“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” – Deuteronomy 4:2
I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN IN these pages of the corruptions replete in all modern translations of the Bible, of the false gospels they preach, of the false doctrines they promote, of the false teachers they exalt. I have demonstrated how thoroughly they differ from the venerable King James Bible they seek to unseat. I have proven them to be unfruitful works of darkness which led many into perdition and everlasting destruction. Yet, I can never exhaust the depravity and deception manifest in the modern perversions of the sacred Scriptures, and will now expose three more examples of their changing the truth of God into a lie. As usual, I will first show the King James Bible’s accurate rendering of the verse in question, then list the modern “Bible” perversion of the same verse, before showing why these corruptions are so odious.
PERVERSION #1: JOHN 4:42
John 4:42 (King James Bible): “And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”
John 4:42 (English Revised Version): “They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”
What happened to “the Christ” in the ERV? Why are its translators so against the name which is above every name being recognized as the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe? Christ Jesus was not merely a good man, a great teacher, a compassionate soul – many unbelievers and apostates will acknowledge these things. What they will not acknowledge, due their evil heart of unbelief, is that He was also God manifest in the flesh. He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Hebrews 7:26). That He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, is what qualified Him, and Him alone, to be the Savior of the world. The title “the Christ” does not merely identify Him as Jesus; it designates him as the virgin-born, sinless Son of God who came to the world in human flesh, lived a perfect life, went to Calvary’s cross to pay for your sins with His precious blood, and resurrected three days later to sprinkle His shed blood on the heavenly Mercy Seat, thereby completing His work of redemption. The title “the Savior of the world” by itself does not necessarily refer to Christ; after all, there are many “saviors” to which the world looks – false gods, influential men, powerful organizations – but these cannot deliver a man from the wrath to come.
Unsurprisingly, the ESV also mutilates John 6:69, spurning the King James rendering of “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” and replacing it with “you are the Holy One of God.” Appropriately, the only use of the phrase “Holy One of God” in the King James Bible comes in Mark 1:24, when a devil tells Jesus, “I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.” Why do the ESV translators want the apostles and devils calling Jesus by the same title? Perhaps it is because these sons of Belial who shamelessly corrupt the word of God prefer everyone refer to Him with the same title they do.
PERVERSION #2: JEREMIAH 10:5
Jeremiah 10:5 (King James Bible): “They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”
Jeremiah 10:5 (New American Standard “Bible”): “They are like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, Because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, For they can do no harm, Nor can they do any good.”
Promoters of the modern Bible translations will often make the disingenuous claim that the new “Bibles” differ from the King James Bible only in the former’s modernization of the language, which has been downgraded to the mediocrity of modern English so it is “easier to read.” I have refuted this lie previously in these pages, and therefore do not intend to revisit the subject here beyond mentioning the King James Bible was translated from a completely different (and vastly superior) family of manuscripts than those which constitute the modern perversions.
Scriptures as Jeremiah 10:5 blithely disprove that absurd belief of these differences between the KJB and the modern translations being merely the elimination of obsolete or archaic language. In what universe are “upright as the palm tree” and “like a scarecrow in a cucumber field” even remotely similar phrases? Since “palm tree” is not an archaic term, the sophistry of “archaic words” which Bible corrupters often deploy to defend or divert from their unlawful deeds cannot explain so enormous a difference. Might I suggest the difference lies in two completely opposite sets of manuscripts, and two completely opposite translating philosophies, the King James Bible being translated word-for-word, and the modern translations being translated thought-for-thought?
“But,” the Bible butcherer protests, “this isn’t a big deal. So one versions says ‘palm tree’ and another version says ‘a scarecrow in a cucumber field.’ What’s the big deal? The same idea is expressed by both versions. Why split hairs over a non-issue?”
The purity and accuracy of God’s Word was not a “non-issue” to David, a man after God’s own heart. Of the Holy Scriptures, David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote, “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it” (Psalm 119:140). More importantly, the purity and accuracy of God’s Word is not a “non-issue” to the Almighty Himself, who has often promised He will preserve His Word “from this generation for ever” (Psalm 12:7). If God is to preserve His Word, then His Word cannot change, and if His Word does change – which it must certainly have, if a “palm tree” becomes “a scarecrow in a cucumber field” – then He has not preserved His Word, He is a liar, and we who have trusted Him for salvation are of all men most miserable.
Besides, it is not for us to decide what in the Holy Writ is, or is not, important. If God chose to include “palm tree” in His Word, then it should be left as “palm tree”, whether small-minded Bible “scholars” like it to be, or not. WORDS are what God promised to preserve – not themes, not ideas, not general frames of reasoning, but WORDS. Whether or not a modern perversion expresses “the same idea” as the King James Bible is immaterial.
PERVERSION #3: ACTS 20:21
Acts 20:21 (King James Bible): “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Acts 20:21 (Common English “Bible”): “You know I have testified to both Jews and Greeks that they must change their hearts and lives as they turn to God and have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Repentance toward God” simply involves a change of mind, by which a man understands himself to be a guilty sinner incapable of saving himself from going to Hell, and then leaves off believing whatever he heretofore believed to instead receive Christ as his Savior. It is an immediate act whereby the sinner is saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit, never to lose the free gift of salvation he received by faith in Christ’s blood. Jesus referenced this repentance in Mark 1:15, when he exhorted his hearers to “repent ye, and believe the gospel.” The men to whom He addressed Himself were to change their minds about whatever they hitherto believed about salvation by recognizing their sinnership and believing on Christ to save them from Hell.
Contrast “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3) with the heavy burdens and grievous to be borne which the Pharisaical evangelicals lay on men’s shoulders. According to the Common English “Bible”, simply acknowledging one is a sinner, and looking to Jesus for salvation, is insufficient. All “must change their hearts and lives” before they are worthy to turn to God and have faith in Christ. According to them, salvation is not a free gift, but a reward which belongs only to those who suitably reform themselves so that they can earn eternal life. Men must turn from their sins, cease from their wicked ways, commit their lives henceforth to the cause of “religion”, surrender themselves to God, invite Jesus into their heart, follow Christ as their “Lord”, and then they will be able to go to heaven, so long as they persevere in their discipleship.
This does not sound, to me, like the easy yoke and light burden of which Christ spoke (Matthew 11:28:30). Moreover, if eternal life is a “free gift”, as the Bible emphatically proclaims (Romans 5:15, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:9), why should a man have to do anything to earn it? A true gift cannot be earned, after all. It is simply given, and received. In the case of salvation, no man can earn it, because it is “not of works, lest any man should boast.” Why would Christ need have died, if you could work your way to heaven? The self-righteous sanctimony implicit in the implication that how a man lives determines where he spends eternity overshadows the humble truth that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), and therefore no man will ever deserve to go to heaven, no matter how much he devotes himself to religion. Such is why Christ came to the earth, to be our Substitute and pay our sin debt for us.
The Common English “Bible”, like its fellow modern perversion brethren, prescribes reformation as the way to Heaven. But all the reformation in the world cannot save a man; he must be regenerated; he must be born again. And except a man be born again – no matter how many times he is baptized, no matter how many churches he joins, no matter how much religion he gets – he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).
CONCLUSION
The Scriptures make it plain that no man is permitted to add to, or diminish from God’s Word. But the translators of the modern Bible versions have added to, and subtracted from, the Holy Writ at will, thus proving themselves to be both fools and liars. They have handled the Word of God deceitfully in divers ways, divesting Christ of His deity, stupefying warnings against the gods of heathendom, and perverting the Gospel itself. These are not minor issues of disagreement in which only pedants take interest; these are fundamental doctrines of the faith being attacked, distorted, and downright destroyed by men of corrupt minds who perpetuate this sordid business of Bible corruption. The difference between the King James Bible and the modern counterfeits seeking to displace it is the difference between Christ, the sinless Savior and Christ, a sinful man; between a Gospel of free grace and a “gospel” of bondage, burdens, and works; between an eternity in Heaven, or an eternity in Hell. No portion of the Holy Scriptures is sacred to the perverting hands of ungodly men who wrest the Scriptures unto their own destruction and deceive many by their pernicious ways. Do not allow these self-styled “experts” to defile you with their sordid pseudo-scholarship, dear reader. If you do not have a King James Bible, you do not have a Bible.
This text raises some strong points about the differences between the King James Bible and modern translations. It’s interesting how the author emphasizes the importance of specific titles like “the Christ” and their theological significance. I wonder if the focus on the King James Version might overshadow the value of other translations that aim to make the text more accessible. The argument about “the Christ” being omitted in the ERV is compelling, but could it be a matter of translation philosophy rather than intentional deception? The author’s passion for preserving the integrity of Scripture is clear, but does this approach risk alienating those who find modern translations helpful? I’d love to hear more about why the King James Version is considered the ultimate standard. What do you think about the balance between preserving tradition and making the Bible understandable for today’s readers?
Thank you for your comment. Since you seek to “hear more about why the King James Version is considered the ultimate standard”, I highly recommend you read all of the articles in my “Forever Settled in Heaven” page, wherein will be found detailed descriptions of how and why the King James Bible is superior to the modern translations. I believe the systematic omission of “the Christ” from the modern versions is deliberate, but whether it is or not does not change the damage done by repeatedly removing the name that is above every name. The Word of God should not be changed to suit an ever-changing world.
The author’s critique of modern Bible translations is both passionate and thought-provoking. It’s fascinating how they emphasize the King James Version as the standard of accuracy, but I wonder if this perspective might overlook the nuances of language evolution and cultural context. The focus on the term “Christ” in the ERV raises an interesting point—does the omission truly diminish the message, or is it a matter of interpretation? I’d love to hear more about how the author reconciles their view with the diversity of theological perspectives. Do you think modern translations intentionally obscure the divinity of Christ, or could there be other reasons for these changes? The argument is compelling, but it feels like there’s room for dialogue on how we approach sacred texts in a changing world. What’s your take on balancing tradition with accessibility in religious texts?
Thank you for your comment. You ask how I reconcile my view with the diversity of theological perspectives? I do not attempt to reconcile my view with anything except the King James Bible, but if I did, I certainly would not try to reconcile it with the ever-changing doctrines of sinful men. The so-called “science” of textual criticism, while maintaining consistent in its unwarranted critiques of the King James Bible, has changed its lowly “standards” numerous times over the years. It would be unwise to align my views with something which constantly changes, when the pure Word of God never changes. You mention wanting “dialogue” on approaching Bible manuscripts, but there is more than enough of that already. The matter boils down to one of final authority – do you believe God when he promised to preserve his word unto every generation, or do you believe men who claim that God failed to keep his promise?
Your perspective on modern Bible translations is certainly thought-provoking. I find it intriguing how passionately you defend the King James Version, but I wonder if you’ve considered the historical and linguistic context in which modern translations were created. Isn’t it possible that they aim to make the Scriptures more accessible to contemporary readers? You mention the omission of “the Christ” in the ERV—could this be an attempt to simplify the text rather than diminish its meaning? I’m curious, do you believe that the essence of the message is lost in these translations, or is it more about the specific wording? Also, how do you reconcile the idea that God’s truth can be preserved across different languages and versions? I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether the focus should be on the literal text or the underlying message. What do you think?
Thank you for your comment. The “historical and linguistic context in which modern translations were created” is not half as important as the philosophical motivations from which they were derived. And these philosophical motivations revolved around the lie that there is no perfect Bible in the world today, nor has one ever existed, and that the best man can do is look to “textual experts” as they futilely labor to reassemble what they think resembles the original text. In other words, men decide they know what is or isn’t the Bible better than God does, and thereby make themselves gods – the same promise which Satan offered Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:5).
Deleting “the Christ” – which the modern versions do with alacrity – oversimplifies the text since the act of doing so occludes the meaning. Suppose we had the sentence, “This is Welles, the author.” By the illogic the modern versions employ, “Welles” would be removed, leaving the sentence as, “This is the author.” The sentence has been oversimplified to the point it now has lost all meaning. Furthermore, as I pointed out in the article, God promised to preserve his WORDS – not just the “essence of the message”, but the very WORDS themselves. Words that are different are not the same.
As to the rest of your comment, if one believes the King James Bible, there is nothing to “reconcile” when it comes to believing that he will preserve his word unto every generation as he promised in Psalm 12:6-7. The Almighty is not bound by the constraints of language and translation as mortal men are, for with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
You don’t seem to have a particularly strong grasp of the subjects discussed in this article. I strongly suggest you visit the “Forever Settled in Heaven” section of my website and read the articles therein.
The King James Bible has always been a cornerstone for many believers, and its language and accuracy are unparalleled. It’s concerning how modern translations seem to dilute the profound truths and titles that are so vital to our faith. The omission of “the Christ” in the ERV raises serious questions about the intent behind such translations. How can we trust versions that appear to downplay the divinity and mission of Jesus? It’s not enough to acknowledge Him as a teacher or a good man; He is the Savior, the Messiah, God incarnate. Why do these translations seem to shy away from affirming His true identity? Isn’t it our responsibility to guard the integrity of Scripture? What do you think motivates these changes?
Thank you for your comment. You are right – there is no reason to trust a “Bible” which diminishes the deity of Jesus Christ. I believe the modern perversions systematically downplay Jesus because they desire to corrupt the word of God, and lead the unsaved religious people who foolishly consult their false “Bibles” into worshiping what 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 refers to as “another Jesus.” This false “Jesus” is nothing like the Jesus of the King James Bible, for “his word was with power”, and he did works which no other man did (John 15:24). Conversely, the “Jesus” of the modern perversions aligns perfectly with the fake “Jesus” of the ecumenical movement, who tolerates everything except King James Bible doctrine, and everyone except those who earnestly contend for the faith. Doubtless, our Redeemer had these insidious imposters in mind when he warned of “false Christs” (Matthew 24:24).
You are absolutely right – it is our responsibility to guard the integrity of Scripture. If we do not do it, then who will? The pathetic evangelical apostates who worship the modern perversions couldn’t care less about the word of God, though they mewl about the unpopularity of “the truth.” The billions of people who belong to false religions as Roman Catholicism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or the various pseudo-“Christian” cults which abound in the modern world, are not going to fight for the word of God. It is ours then, to do so, and to the best of our ability, in service of God, to whom be honor and glory forever, world without end.