King James and the Translators of the Holy Bible

Many are victims of false history, trying to say the King James Bible is wrong because King James did so-and-so. It this comes from scholars, they are scholars that clearly do not check the facts in the real world before pronouncing such things, or they have a different ungodly agenda. A careful look at history, and at literally thousands of differences from it that appear in modern versions, expose the truth.

Some also mention that the Pilgrims that arrived on shores on the American continent that now form part of the Massachusetts coastline, carried “mostly” the Geneva Bible. Let us remember that among them were some that carried the King James Bible. Let us remember that the King James Bible proved itself among Puritans over the years.

A number of Puritans carried the KJB to the New World in 1620, only nine years after the first “edition” was printed. More KJB’s came later, and in one or two generations the KJB took over as the Bible of choice for the entire English-speaking world, including Puritans like the descendants of the Pilgrims. Today even most Calvinists prefer the KJB. Over the Geneva Bible at least.

It was a Puritan (Pilgrims were Puritans) who suggested in a meeting called by James to address grievances. The King commissioned a committee of 54. As to King James making changes, that is belied by the truth of the scrutiny of the ages. His orders were to translate it as such. Even his supposed admonitions to use “church” instead of “congregation” were dismissed, there are plenty of appearances of congregation there, except where appropriate.

Its fruits are unquestionable, especially compared to the modern translations. The NKJV shows signs of mislabeling: it throws out hundreds of perfectly appropriate words and substitutes modern-version terms that come from the corrupt and wildly self-contradictory Alexandrian adulterations of the Word in Greek. Not as bad as the rest though.


%d bloggers like this: