Of The Bible

God communicates to humankind by his Holy Spirit in various ways, including the Holy Bible, the Word of God, the sword of the Holy Spirit. Although God has, can, and still does at his option communicate with humankind through other than written form, the Holy Bible is the sufficient and necessary written Word of God for most if not all human spiritual/moral concerns. One would expect any communication from God to necessarily be consistent with the Holy Bible less we know not the Bible to be truth. The Bible’s superior doctrines/principles are to be the basis for all moral decisions everywhere, including development and interpretation of Federal/State Constitutions.

CBE Computer Services

The Authorized King James Version (KJV) is our standard for worship, doctrine, and discipleship. This means the KJV is the standard Bible to be used in all church sponsored assemblies. The KJV that I speak of is the 1611 version as updated in 1769 to reflect more modern English. I do not mean any later KJV updates as the 1769 English is sufficiently readable and understandable. Any questions raised by readability and understandability of words should be addressed to and resolved by one’s church leadership. For rare words, a good practice is for preachers and teachers to dynamically provide in every generation corresponding words with which the population may be more familiar when one is preaching and teaching. Such correspondence should eliminate any need for further modernization of the English translation as the English language has not changed that much since 1769 except perhaps for certain words to fall out of common usage and therefore common understanding. For a history of the King James Bible see King James Bible History

One reason for this standing provision is that if the congregation is asked to responsively read from the scriptures it would be rather awkward and non-uniform for some to be reading from one version and others from other versions. However, other doctrinally equivalent translations may be employed to supplement the KJV when appropriate and consistent with uniformity and good order and discipline. All other translations should be measured against the KJV standard and where there are discrepancies, the KJV should prevail. If you know of any KJV scripture which should not prevail I invite you to let me know.

When studying the Bible one should do so in the spirit of the text rather than the letter of the text (2 Corinthians 3:2-3,6). For example consider Genesis 22:2. In it, the scripture refers to Isaac as Abraham’s only son. But then what about Ishmael? Was he not Abraham’s son? Yes, he was according to the letter of the text (Genesis 16:3-4, 11, 15-16). But Ishmael was not the son of the promise. Isaac was the son of the promise (Genesis 17:19-21; Hebrews 11:17-18) according to the spirit of the text.

It is important that we accept all of the Bible as the sufficiently preserved Word of God; to reject any of it is to render all of it suspect as to its authenticity. Thus, by faith we conclude that the Bible is the preserved necessary and sufficient Word of God as discussed above.

It is necessary because sinful man needs to know about his sinfulness, about God’s grace and mercy, and needs some insight into God’s nature, God’s expectations for humankind, each person’s alternative destination for all eternity, and God’s plan for each person’s role in determining that destination.

It is sufficient in that it provides the essential core teachings and revelations of God to humankind. This is true even though it addresses principles that are to be applied to various circumstance humans may encounter; yet, it does not attempt to address every specific circumstance humans may encounter.

Moreover, the Bible itself says Jesus did and said many things which are not written for there would not be enough books that could hold all he did and said. Yet it is necessary that we hold that anything not written is consistent with that which is written.

There are numerous translations of scripture. Due to language differences none of them precisely mirror the original text in terms of syntactic structure. Moreover, words used in translations have different flavors of common meanings in various generations. Some modern day translations tend to erroneously reflect cultural tendencies or desires as opposed to eternal commandments and desires of God. However, the Authorized King James Version of 1611 sufficiently mirrors the original text and sufficiently communicates the original text essential principles.

I accept the KJV of 1611 as the baseline Holy Bible because I know of no other earlier Bible sufficient in depth and breadth in regards to the compilation of spiritual truths. Out of necessity, I consider the results of the KJV translation of 1611 as the inspired Word of God equivalent to the original text in that essential principles and truths of God are preserved and not corrupted in the translation. To not do so means I would have to reject it and all other Bibles (since I know of no other Bible superior to the KJV) as insufficient and untrustworthy. That of course would leave me with no written historical Word of God, a position in which I have no desire for humanity to be.

The 1611 KJV was updated in 1769 to reflect more readable modernized English. For example in the 1611 version in John 3:16 we have “For God so loued the world…”. But in the 1769 version we have “For God so loved the world”. So we see the word loved was changed from loued. The 1769 change was clearly needed. Yet, one should question the need for so many and so frequent English translations since that time. Certainly, the English language does not change that often nor the discovery of ancient manuscripts occur that frequently. Herein, references to the Authorized King James Version (KJV) include the 1769 English language update.

We use the Authorized King James of 1611 as updated in 1769 as discussed above as our standard for worship. Does that mean we do not fellowship with a congregation or persons who use other than the KJV? No it does not mean that!

Church leadership and Christian Publishers should work toward promulgation of a unified, uniform, full and complete Bible that is true to the original manuscripts to include not being ambiguous and incomplete in translation yet containing sufficient modern usage of words without replacing the 1769 wording. This unified and uniform version should avoid paraphrasing and interpretation; it should give priority to direct correspondence between the original manuscript and modern word usage. If such things as pride, arrogance, monetary consideration, and name making exists in the Bible translation and publishing realm, then such things should give way to doctrinal clarity and consistency and unity within the worldwide body of Christ. I don’t want to be accusatory or portend to know the hearts and mind of modern day translators and publishers so I use the word “If” above. Yet, I feel compelled to mention the possibility that such things exist given the nature of humankind. Let self-examination be a watch-word!

Many translations seem unnecessary, introduce scriptural incompleteness, translation inconsistency, and reduce doctrinal clarity. Yet, none of them when considering all of scriptures contained in them seem to deny the preeminence of Jesus Christ concerning his being the Messiah through whom salvation must come.

Yet, removing words in one edition and removing additional words in latter editions, intentional or unintentional, can lead to a deceptive successive weakening or elimination of the text doctrinal soundness. One must always remember the biblical principle of a little leaven leavens the whole lump. This is one reason why supporting use of such inferior Bible translations is dangerous in the body of Christ.

Translation history is one reason bold faithful Holy Spirit led and empowered preachers and teachers (apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors, and teachers) are essential in every generation to ensure scriptural principles are properly communicated as humans confront generational challenges. Such faithful preachers and teachers hold to the foundation of the biblical apostles and prophets, Jesus being the chief apostle and prophet.

It is noteworthy that in the Bible there is no book written by Jesus himself with his own hands. Yet, he has done so through others. Also, he confirms the value of the written word when he refers to it in Matthew 4 when confronted by Satan, the Devil.

Again, it is necessary that we accept all of the spiritual principles set forth in our Bible as God’s transgenerational truth less all of the Bible become suspect as to its authenticity.

Acceptance of revisions to the 1611 KJV is essential to maximize understanding of the scriptures provided such revisions do not alter the essential principles and doctrines set forth in the 1611 KJV. This is because although the Word of God does not change from generation to generation, the languages used by humans do change from generation to generation. Words used and commonly understood by previous generations fall out of use and common understanding by future generations as new words and language constructs become more commonly used and passed on. For example, consider the familiar John 3:16:

In the 1st Edition of the 1611 KJV John 3:16 is written as follows:

“For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”

So we see the words and spellings used in 1611 differ from modern American English. So then a translation that revises John 3:16 to use modern language without altering the principle and doctrine set forth in John 3:16 as recorded in the 1611 KJV is essential and proper. An example translation in the 1769 KJV is:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son: that whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

There is nothing inherently wrong with new translations of the scripture. However, to be acceptable, newer translations should be better than and at least as good as former translations. To be acceptable a newer translation certainly must not be worse than former translations. Newer translations must not change doctrinal truths present in former translations in an attempt to fit current culture, especially unrighteous secular behavior and desires. To do so means the former translations are not to be considered the Word of God. If that was the case, who is to say the newer translation is the Word of God. We must believe God at least preserves doctrinal truths across authentic translations even if he does not see fit to ensure accuracy in things like spelling, grammar, and punctuation, etc. Indeed, spelling, grammar, and punctuations and similar devices are of human doing and not central to God’s truth. God’s truth is truth independent of language constructs.

New translations should not introduce doctrinal confusion especially where there is uncertainty about a translation. Newer translation should keep the translation of the older translation in such cases; they may add a footnote addressing their concerns at the very most. For example, in the KJV in Colossians 4:15 we have “Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” But in the NIV and some others the phrase “his house” is changed to “her house”. The latter claims that the word Nymphas should be Nympha and that the person is a female instead of a male. Still some other translations translate it as “their house”. Clearly, just like the word man is sometimes use to refer to both male and female, so is the word his. Moreover, since their is uncertainty in the minds of some, maintaining the word his would promote sufficient biblical unity in understanding and communication. There is absolutely no value in changing the word his; it is pure arrogance to do so.

I accept the use of all other translations so long as they are functionally consistent with the KJV of 1611 with respect to spiritual truths and sound doctrine as defined by God. I accept the utility of dynamically translating such words as thou and thy to their modern English equivalents in our conversations and writings.

Herein, references to the 1611 KJV include the 1769 language update. Note that the 1611 and 1769 KJVs seem to differ only in English language syntax not the words. For example, the two seem to differ only in the sense that the spelling of the word loued was changed to loved. This is not true of the New King James Version (NKJV) of recent times. The NKJV actually changes words.

For example, in Genesis 2:7 the KJV says “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” In the NKJV it says “…and man became a living being”. We see the NKJV changed the word soul to being.

In the KJV Genesis 17:14 says “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” In the NKJV it says “…that person shall be cut off…”

In the KJV In Matthew 10:28 says “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” In the NKJV it says “but cannot kill the soul…both soul and body in hell.” So the NKJV keeps the word soul in the Matthew but not in Genesis.

The word soul clearly has a general meaning and a specific meaning. In a general sense it means being or person. So then language wise, using the word being or person instead of soul is technically proper in some contexts. However, in the KJV the word soul clearly distinguishes a specific and special part of man from other parts of him such as the visible part and the invisible part (Matthew 10:28). The word being or person does not make such a distinction.

The context of Genesis 2:7, Genesis 17:14, and Matthew 10:28 speaks of a special aspect of man as distinguished from his flesh or body. The question is why did the NKJV make that change and does that change add anything of value to the Church regarding wide spread acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God or does such unnecessary changes detract from such acceptance?

Another example translation difference is between the NIV and KJV in Romans 16:7. In the KJV it says Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

In the NIV it says Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among[a] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.So we see that the NIV The [a] is a footnote indicator in the NIV. The footname says the word translated outstanding could alternatively be rendered esteemed by.

The NIV primary interpretation is problematic since some say that the word Junia is a female name although others say it is not necessarily so. For this dicussion let us assume the word Junia is a female name. The NIV in using the word outstanding in the main text chose to indicate that these two Jews were apostles. The KJV uses the phrase “of note”. Some interpret this phrase to say the apostles took special note of these persons rather than saying they were apostles of whom other people took note. The interpretation that the apostles took note of them would be consistent with the rest of scripture. The interpretation that they were apostles of whom others took note would be inconsistent with the rest of scripture especially the biblical principle of male headship. The NIV does include the KJV translation in the NIV footnotes.

Another example translation difference is between the NIV and KJV in Psalm 68:11. In the KJV it says “(11) The LORD gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.”

In the NIV 1978 and 1984 version it reads the same as the KJV. But in the 2011 version this verse is changed to the following:

“(11)The Lord announces the word, and the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng:”

Notice the persons who publish/proclaim is changed from a “great company” to “the women”. Now this change moves the text from the general to the specific. The phrase “great company” could mean either male or female or both. But the phrase “the women” restricts this verse to talking only about women. More importantly, it makes an explicit doctrinal implication. For if this verse says that women published/proclaimed (preached) the word of the Lord the implication is that the scripture validates women preaching of the word of God. But even if that is true one could not draw that conclusion from this KJV version alone.

One should ask how could the NIV translators go from “great company” in 1984 and then to “the women” in 2011? Did they use a different source Hebrew text? Or was there an intentional changing of scripture by one or all translators to promote a “modern” view of what biblical docrine should be?

Another example translation difference is between the NIV and KJV in Matthew 6:14-15. In the KJV it says “(14)For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: (15)But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

In the NIV it says “(14)For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (15)But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

The scope of the sin addressed in the KJV is seemingly larger than that of the NIV. The NIV seems to limit the forgiveness of sin to one who has wronged you. But what about those sins in which one has wronged another such as a family member. The KJV clearly includes not only sin against you but other sins as well. Verse 15 of the NIV seems to enlarge the scope except when one views it as delimited by verse 14. Of course there are other scriptures that address sins against others as well. Perhaps these are mentioned in the NIV. Nevertheless, the KJV is a broader translation than that of the NIV in this instance.

Other examaples of translation differences occur because some translators differ in methods and goals. Some aim to do a word for word mapping. Others goal is to paraphrase or interpret the text and to use words and phrases familiar to contemporay readers.

For example consider Genesis 29:30:

In the KJV it says “And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.”

In the NIV depending on which version (1984, 2011, etc.) you have you will find the following translations for this verse:

1. “Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. He served Laban for another seven years.” – National Baptist Convention USA, Sunday School Publishing Board, Faith Pathway Bible Studies for Adults, Winter Quarter 2015, January 3, 2016 Lesson
2. “Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.” – http://www.biblestudytools.com
3. “Jacob made love to Rachel also, and his love for Rachel was greater than his love for Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.” – https://www.biblegateway.com

In the King James Version the phrase “And he went in” is a translation of a single Hebrew word meaning to go in. The KJV translators understood the context to refer to Jacob going in to Rachel. However, since the Hebrew word for Jacob is not explicitly included in verse 30 as it is explicitly included in verse 28, the KJV translators used the pronoun he to refer back to Jacob for readability and flow purposes. However, the NIV translators chose to insert the word Jacob into the text instead of the pronoun. Both record the same truth.

The NIV was first published in full in 1978, revised in 1984, and 2011. So we see how the wording has changed over 33 years in the NIV even though there is consistency in the use of the word Jacob in the NIV in this vese over time. The primary change is in the preference for which phrase is better in referring to Jacob getting together with and having sex with Rachael as he did with Leah.

We should note that it is not believed that we have any of the original manuscripts available that are the one actually written by the original writers. All of the ancient manuscripts available to us are believed to be copies of the actual originals. For simplicity we refer herein to these copies as originals in contrast to translations.

There are difference in both the Old and New Testaments in various translations. But for simplicity we herein will focus on aspects of the New Testament.

At various times in history, we have found various collections of ancient manuscripts we use to form our Bible(s). These are named using a variety of factors. Example names include the Byzantine Text, the Alexandrian Text; but there are other names used. A study of the classification of these Texts is beyond the scope of this writing.

Bible translations usually choose one of the Texts as its source. Yet, some translations use a combination of sources. It is said that the KJV uses the Byzantine Text exclusively. It is also said the NIV and NASB use the Alexandrian Text exclusively. It is further said the English Standard Version (ESV) uses a combination of Texts. In any case, the difference between New Testament translations seems to be rooted in whether a translation uses the Byzantine Text or the Alexandrian Text or other Texts or a combination of Texts, and the degree to which such usage occurs.

In general, it is said the Byzantine Text contains more verses and phrases than the Alexandrian Text. This results in some claiming the Byzantine Text adds text and others claiming the Alexandrian Text omits text. The seemingly more completeness of the Authorized King James Version is one major reason for using it as the baseline English standard.

A guiding principle should be that it is better for the body of Christ to include rather than leave out in a translation doctrinally sound phrases and verses found in historic manuscripts. This is especially true since our dating of manuscripts is not necessarily certain. Therefore, our declaration of which is the oldest is not certain. It is better to error on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion unless we can show with certainty that which is explicitly included in a historical Text is not doctrinally sound. Just because someone has or may misinterpret a scripture improperly does not mean the scripture is doctrinally unsound; that merely means the interpretation by that person is doctrinally unsound. Some translations promote the principle of inclusion over exclusion by including in brackets or in footnotes verses and phrases omitted from the body of their translation. For example, in the KJV Matthew 6:13 says “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” But the NASB put in brackets the phrase “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” as the translators say it was not in their source manuscripts. The NIV say the same thing but include it only as a footnote in the NIV..

Let us be mindful of the Holy Spirit teaching through Paul in Ephesians 4 where he says:

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:…20But ye have not so learned Christ; 21If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: (Ephesians 4:11-21)

It has been said that the Bible defines words, concepts, and principles for us. The definition is determined not by one scripture but by a consideration of all scriptures. It is from this consideration of the Bible in totality that we arrive at a clear meaning of all contained terms, concepts, and principles. So then resources like Strong’s Concordance are not necessary although they are sometimes useful. But the Bible itself should be the final determinant not a dictionary or concordance or other resources such as the popular Strong’s Dictionary and Concordance of Hebrew and Greek terms.

For example, consider the following scriptures in the KJV:

Genesis 24:47 And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.

Proverbs 11:22 As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

Isa 3:18-24 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, (19) The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, (20) The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, (21) The rings, and nose jewels, (22) The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, (23) The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. (24) And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

Ezekiel 16:12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

And the same scriptures in the NKJV

Gen 24:47 Then I asked her, and said, “Whose daughter are you?’ And she said, “The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bore to him.” So I put the nose ring on her nose and the bracelets on her wrists.

Proverbs 11:22 As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, So is a lovely woman who lacks discretion.

Isa 3:18-24 18 In that day the Lord will take away the finery:The jingling anklets, the scarves, and the crescents; 19 The pendants, the bracelets, and the veils; 20 The headdresses, the leg ornaments, and the headbands; The perfume boxes, the charms, 21 and the rings; The nose jewels, 22 the festal apparel, and the mantles; The outer garments, the purses, 23 and the mirrors; The fine linen, the turbans, and the robes. 24 And so it shall be: Instead of a sweet smell there will be a stench; Instead of a sash, a rope; Instead of well-set hair, baldness; Instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth; And branding instead of beauty.

Ezekiel 16:12 And I put a jewel in your nose, earrings in your ears, and a beautiful crown on your head.

Now let’s analyze these scriptures.

First note that according to Strong’s concordance, the Hebrew word nezem (Strongs H5141) can mean nose ring, earring, or jewel.

In Genesis 24:47 The KJV indicates that the Abraham’s servant placed an earring on Rebekah’s face. Since the word earring is used, it suggests the earring was placed on her ear. The Hebrew word translated earring is the word nezem. In the KJV this word is translated either earring or jewel. It is translated earring 14 times but jewel 3 times (Proverbs 11:22, Isaiah 3:21, Ezekiel 16:12). Of the 14 times it is translated earring, only 3 of those times does the word ear occur in the verse. The rest of the time the particular body part is not explicitly mentioned in the translation.

In the KJV the Hebrew word aph (Strongs #H639) is translated face in Genesis 24:47 but it is translated nose in the NKJV in that same verse. It is the same Hebrew word translated nose in both the KJV and NKJV in Isaiah 3:21. So then it seems if aph in KJV Genesis 24:47 had been translated nose it would have been natural to translate nezem nose ring instead of earring in the KJV. Such a translation would have been consistent with the NKJV. On the other hand, both the KJV and the NKJV could have chosen to translate aph as face in Genesis 24:47 and Isaiah 3:21 and nezem as earring in Genesis 24:47.

Note that in Proverbs 11:22 if the word nezem translated jewel had been translated earring it would read “as an earring of gold in a swine’s snout”. A snout is a swine nose. So then translating it “as a nose ring of gold in a swine’s snout would have made sense. But the KJV translators chose the word jewel. A similar analysis can be made of Ezekiel 16:12.

So it seems that the same doctrinal conclusions can be drawn from both the KJV and the NKJV: (1) It is proper to wear earrings (2) It is proper to wear nose rings (3) The type of earring and nose rings worn at that time cannot be determined from the text. But it is unlikely that the servant of Genesis 24 put holes in Rebekah ear or nose when he gave her the jewlery. But then perhaps she already had holes in her ears and/or nose. (4) Since the same doctrinal conclusion can be drawn, what value does the change in the NKJV add to the church?

Some claim the KJV contains errors in translation. I have not done an exhaustive study of all of these claims. But from the study I have done, I have concluded that these claims are rooted in a matter of interpretation of scripture, a lack of consideration of the totality of the KJV scriptures, and/or a lack of recognition that words which mean one thing to us had a broader or narrower meaning in historical times. This improper consider also includes focus on insignificant differences that have no doctrinal implications.

One claim is that the word translated Easter in Acts 12:4 in the KJV should have been translated Passover.

See “Easter” Is Not A Mistranslation or Isn’t “Easter” in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation? for justification for use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4.

These documents note that the Jewish Passover is a single night meal that precedes the days of unleavened bread mentioned in Acts 12:4. So then the period of time referred to in Acts 12:4 as Easter
occurs after the Jewish Passover and is therefore not the same as the Jewish Passover.

See Celebrating Easter for my paper on the validity of Celebrating Easter.

The documents on Easter as well as the below references are included for information purposes. Their inclusion does not mean I agree with everything said or even the significance of everything that is said. But I think they provide further support for my recommendation that the KJV should be the standard for congregations. Again, all other translations should be measured against
this standard and where there are discrepancies, the KJV should prevail unless it can be shown with absolute certainty the KJV is incorrect.

For a discussion on Bible Translation see The Bible Behind the Bible

For a discussion on more modern meanings of selective words in KJV see What Do Words in the King James Bible Mean Today

A discussion on claimed KJV errors is provided at ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION?,

For a discussion of differences in various Bibles as compared to the KJV see http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts.html and especially http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html.The latter compares the KJV to the NIV, New American Standard (Catholic Bible) and the New World Translation Bible (Jehovah Witness Bible).

Some other comparisons may be found at
KJV and NIV Comparison,


More KJV and NIV Comparison,


A Comparison Between the King James (KJV) & The New International (NIV) Bibles,


KJV and NKJV Comparison,


More KJV and NKJV Comparison; Also includes notes on other translations,


More KJV and NKJV Comparison,

More KJV and NKJV Comparison – Good information site on a variety of Bible subjects but has popup Advertisements,


Compares KJV to a variety of Bibles – Has popup Advertisements,


KJV and NASB Comparison,


NIV 1984 Version,

To God Be the Glory!






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *