirdheaventraveler.com)



Doctrine of Balaam:

The King James detractors always repeat worn out reasons the King James Bible is not accurate, or the FINAL AUTHORITY of God's word and they use the Hate and Division word saying that we KING JAMES ONLY are a cult and cause division and strife in the church.


Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

King James Version (KJV)

Hebrews 4:12 KJB

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Ephesians 5:11

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

King James Version (KJV)

King James Bibles I use and recommend:

Note: As long as you find a KING JAMES BIBLE 1769 - today called the Standard Translation - it really comes down to personal preferences.   

Note:  I would not recommend the 1900 Revisions. See further in this study. 

Thanks to my amazing Brother in Christ  Cameron Moshfegh from Switzerland.

Here's a KING JAMES BIBLE site I've used

 I personally use and love the Thomas Nelson King James Bible Red Letter Edition in my study.  This is my main reference source in my study and teaching. 

 I also have a KJV Study Bible printed in 2011 Barbour Publishing, based on the 1769 that I use from time to time to check references and to find the context for historical background. 

Note:  Be careful with any commentary in the King James Study bibles.  Just as in the misuse of the Strongs Concordance, it is very easy to get off track as I've found commentary that is not correct.  

I have the 1611 with the ASV Authorized Version whenever contemplating the historical reference to a word for example the Middle English to Early Modern English use of suffixes "eth," "est" etc.  And by the way, the suffixes really matter as they express the superlative among other things. The most compelling was in my study of John 21, "Peter do you love me?"

But for the most part, because of the old printing press issues and significant spelling, grammar, syntax, and vowel changes to name a few in the English language from 1611 to 1769, we King James Bible users will use the 1769 version.   

Note: As part of this study, I'm compelled (personally - not telling anyone they should) purchase the 

Here is an example of the actual 1611 to the 

1611 KJV Bible

1769 Reference:

1 John 5:13 (KJV)  

UNDERSTANDING THE Difference between EARLY Modern English and Modern English; i.e,  1611 English compared to 1769 English.

See below in this study regarding the REPROBATES who try to tell you the King James Bible is loaded with thousands upon thousands of errors.  I respond in red letters to the most egregious and provide links of solid King James Apologists that easily refute these ridiculous claims.  

I'd offer the same argument atheists use in their vain attempt to say the Bible is full of errors based on the different accounts in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  But in reality when examined by forensic experts, IF all the Gospels matched perfectly it would be fraudulent. 

I'm fully aware that Present Day English evolves continually and what is considered Modern English is now looked upon as archaic. Just as the classical music is so much richer in its content compared to today's music, language was no different.

The extreme changes in grammar - imagine inflecting nouns (the German influence) in 4 cases and in singular and plural. 

Noun Declension

Note: Inflections are modifying the word as in conjugation of verbs:  To Be:  I am, You are, They are, etc.   .   Sample:

In standard Old English, adjectives, nouns, pronouns, and verbs were fully inflected. Nouns were inflected for four cases (nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative) in singular and plural. Five nouns of first kinship—faeder, mōdor, brōthor, sweostor, and dohtor (“father,” “mother,” “brother,” “sister,” and “daughter,” respectively)—had their own set of inflections. There were 25 nouns such as mon, men (“man,” “men”) with mutated, or umlauted, stems. Adjectives had strong and weak declensions, the strong showing a mixture of noun and pronoun endings and the weak following the pattern of weak nouns. Personal, possessive, demonstrative, interrogative, indefinite, and relative pronouns had full inflections. The pronouns of the 1st and 2nd persons still had distinctive dual forms:

Also, the verb conjugation changed dramatically, but linguists believe the major shift was the vowel changes.

Study the Great VOWEL Shift

English Prepositions in the History of English Grammar Writing

David Weber

Weber, David. “English Prepositions in the History of English Grammar Writing.” AAA: Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 37, no. 2 (2012): 227–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43025829.

Meech, Sanford Brown. “Early Application of Latin Grammar to English.” PMLA 50, no. 4 (1935): 1012–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/458105.

the word preposition comes from the Latin verb praepōnō, which means “put before.” This is because a preposition usually goes before its noun!

In Latin, the object of the preposition will be in either the ablative case or the accusative case. There are some general rules for when Latin prepositions take which case, and I will explain them below.

In Greek also heavily influenced in the English language, more than 150,000 words, the grammar is also influenced through Latin as I mention above. 

Explanation of how conjugation/declension:

Nominative, accusative, dative and genitive are all grammatical cases.

They vary in function in different languages.

Here is what they look like in English:

nominative - subject

e.g. I ate some pie.

Here, I would be in the nominative since it is I that was doing the verb (eating).

accusative - direct object

e.g. Do you have money?

Here, money would be in the accusative since it is the pet that the verb is being done to- the pet is owned by the person.

dative - indirect object

e.g. I bought a horse for my friend.

Here, the dative is 'for my friend'. The reason why this is not in the accusative is that I am buying a horse (the direct object in this sentence), rather than my friend.

genitive - possession

e.g. The boy's balloon is gone.

This case is easier to notice since the word itself usually changes. "'s" is added to the nominative word, so 'the boy -> the boy's'. Personal pronouns also change (e.g.he, she, it -> his, her, its).

The Syntax was also quite different, note:

According to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Early Modern English (EME) is the language that Shakespeare wrote, and it is different from the English we speak today, which is called Modern English. The major differences between EME and Modern English are in vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. EME has many words that are no longer used today, such as “thou,” “thee,” and “hath.” The grammar of EME is also different from Modern English. For example, in EME, the word order of a sentence was more flexible than it is today.

Regarding the 1900 King James translation.  

I had been vaguely aware of a 1900 edition and had on occasion used the online careference, mistakenly never taking the time to investigate.

As my 3rd reference I have used King James online references like the 1900 pure oxford KJV. 

Known as:
Addressing the REPROBATES who support the perverted translations but pick apart the King James Bible.

These prey on the feeble minded who do not study.

Without understanding linguistics as my mentor Dr. Hinton and others like Dr. Grady and Dr. Gipp, the extreme changes from 1611 from the printing technology and spelling and grammar language change DO NOT CHANGE the meaning of the word.

EXAMPLE:  In middle English the noun man was changed depending on its use depending on its use as a subject, direct object, indirect object, 

The King James Bible Only CRITICS always single out the King James Bible and they love to boast the following examples:

The 24,000 Changes in the AV Since 1611 to 1769

Without knowledge, this demonic bait and switch deception will lead the captive into the PIT.

This is why we must STUDY.

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations! Dr James D Price, in his 2006 book “King James Onlyism: A New Sect”, Appendix A, reproduces 600 of these changes that have some degree of significance; some represent moderni­zation of vocabulary or grammar; some represent correction of discrepancies in earlier editions; some represent the introduction of new discrepancies not in earlier editions: -

"Joshua 3:11 in the 1611 is an appositive. It shows the the Arc of the Covenant is the Lord Himself. The 1769 shows possessiveness, meaning the Arc of the Covenant belongs to the Lord, they are NOT the same doctrine."

LIAR.  This is an absolute Lie!  The truth is the ARK is NOT God!  The 1769 King James bible has it correct in modern English grammar.

An appositive noun or noun phrase follows another noun or noun phrase in apposition to it; that is, it provides information that further identifies or defines it.

 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.  1611

11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.  1769

Study the Preposition OF and its use to define the part to the whole used in modern English which clarifies the same meaning as in the 1611.

More Changes Between the 1611 and the 1769 Editions of the KJV | A Salted Faith (rickbeckman.org)

33 thoughts on “More Changes Between the 1611 and the 1769 Editions of the KJV”

Rick Beckman Commentary: quote:

KJV-Onlyism is a divisive tradition full of more holes than a bowl of Cheerios. May the Lord open the eyes and ears of all those trapped by this stronghold, just as He did for me.

Here are some more changes between the 1611 and the 1769 editions of the KJV. You can see that the changes in some instances affect the meaning of the context quite significantly!


In each of the following examples below, we see the grammar, syntax, print, spelling changes from Early Modern English to Modern English.   Pay paticular attention to my notes above regarding the pronoun, noun inflections.

Deuteronomy 26:1 — “which the Lord giueth” vs. “which the LORD thy God giveth”

Joshua 13:29 — “tribe of Manasseh, by” vs. “tribe of the children of Manasseh by”

Ruth 3:15 — “he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”

Psalm 69:32 — “seeke good” vs. “seek God”

Jeremiah 49:1 — “inherit God” vs. “inherit Gad”

Matthew 16:16 — “Thou art Christ” vs. “Thou art the Christ”

Mark 10:18 — “There is no man good” vs. “there is none good” (note that now “there is” is marked as being added by the translators for clarity)

1 Corinthians 4:9 — “approued to death” vs. “appointed to death”

 Note: 1 Corinthians 4:9: In 1611 approved meant doomed, but in the 1700's the word approved in the context of 1 Corinthians 4:9 meant to be appointed, which is exactly what the Greek word epithanatios means.   See Oxford English Dictionary: Page 105  Approved meant "convicted" which is now obsolete.   Prescribe, DECREE Ordain (doomed). 

All of these examples are purely changes of the Early Modern English to Modern English and also taking into consideration the printing at the time of the 1611 printing.

Here's another piece of work: This Reprobate makes claim after claim of so called significant errors in the King James Bible.  However, when I spent the time to check, I found nothing of what he claims:

A few glaring examples:  He claims the word "than" was changed from the 1611 to "then" and says these words DO NOT MEAN THE SAME.  

Study this out for yourself in the Oxford English Dictionary page 3275. THAN & THEN meant the same thing - had same meaning in Middle English into Early Modern English BUT they are distinctly different in 1769 up to today. 

Another Example, he blasts 1 Corinthians 12:28 KJB 1611 helpes in government  changed to helps, government in 1769.  Study how the prepositions changed in the English Language and how the 1769 matches the GREEK (there is no preposition between the 2 nouns. helps G484 governments G2941. 


I do NOT agree with this assessment of the 1900 KJV


The author states: "

  • Article - King James Exclusive The Legitmacy of exclusive use of the King James Bible

  • Article - KJV Revisions since 1611 (pdf) In short, they're mostly typos and none revise the translation.

  • KJV 1900 - Pure Cambridge Edition (KJVPCE) - It used to be that there were two primary versions of the KJV Bible, the Oxford 1769, used by Thomas Nelson (and many others) has been the standard version, at least in the U.S., and the Cambridge 1873, published by Cambridge University Press, popularly used in Europe. Essentially, the differences between the two are very minor revisions comprised of spellings, captialization, etc., not variations in the text. Recently (2013?), the KJV 1900 has emmerged, and (unfortunately) has been named the "Pure Cambridge Edition".

    As far as I can tell, This 'new/not-new' edit-version is distributed by Faithlife (Logos developer/parent), is an extremely minor revision of one or more Cambridge University Press edition(s) published "circa 1900-1970s," and is significant primarily as the latest standard form of Electronic KJV text used by Logos software. To date, I have NOT been able to confirm the publication information for this edition, and the (very short) revision list I have seen includes only 12 items; a few spelling and capitalization changes, one instance of changing an 'and' to 'or', and one instance of changing a plural noun to a single noun. My Take-away is that the KJV 1900, a.k.a. KJVPCE, aka Pure Cambridge Edition, is not a divergent revision, but is a trustworthy 'normal' KJV text with no discernable distinctions, in terms of use and reading.


Featured Blogs

Who are you Amir Tsarfati? - My Brother in Christ or A Ravenous Wolf in 'Sheep's Clothing

CHRISLAM CONFIRMED: Led By Pope Francis, Leaders Of The World’s Religions

Rebuking Dr. Eugene Kim BBC INTERNATIONAL