Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity

Paul's Own Version

Jim Everett

There have been many descriptive phrases uttered from the lips of devout proponents of the beloved King James Version but none so preposterous as, "This is the version that Paul used." The King James, hereafter known as the KJ, is supposed to be the one with no errors, therefore, the one that the Lord authorized for cur use. Worthy advocates of the KJ feel that those who point out its shortcomings become teachers of heresy and that such effort is atheistic in its nature.

Immediate Accusations:

The first accusation that is leveled against one who exposes the ambiguities of the KJ Version is, "You are attacking the Word of God." No, I am attacking the erroneousness of an outdated version! Others say, "Don't you believe a person can go to Heaven by reading the KJ Version?" This is supposed to be a dilemma. If one takes one horn his arguments are of no avail if he takes the other he is condemning people to Hell because: "everybody uses the KJ." I believe a person can go to Heaven by reading the KJ Version, if he will OBEY what he learns. By the same reasoning I also believe a person can go to Heaven by reading Wycliff's translation or Tyndale's version, if he studies and works for hours to understand what these translations say. Woe be it unto us if our soul's welfare depended on reading this:

"Seynge therefore it foloweth that some muste enter therinto, and they to whom it was first preached, entred not therin for vubelievers Sake. Agayne he apoynteth in David a certayne present daye after so long a tyme, swginge as it is rehearsed: this daye if ye heare his voyce, be not harde herted. For if Iosue had geven them rdst, then wolde he not afterwarde have spoken of another daye. There remayneth therefore yet a rest to the people of Good. For he that is entered into his rest deth cease from his awne workes god did from his." (The New Testament, Translaced b William Tyndale in 1534; he pistle of S. Paul to the Hebrues; Cambridge at the University Press, 1938) P. 506.

Incidentally, this work is older than is the KJ Version. If authenticity is dependent upon antiquity, we ought to study Tyndale's translation.


Words which impart no meaning to us are of no value. The KJ Version has such words; words that are antiquated and even though they were adequate to convey the right meaning in 1611 they mean nothing to us. For instance: If water were to assuage, what would it do (Gen. 8:1)? If someone came with a bruit, would you welcome him (Jer. 10:22)? Would it be difficult to take your carriage upon your bank (Acts 21:15)? What is the matter with land that is chain. (Jer. 14:4)? If one moved with choler, would he be moving slowly or with great rapility (Dan. 8:7)? What about our cogitatio Is; an they clean? Oh, the wife hasn't done the laundry lately, you say (Dan. 7:28)? Would a fan be used to cool oneself asa. 30:231? How about a el'ee of light bread (Num. 21:51? If someone called you a lunatick, would you be insane (Matt 4:24)? "Lady. would you be insulting if you said that I thought you need a pressfat (Haggai 2:16)?" If someone had stolen your scrip, would you have anything to read (Matt. 10:10)? How shall we cook meat today? Sod it (Gen. 25:29)? How about a pillow for your elbow (Ezek. 13:18)? Pass the sop, please Jno. 13:26). If someone wot you, would they hit very hard (Gen. 21:26)?

I honestly believe that of the fifteen words listed the average Christian knows no more than five, if that many. These are NOT words which are difficult to translate from the Greek or Hebrew but are words which are translated by English words whose meanings have become obsolete through the years, and these are only a few of many such words.

Not only is the KJ outdated because of its English but the translators, in places, translated two or three Greek words by one English word. One can easily see that such a practice would lead to confusion and misconception about Biblical teaching.

The word's "hades," "ghenna" and "tartarus" supply the needed proof of the above assertion. These words are all translated by one English word — HELL. The translated by one English word — HELL. The word "Hades" simply means the unseen. Gehenna is defined as hell or eternal punishment. Tartarus, as used in II Pet. 2:4, is a place where disobedient angels have been cast down, waiting for the judgment. Yet, the KJ leads us to believe that all these words refer to the same place.

Is it loved for its beauty, its meter, or its stately archaic language? Possibly all three, People today have come to associate these things with the Bible. Ought we not to be more concerned about truth and the conveyance of it to the hearts of men?

417 E. Grosbeck, Lufkin, Teaxs