An Examination of the Modern King James Version
There exists literally hundreds of Bible versions scattered throughout Christendom. We have feminist versions such as the TNIV. We have new-age contemplative versions like The Message. We have youth Bibles of every gender, age and flavour imaginable. If there’s a buck to be made – there’s another Bible to be published. The subtle serpent of Genesis 3 pulls every little "trick ‘n treat" in his bag of deceits to question the authority and authenticity of the Word of God.
One such "trick ‘n treat" is the so-called updated "King James Bibles" flooding the Bible horizon.
Unlike the NIV, NASV, NCV or NRSV these King James "wannabes" come with courageous claims of faithfulness to the "original" King James Bible. They wouldn’t dare deviate from the beloved text of our King James Bible (or would they?). They possess impressive sounding "King James" names such as the New King James Bible, 21st Century King James (KJ 21), King James III and the Modern King James version. But as we’ve discovered many times, despite the sincerity or spiritual motivation for updating the King James Bible – the results are always the same – a departure from the text of our King James Bible. Whenever the feeble and fallible hands of men touch the Word of God wearing the devious gloves of change – it always breeds corruption and confusion.
The Apostle Paul zeroed in on this enticing corruption of the Word of God in 2 Corinthians 2:17:
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
2 Corinthians 2:17:
Our attention in this article is on the corruption in the Modern King James Version (MKJV).
The MKJV was released in 1962 with several revisions including the latest in 1999. It is the work of Jay P. Green, Sr. and published by Sovereign Grace Publishers in Lafayette, Indiana. According to the Sovereign Grace website, the MKJV is being replaced with Green’s King James 3. Green is the author of several Bibles including the King James II, King James 3, Literal Translation and his most popular work the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible.
THE EXPLANATION. . .
Green poses as a defender of the King James Bible and has even written books defending the King James Bible including the popular, Unholy Hands on the Bible: A Comparison Between Six Major Bible Versions. Green includes a section in the MKJV titled "The Explanation" in which he "explains" his reasoning and rational for the Modern King James Bible. Even in the Explanation and Preface to the MKJV, Mr. Green praises the King James Bible while condemning the other versions for their departure from the King James Bible.
In the Explanation section of the Modern King James Bible, Green writes:
Every lover of the beloved King James Version should be aware by now that those who are willing to add and subtract words from God's Word have used the archaic Elizabethan English of the KJV as an excuse to issue new versions. And though the translators of these new versions praise the KJV, they then depart from its message, and from its Greek and Hebrew texts. . . (the Received Text and the Masoretic Text). (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation) After blasting the new versions for "changing" the King James Bible, then Green writes (in BOLD capitals, no less):
IS IT BETTER TO LEAVE THE KJV UNCHANGED? The answer is NO!
(Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation) Uh oh. . . Here it comes. . .
Then Green parades the same "dirty" laundry list used by the other Per-versions for "cleaning up" the King James Bible. Green writes:
First, the Authorized/King James Version, as we know it, has been changed several times. . . (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)
Parroting the mantra of the other perversions, Green presumes since the "original" King James Bible has been changed – it must be ok to change it again. Anyone familiar with this worn out excuse recognizes it as fraud. For anyone interested in the truth about the mythical "revisions" of the King James Bible read Dr. Reagan’s excellent work entitled, "The King James Version of 1611–the Myth of Early Revisions." Dr. Reagan demolishes the mythical "revisions" of the King James Bible. Presenting the evidence, Dr. Reagan concludes his expose with these reflective words:
The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others [aka Modern King James Version] like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.
The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. . . We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word. ." (Reagan, David. The King James Version of 1611--the Myth of Early Revisions)
Next Green, digs up a fabled "dinosaur." He claims the King James Bible should be "revised" since the King James Bible is simply a "revision" of Tyndale’s work. Green writes:
Secondly, "William Tyndale's influence on various versions down to the Bishop's Bible fixed the general tone of the translation....it [the AV/KJV] is a revision, not a new translation" (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 112). In fact the majority of the wording of the New Testament of the Authorized/King James Version is that of Tyndale, but in updated English. . . (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)
Anyone familiar with the history of the King James Bible acknowledges not only the English influence of Tyndale’s work, but more important the work of the Bishop Bible. Fifteen general guidelines were established by the King James translators. The first guideline read, "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." So Green’s assertion the King James Bible was merely a revision of Tyndale’s works crumbles quickly with the hammer of truth. It was the Bishop Bible used as the "model" by the King James translators, not Tyndale. But even then, the King James translators were not bound by any English, Hebrew or Greek text.
Green then sings the popular new-version song titled "You Can Not Understand the Archaic, Out-Dated, King James Bible." Green writes:
School teachers do not want pupils to read the KJV, because it confuses their ability to spell English words (for inability to spell is one of the weaknesses of pupils in our day). Not only the spelling, but the archaic words stumble younger readers today. Besides, there are many awkward, strange words which were the style in the seventeenth century, which today turn away readers. Therefore, it is important for us to give the new reader a Bible they can read, yet one that keeps every one of the God-breathed words. (Green, Jay P., Modern King James Bible, Explanation)
This is easily the most persistent excuse triumphed by the King James rebels to change the King James Bible, and it’s also the easiest to 100% disprove.
Gail Riplinger has a chapter in her best-selling New Age Bible Versions titled "King James for Kids". Mrs. Riplinger provides 23 pages of irrefutable evidence proving the King James Bible is far easier to understand and read. She lists over 350 examples in the New Testament where the King James Bible is much easier and simpler to understand.
In comparing the first chapter of the first and last books of the Old and New Testaments, the Flesch-Kincaid research company’s Grade Level Indicator shows "The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of 26 comparisons" (Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 1994, p. 195) betrays the strictly
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator
| KJV | NIV | NASB | TEV | NKJV | |
| Grade | Grade | Grade | Grade | Grade | |
| Level | Level | Level | Level | Level | |
| Gen. 1 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 4.7 | 5.1 | 5.2 |
| Mal. 1 | 4.6 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 4.6 |
| Matt. 1 | 6.7 | 16.4 | 6.8 | 11.8 | 10.3 |
| Rev. 1 | 7.5 | 7.1 | 7.7 | 6.4 | 7.7 |
| Grade
Level Average |
5.8 | 8.4 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 6.9 |
(table from New Age Bible Versions, p. 196, highlight added) Mrs. Riplinger writes:
"Why is the KJV easier to read? The KJV uses one or two syllable words while new versions substitute complex multi-syllable words and phrases." (Ibid, p. 196) She lists over 270 examples in the New Testament. Mrs. Riplinger also attributes the King James’s ease of understanding to "Simple sentence structure. . .." (Ibid, p. 204) She again lists many examples.
Much of Green’s foundation for "replacing" your beloved King James Bible is built upon humanistic sinking sand. And make no mistake, while Green may masquerade as a King James "man," Green’s motive in the Modern King James is to replace your King James Bible. As Green writes (again BOLD caps to emphasis):
IF NOT UPDATED, THE KJV WOULD FADE AWAY Then Greens writes: Who is it that has quit reading the KJV, and have gone either to reading the new versions, or have quit reading the Bible altogether? It is not a secret that this generation, and most of the last generation, has on the whole refused to learn Elizabethan English in order to read the Bible.
While Green claims most people are no longer reading the King James Bible, again the facts tell a much different story. According to surveys by Barna Research of people who read their Bible on a daily basis, "The King James Version is more likely to be the Bible read during the week than is the NIV by a 5:1 ratio."(Barna Research, The Bible survey, http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=7)
Like every other Per-version since 1611, after molesting the "beloved" King James Bible, Green just happens to have the solution to the unread, archaic, bumbling King James Bible – you guessed it - the Modern King James Version. Green writes:
IS THE MKJV THE ANSWER? Yes, we believe it is what is needed, a King James Version that our children can and will read both now and from now on. . . The Explanation and the Preface of the Modern King James Version provides much more fodder for the trampling of the King James Bible, but let us examine the Modern King James Bible in the light of our "beloved" King James Bible.
Terry Watkins Dial-the-Truth Ministries