A Classic Example Of Nothing Onlyism AND Dealing With “Updated” King James bibles…

So since this blog debuted a couple of years ago, a bunch of “Christadelphians” have repeatedly connected to my site and commented on several of my posts.

Christadelphians reject the Trinity like JWs but they are a different organization.  They also dabble in the Hebrew Roots foolishness.  On the issue of Bible translation, they are no different than your average apostate.

As far as I can tell, whoever they are (maybe one person or maybe more), they are not that skilled in the English language.  But that is ok, however what they have done is constantly miss the point of what they have read.  This has not stopped them from acting like experts and although they actually do relate some accurate history of the Bible, their final conclusion is a complete Blank.

See evidence in their multipart series of blog posts entitled, Old and newer King James Versions and other translations.  They say the King James is wrong, but they never address the question, “What is right?”

I am reminded of the Nihilists from the Big Lebowski where they repeatedly say, “We believe in nothing, Lebowski, nothing…” in a German accent.  I guess you could say that the nihilists are a type of the Christadelphians, and indeed, all Bible correctors.

After going back and forth with them about the Bible issue, their main argument lies in the issue of multiple “editions” of the King James.  Typically, this argument is about the Bible on my lap vs the Bible that first came off the press in 1611.  Well over 99% of the differences are about printer’s errors and changes in what we would call “font”.

Example from our exchanges:

I John 5:7 – For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 

vs I Iohn V:7 – For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

They think that bear =/= beare.  That heaven =/= heauen. That Holy =/= holy.

I hope you see the folly in these charges.  These are differences in how we SPELL words.  The words are completely the same.  There is no difference in the words from any edition from 1611 to 1900.  I have challenged them to show me a difference of words and all they have done is tell me that I don’t have enough education. (which they are also wrong about…)


HOWEVER, their articles, comments, and responses have brought up something new that has to be dealt with.  Since the King James Bible does not have a copyright (outside of the Crown Copyright, which only deals in the jurisdiction of the UK), many people have taken the King James text, altered it and yet sold it as a King James Bible, which it most certainly is not because of their alterations. ON THAT POINT the Christadelphians have a decent argument.

I have decided to refine my definition of “all King James Bibles are correct” and modify it slightly, because of these “newer” King James versions and say that I believe that “all King James Bibles based off texts printed before 1880 are correct.”  That means that I have come to believe that not all King James Bibles are King James Bibles….

This issue is best illustrated in this article…


Even though there is a kernel of a decent argument in this article, there are many foolish statements.  The author calls the RV of 1881 a “KJV of 1885 – Revised English Version” which it most certainly is not.  The fact is so true that I need not provide documentation to prove it.  He also lists the New American Standard version and the NIV in his list of King James readings which is horribly deceitful.

It is tempting to throw out the rest of his argument because of these egregious errors, but there are a couple issues that are worth considering.

We are familiar with the errors of the New King James Version and the so-called “New Scofield Reference” bible which both make changes to the KJV text and are a gateway to the modern versions.  This has been thoroughly documented by Doctor Ruckman and others.

Next, the article cites the KJV 2000 which changes “throughly” to “thoroughly” II Tim 3:16, 17.  These two words are homophones and not synonyms as most readers suppose them to be.  That is to say that they only sound the same, but they mean different things.  “Thoroughly” is more of an outside thing while “throughly” is more of an inside thing.  The real KJV maintains that distinction and uses “thoroughly” in Ex 21:19 and II Kings 11:19.

So the KJV 2000 is wrong.  If I am judging by the absolute standard.

Next, the article claims that the King James and the King James Clarified New Testament read the same.  They, of course, do not. II Tim 3:16,17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; So that the man of God may be complete and equipped for all good works.”  We see the change from “perfect, throughly furnished unto…” to the “complete and equipped” junk.  Yet it still has the audacity to call itself a King James.  Watch out for that Bible.

So the King James Clarified New Testament is wrong.

Next we examine the Modern King James which says, “All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.”  We notice the changes of “God-breathed” and “perfected, thoroughly” and we quickly see that this version does not “measure up”….

So the Modern King James is wrong.  Further reading about this version can be found here… http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mod_kjv.html

Next we see the 21st Century King James which reads, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.”  Again we observe the relatively minor change of “throughly” to “thoroughly” which reveals the same subtleness as the Devil himself in Gen 3.

So the 21st Century King James is wrong.

Finally, we observe the King James Restored Name which takes a diabolical liberty with the text and changes it to, “All scripture is given by inspiration of YHWH, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of YHWH may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”  This takes out “God” and changes it to the ridiculous private interpretation of “YHWH” which is not even a word or name as it lacks any vowels.  Why don’t you fill the vowels, sonny?

So to top out our list, we see that the King James Restored Name version is wrong and the King James that is sitting on my table is right.  As is any King James based off a text printed before the publication of the RV in 1881.  I actually looked at every verse in the NT dealing with the deity of Christ and noticed that the author changed every verse to match the modern versions which dodge the deity of Jesus Christ.  I emailed the translator and asked how he could, in good honesty, call his version a King James even though he mutilated John 20:28, Col 2:9, I Tim 3:16, II Tim 2:15, I John 5:7?  His response was that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  How do you even deal with that type of person?

In conclusion, stay away from the cheap knock offs.  Don’t worry about the Christadelphians, they have nothing even though they seem to have found what looks like a chink in the armour, it is nothing more that a cheap parlour trick.  My authority is the King James Bible sitting on my table.  They have yet to find one error in it.  These modern “King James” versions have 100s of provable errors it in and they are deceitful for calling themselves “King James”.


13 thoughts on “A Classic Example Of Nothing Onlyism AND Dealing With “Updated” King James bibles…

    1. Let’s do this the easy way. Which is right?

      KJV – As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Mar 1:2


      ASV – Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. Mar 1:2

      Is it “prophets” or Isaiah the prophet? Please say both so we can demonstrate your faulty logic. Please. 🙂


  1. You, not only telling lies or twisting words and trying to intimidate us or mocking at our denomination, seem to forget or not wanting to tell your readers our denomination ourself publish several King James bible versions plus other Bible translations and take care of the translation and spreading of the Word of God in several languages.


    1. Please show examples or else we will assume that you just had your feelers hurt.

      And then go and read your Bible and see:
      KJV – Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. Psa 119:165


  2. If all the work and translation for the many Bibles our community prints and distributes, would be done by one man that would be an exceptional person. If that one man could bring so many bible students together all over the world and get them preaching the Word of God in so many languages, it must be an exceptional one being. So ‘chapeau’ to him!


  3. Christadelphians do not say at all that “the King James is wrong,”. Many English speaking Christadelphian congregations even use the King James bible as their standard Bible.

    Whilst you do not believe that God is an all-knowing eternal Being no man can see, Christadelphians do believe that God is eternal (having no birth and no death) omnipresent, omniscient Being Who declared Jesus to be His only begotten beloved son (what you seem to ignore or not want to accept).
    Jesus after he was born was seen by many people (who did not fall death), was tempted, bullied and even killed (all things which can not overcome God). Jesus had to learn everything and knew a lot of things not. He even did not know when he would be returning to earth nor who would be seated next to him. In case he would have been the all-knowing God he would have told lies, though Scriptures tells us that Jesus did not sin and as such would always have told the truth, also when he said he could do nothing without his heavenly Father Who is greater than him.


    1. Hahahaha.
      Then do you believe that the King James is right in I Tim 3:16 or are the modern versions right?
      What about “heavens” plural in Gen 1:1?
      What about Passover in Acts 12:4?
      What about “churches” in Acts 19:37?

      If you refuse to say that “the King James is wrong” then you will have to admit that all the other modern English versions are incorrect. I guarantee you are not able to do that. Either the King James is right and the modern versions are wrong or else the King James is wrong. They CANNOT both be true.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s