The King James Bible Removed Verses

The King James Bible Removed Verses October 21, 2017
 aaron-burden-307061

The King James translators over 400 years ago were no different than those of our modern times. They, like those today, had to make decisions about which manuscripts to trust, which verses to remove and which to add.

Many English speaking Christians assume that when Bible translations are released, they are simply new attempts to render the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek into better English. They assume that the original language of the text never changes, imagining that each translation merely attempts to better understand how to translate the language. This is, no matter how widely assumed, completely false. No translations are simply this.

Bibles do not magically come to us. Between the journey from Paul’s pen or Proverb’s stylus to the local Barnes & Noble, was a long trip that included lots of copying and eventually, detective work. As many Christians eventually come to discover, often with shock (thanks Bart Ehrman!), the Bible we hold is a reconstruction of what we believe to be the original text, but not necessarily guaranteed to actually be that text. What that means is that each Bible translation is not only an attempt to better translate a verse, but is also a new attempt to decide whether that verse even belonged in the Bible in the first place.

To make a long story short: when Paul first wrote his letter to the Galatians, he only wrote one. Then that letter was copied by whoever could do so in Galatia to send to others. The problem is that each person copying was likely not a trained scribe (most Christians were women, children and slaves). That means that many copies had errors included due to untrained scribes making mistakes. Unfortunately, the people who received those “bad” copies didn’t know they were bad, and so they used those copies to make their own copies! And of course, they had their own untrained scribes who copied the bad copy and made more mistakes on top of the previous ones. And this process would continue on and on.

Translators have a problem: no two copies of the Bible’s books are exactly the same. They have to decide which are the good copies and which are the bad. This process of reconstructing the original text of say, the Gospel of Mark or any other ancient work, is called Textual Criticism. It’s the science of what happens when you have 25,000 copies of the New Testament, but lack the original documents (or autographs, as they are often called). As a result of this process of testing and reconstruction, many verses in Bibles later get removed (and new ones get added) over time. This is best and most controversially seen with respect to the King James Bible (1611) which has a large number of verses that all modern translations today do not include.

As a result of this quite big discrepancy, some conservative KJV readers become quite distressed to discover that new Bibles appear to be “missing verses.”

One of the things that I constantly hear about from people who are less excited by learning about things like that is the claim [or the idea(l)] that prior to the King James, there wasn’t this sort of confusion or massive change about Bibles. In other words, it’s a modern phenomena to suddenly find out (or claim) that verses in older Bibles are forgeries and to not include them in new translations. The implication of this is almost always that there is a conspiracy to change the Bible. The most radical proponents of this (usually the only proponents), I’ve seen, are King James Onlyists.

However, having lived and breathed this stuff for a number of years (it was actually the issue that reignited my faith), I know without a doubt that isn’t the case. In fact, Bibles have been removing and adding (and then removing again) verses since Bibles were first put together. And I knew that the King James wasn’t (and couldn’t be) any different. It had probably added and removed verses just like modern translations do.

There was just one problem with that hypothesis when I thought of it: when you search online for any websites or books detailing this idea, I couldn’t find any. The only websites or information that appeared were those noting the differences between modern versions and the KJV, not the KJV and even earlier English Bibles.

And so, when this issue perplexed me many months ago, I did what anyone sane would do: I turned to Google Books and searched for any material from the 1700’s and 1800’s that detailed this. Luckily, I found scattered references to some of these issues. After several days of research I compiled some of the most important of these examples and now provide them here together for what might be the first time online (unless someone can show me where else they might be).

So without further ado, here is how the King James translators changed the English Bible (or in some cases, failed to). Let the conspiracy theories begin!

 

VERSES (OR PARTS OF VERSES) REMOVED


 

  • Psalms 14:3-4
    • But they are all gone out of the way, they are all together become abominable; there is none that does good, no not one. [Their throat is an open sepulcre: with their tongues they have disceaued, the poison of aspes is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness is in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known, there is no fear of God before their eyes.] Have they known me, that are such workers of mischief, eating up my people, as it were bread and call not upon the Lord? There were they brought in great fear [even where no fear was] for God is in the generation of the righteous.

       

Commentary: One of the biggest changes that was made by the King James Bible was the decision to remove the above section of Psalms 14 in bold. The above version was included in the Wycliffe (1395), Coverdale (1535) and Great Bible (1539) versions. It was ultimately judged by the KJV translators (and some others, such as the Bishops Bible) to be a forgery (textual addition) and removed. Modern Biblical Scholars (textual critics) have agreed with the decision and no Bible has sought to include it.

Yet, the point to take from this is that if someone had been in the year of 1620, having a Bible study with someone using the Great Bible or Coverdale and they were using the newly translated King James, they would have discovered that there was more than a difference in translation between them. The King James had removed part of scripture! (Conspiracy? I think not.)


 

  • Psalm 111:10
    • The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, a good understanding have all they that do thereafter: the praise of it endureth forever, [praise the Lord for the returning again of Aggeus and Zachary the prophets.]

       

Commentary: This particular verse was only produced this way in the Great Bible (1539) and so in some sense was an addition that earlier English Bibles did not have. When the King James Bible of 1611 came out, the verse was removed again, as the translators deemed it not trustworthy.


 

  • John 7:29
    • [I know him, and if I see that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar;] but I know him, for of him I am, and he sent me.

       

Commentary: Again, this is another verse that was removed by the King James but which the Wycliffe translation and Great Bible had. Before the KJV had removed it, the Coverdale and Bishops (1568) had likewise not included it, so it was a controversial text even before the KJV. If you’re noticing a pattern it’s this: even before 1611, all of the English Bibles disagreed on what the text of the Old and Nee Testament exactly looked like and what verses or parts of verses were actually scripture.


 

  • Acts 14:6-7
    • …they understood, and fled together to the cities of Licaonye, and Listris, and Derben, and into all the country about. And they preached there the gospel, [and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them. Paul and Barnabas dwelled at Listris.]

       

Commentary: This verse, like others, derived from the older Latin Vulgate translation and was included in the Wycliffe and Great Bible but was ultimately rejected by the KJV translators.

(If I were a conspiracy theorist living in the year of 1615, perhaps I might conjecture that the KJV removed the text, not because it wasn’t authentic, but because those godless translators didn’t want to affirm the power of the gospel to move people! But I’m not and I wouldn’t, because that’s just silly.)


 

  • Romans 4:23-24
    • Nevertheless it is not written for him only, that it was reckoned to him [for righteousness;] but also for us, to whom it shall be counted [for righteousness,] if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.

       

Commentary: The above portions in bold were included in the Great Bible but removed by others, including the KJV. However, in a reversal of our previous examples, it turns out the Great Bible had the correct text and not the KJV. Modern translations have reversed the KJV’s judgement and now typically include the portions in bold, recognizing them as authentically what Paul actually wrote.

 

VERSES (OR PARTS OF VERSES) ADDED


 

  • 2 Samuel 21:19
    • And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

       

Commentary: This is a particularly interesting example because up until the KJV, all English Bible had refused to include the bold text and since the KJV, the majority of all modern Bible have equally refused to include it (the exceptions to this have been Evangelical leaning translations such as the NIV, NET, NLT, etc).


 

  • Mark 15:3
    • And the chief priests accused him of many things: [but he answered nothing.]

       

Commentary: Again, this is an addition to a verse that no other previous English Bibles had included and virtually all modern Bibles have rejected (the only exceptions to this are the 19th century translations WBT and YLT). In the end, the King James translators thought it was authentic, and as it turns out, history and further manuscript discoveries have proven they were wrong.


 

  • John 8:6
    • This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not.]

       

Commentary: The same thing as before is true here. No previous English Bibles included it and virtually no modern Bibles since the KJV will consider it anymore (the only exception to this I know of is the 1833 Webster Translation).

 

CONCLUSION

There are many other examples that I could give, but the one’s provided here will suffice to give the basic picture that is needed. The King James translators over 400 years ago were no different than those of our modern times. They, like those today, had to make decisions about which manuscripts to trust, which verses to remove and which to add. And what we see at work with the early English Bibles was also most assuredly at work in countless other translation efforts, including the earlier translations of the Vulgate and the Septuagint. As Ecclesiastes once so eloquently said, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9).

Funny enough, it appears that even in the past, there was not a conclusive list or discussion made of the changes that the KJV made. This means that unlike the modern phenomena of KJV Onlyists becoming worried by the idea of verses getting removed or added, people in the 1600’s didn’t seem to think anything strange of the decisions that the King James made. Perhaps we can learn something from that?

Hopefully this post will prove helpful to some people who still struggle with the issue of Textual Criticism and how their Bibles have been put together. If anything, it can provide another reason to open up the Bible and discover something new (or in this case, something now missing). The Bible after all, as it can be seen even by these examples, is a living document… and that’s one of the many reasons for what makes it so powerful to me.


IMG_1306Matthew J. Korpman is a minister-in-training, Young Adult novelist and published researcher in Biblical Studies. A graduating quadruple major at the H.M.S. Richards Divinity School, completing degrees in fields such as Religious Studies, Philosophy and Archaeology, he is an active member of the Seventh-day Adventist church whose research interests include everything from the Apocrypha to the Apocalypse.


 

Update (10/22/17): This article has been updated to reflect small changes to the commentary on 2 Samuel and a couple other places. Thanks is due to willkinney for bringing these to my attention.

"It does seem to me that it would be useful if almost all of commentators ..."

Your Bible Is Missing A Few ..."
"There is no god. Stop wasting your life on fairy tales."

The Story of Jesus’ Birth is ..."
""Thank you for helping make it easy for me to be an atheist."If you allowed ..."

Christians Need to Defend Gay Marriage

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • willkinney

    Hi biblicallyliterate. Sir, you have tons of misinformation here in this article of yours. If you would like to discuss it, I invite you to our Facebook forum called King James Bible Debate. You can post this silly article of yours and I will be glad to tear it to pieces for you and for the benefit of others. It is clear that you have NO inerrant Bible to believe in yourself or to show to anyone else, and that you are your own authority and you really have no idea what you are talking about.

    Care to take up the challenge?

    Here is the link to our site.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/

  • Outspider

    Why don’t you just explain the errors he has made here?

  • willkinney

    Hi Outspider. BL is wrong in just about everything he says. He simply has NO complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language to believe in himself or to show to anybody else.

    The additional verses in Psalm 14 come from the Vatican copy of the so called Greek Septuagint and the earlier Latin Vulgate – both written long after the N.T. was already complete and taken from Romans and placed in Psalm 14. But they are NOT in the Hebrew texts. The later Latin Vulgate removes the extra verses added to Psalm 14.

    As for Acts 14:7, that again is from manuscript D, but not found in the Majority or the TR or the Critical texts. Manuscript D is notorious for its weird additions.

    BL lies when he says about both John 8:6 and Mark 15:3 that no other bibles since the KJB contain those readings. There are lots of Bibles that contain them and lots of manuscript evidence.

    And he is wrong about 2 Samuel 21:19 “the brother of Goliath” when he tells us “NO modern bible since the KJV will consider it anymore.”

    The guy simply does not know what he is talking about.

    Here is my article on John 8:6 “as though he heard them not”

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/john86heheardnot.htm

    Here is my article on 2 Samuel 21:19 “the brother of Goliath”

    Even Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 and the NIV 2011 read like the KJB.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam2119goliath.htm

    And here is what I have on Mark 15:3

    Mark 15:3 KJB – “And the chief priests accused him of many things: BUT HE ANSWERED NOTHING.”

    These last words – “but he answered nothing” – are omitted by the Vatican Versions, but they are found in manuscripts N, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1424, 2542, the Old Latin a and c, and the Syriac Sinaitic and the Syriac Harklean ancient versions.

    These words – αυτος δε ουδεν απεκρινατο – are found in the Greek text of Scrivener 1894

    The previous English versions did not contain these additional words. The King James Bible was the first English Bible to include them.

    This is also the reading of John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, The Worsley N.T. 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, The Thomson Translation 1808, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young’s 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, the New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Last Days New Testament 1999, The Revised Young’s Literal Translation 1999, Green’s Literal 2005, The Natural Israelite Bible, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Scripture For All Translation 2010, The Voice 2012, the Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015.

    Foreign Language Bibles

    Foreign Language Bibles that contain the words “but he answered nothing” are the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “ma egli non rispondeva nulla.”, The Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2005 – “más el no respondió nada.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 – “porém ele nada respond”, The French Martin Bible 1744 – “mais il ne repondit rien.”, The German Schlachter Bible 2000 – “Er aber antwortete ihnen nights.”, the Polish Gdanska bible 1881 and the Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 – “ale on nic nie odpowiedział.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “maar Hij antwoordde diets.” and The Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 – “dar el nu a răspuns nimic.”

  • Barbara Halstead

    “…NO inerrant Bible to believe….”
    For anyone who believes that is an inerrant Bible, I have some lovely ocean front property in Kansas for sale. Also a bridge in NY for sale.

  • Frank Blasi

    Although I have much respect for the King James Version of the Bible, I can also argue that the only true Word of God were the original manuscripts written by the authors themselves. For example, the actual five parchments bearing the words written by Moses himself, along with the one written by the pen held by Isaiah himself. The same with Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, etc, along with the actual writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. These original parchments can be considered the actual words inspired by God. All the others which were to follow were all copies of the original, all done by normal human beings.
    Or I can argue that because these original parchments were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God will ensure that the content of these manuscripts will remain preserved for many generations to come, spanning over thousands of years. A good example of this divine phenomenon is the Dead Sea Scrolls. These ancient writings included an entire copy of Isaiah. Although written several hundred years after the death of the original author, almost the entire manuscript was identical to all the other Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah in current use during the twentieth Century. Only a few proper nouns had variations of spelling found in the Dead Sea version of Isaiah.
    Although for many years I own a KJV Bible, the current version I read is the New International Version. Instead of questioning the accuracy of translation, I read the NIV for clarity, and to allow the Holy Spirit communicate with me through it.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    Where to start? I would have expected something on the long ending of Mark, or the last verse of John 7, and the next 11 verses of John 8, or Acts 8, or 1 John 5… But no, you refer to some minor issues with texts. You fail to note the difference between the basic text behind the KJV, especially the New testament, where Erasmus translated some manuscripts from Latin back to Greek, allowing for a number of issues.
    You do not explain the role of textual Criticism, the enormous amount of (mostly NT) material they have to work with, and how precise the translators are in their work. You fail to mention the fact that within the first 100 years of the 1611 version many corrections were made to that text.
    I am not a KJV onlyist (I mean, after all, everyone knows that Paul used the 1731 Nederlansche Staten Vertaling to preach from!), but have spent enough time over the last 4 decades looking at translations and materials involved with that…

  • Hi Rudy, thanks for the comment. I am aware of all that you mentioned and appreciate you taking time to point it out. However, if I can explain, there are reasons why those issues were not specifically addressed here.

    1. The article is about how the KJV disagrees with earlier English Bibles. Those earlier English translations had the texts you mentioned (long ending of Mark, etc) and so there was no reason to mention them since that was outside the purview of the piece. This paper only focused on English Bibles prior to 1611 and these were the textual issues present.

    2. The issues regarding the Textus Receptus and the manuscript traditions was again, outside my scope of writing. I was only interested in pointing out that English translations revising the text of the Bible is an age old tradition.

    3. I allude to how Textual Criticism works and the “25,000” manuscripts for the NT. It is not the goal of this piece to serve as an introduction to the science nor to answer all the questions and issues involved.

    Thanks for your concerns and I hope you stick around to see other articles on this blog that may in the future delve into such specific issues.

  • KE

    Will Kinney’s site is a collection go-to place for all things Bible Version. Any person serious about translation, who knows better than to trust mainstream or Academia knowledge-so-called, knows 2 names: David Daniels and Will Kinney. Many people will benefit from Will Kinney’s commentary at his site.

  • KingstonJack

    With respect, any Christian claiming that any written text is “the only true Word of God” is immediately at odds with the gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Both the NRSV and the KJV agree on this point.) The writer of John was not talking about the bible or any other written manuscript, but about the Christ. To elevate written texts to the status of “the Word of God” places a weight upon the authors of those texts that they simply cannot bear. As the article clearly demonstrates, human scribes are and have always been human, i.e. fallible. Even if such autographs (see the text above) were available – and they’re not and never will be – then we would simply be looking at the original human effort to write down something which may or may not have been divinely inspired.

    The KJV provides us with a unique insight into how human interference is always present in the process of translation. A bunch of scholars were gathered by the king, together with specific instructions: according to our friend Wiki, “the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.” At the end of the day, for King James Onlyists to claim an “inerrant translation” is evidence that our beliefs are much to rarely rational.

  • willkinney

    Outspider asks: Why don’t you just explain the errors he has made?”

    Hi all. I did post a response to this but it appears that Matthew deleted my comments. He came to our King James Bible Debate forum on Facebook and when he was getting shot down for his alleged “errors” he refused to answer our questions and he then deleted his initial post (the same one he made here) and left the group.

    Here is what I posted before that he (apparently) deleted from here. Hopefully it will stay up this time.

    Response to Article The KJV removed verses.

    Matthew Reeves. Sir, you have been visiting several Bible forums with this goofy post. I don’t think you are honestly looking for answers, but are trying to stir up contentions.

    Answer John’s question, sir. Do you believe that ANY Bible is the inerrant words of God? Yes or No? If Yes, then which one.

    As for the clown that wrote that article, he simply does not know what he is talking about. As Peter mentioned, those extra verses were added to Psalm 14 from the Vatican copy of the so called Greek Septuagint, and Vaticanus was written long after the N.T. was completed. The early Latin Vulgate contained these extra verses, but the later Latin Vulgate took them out again.

    And the guy flat out lies about several things.

    As for Acts 14:7, that again is from manuscript D, but not found in the Majority or the TR or the Critical texts. Manuscript D is notorious for its weird additions.

    BL( he calls himself Bible Literate) lies when he says about both John 8:6 and Mark 15:3 that no other bibles since the KJB contain those readings. There are lots of Bibles that contain them and lots of manuscript evidence.

    And he is wrong about 2 Samuel 21:19 “the brother of Goliath” when he tells us “NO modern bible since the KJV will consider it anymore.”

    The guy simply does not know what he is talking about.

    Here is my article on John 8:6 “as though he heard them not”

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/john86heheardnot.htm

    Here is my article on 2 Samuel 21:19 “the brother of Goliath”

    Even Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 and the NIV 2011 read like the KJB.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam2119goliath.htm

    And here is what I have on Mark 15:3

    Mark 15:3 KJB – “And the chief priests accused him of many things: BUT HE ANSWERED NOTHING.”

    These last words – “but he answered nothing” – are omitted by the Vatican Versions, but they are found in manuscripts N, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1424, 2542, the Old Latin a and c, and the Syriac Sinaitic and the Syriac Harklean ancient versions.

    These words – αυτος δε ουδεν απεκρινατο – are found in the Greek text of Scrivener 1894

    The previous English versions did not contain these additional words. The King James Bible was the first English Bible to include them.

    This is also the reading of John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, The Worsley N.T. 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, The Thomson Translation 1808, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young’s 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, the New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Last Days New Testament 1999, The Revised Young’s Literal Translation 1999, Green’s Literal 2005, The Natural Israelite Bible, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Scripture For All Translation 2010, The Voice 2012, the Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015.

    Foreign Language Bibles

    Foreign Language Bibles that contain the words “but he answered nothing” are the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “ma egli non rispondeva nulla.”, The Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2005 – “más el no respondió nada.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 – “porém ele nada respond”, The French Martin Bible 1744 – “mais il ne repondit rien.”, The German Schlachter Bible 2000 – “Er aber antwortete ihnen nights.”, the Polish Gdanska bible 1881 and the Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 – “ale on nic nie odpowiedział.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “maar Hij antwoordde diets.” and The Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 – “dar el nu a răspuns nimic.”

  • willkinney

    Proof that the LXX was copied from the New Testament

    Psalm 14 with Romans 3:10-18

    In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul makes a list of Old Testament quotes showing the depravity of man and his rebellion against God. These citations are taken from various Old Testament books, and all of them can be found scattered throughout the Hebrew texts.

    The Hebrew texts do NOT contain these nine verses listed one after the other in any place. Instead, they are scattered throughout the Psalms and the book of Isaiah.

    Romans 3:10-18

    3:10 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

    3:11 “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. ”

    3:12 “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

    (The first three verses are taken from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3.)

    3:13 “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (Taken from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3)

    3:14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:” (from Psalm 10:7)

    3:15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood:” (from Isaiah 59:7)

    3:16 “Destruction and misery are in their ways:” (from Isaiah 59:7)

    3:17 “And the way of peace have they not known:” (from Isaiah 59:8)

    3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (from Psalm 36:1)

    In the Hebrew texts both Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 read basically the same in the first three verses, and then the remaining content of each differs considerably. They are two different Psalms.

    In the Hebrew texts, Psalm 14 reads as it does in the King James Bible. The first three verses are as follows:

    Psalm 14:1-3 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

    “The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.”

    “They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

    This is the reading of all Jewish translations, including the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach and the Complete Jewish Bible of 1998. So too read the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV and the Holman Standard. It is also highly significant that the Modern Greek O.T. now omits these extra verses too, and follows the Hebrew readings instead of the previous LXX version.

    However the Greek Septuagint version greatly expands Psalm 14 verse 3, and ADDS SIX ENTIRE VERSES WORD FOR WORD taken from the New Testament book of Romans 3:13-18.

    I am astounded that some would point to Psalm 14 in the LXX version, and claim that Paul was using this Greek translation when he composed the book of Romans. I guess people believe what they want to believe. Rather, it seems to me Proof Positive that the present day LXX version took the already completed New Testament writings, and transplanted them back into their Greek translation.

    IF the original LXX translators had made their translation from the Hebrew texts way back in 300 B.C, as all Septuagint promoters allege, then WHERE did they get these additional six whole verses, and place them word for word in their translation of Psalm 14, when NO Hebrew text reads even remotely like this??? The simple answer is, they got them directly from Romans 3:10-18 AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

    Another old translation that also contained these extra six entire verses added to Psalm 14 is the Latin Vulgate of 425 A.D. It is almost certain that the Vulgate translation got these extra verses from the Post-Christian copies of the LXX version, and there is historical evidence for this assertion. Wycliffe’s version of 1395 was translated from the Latin Vulgate, as was some of Coverdale’s 1535 translation, and they also contained these extra verses in Psalm 14. Today, the Catholic versions are a mixed bag. The Douay-Rheims, and the more modern Douay version of 1950 contain the extra verses, but the newer St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, the Jerusalem Bible of 1968, and the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 have gone back to following the Hebrew texts of Psalm 14, and have now correctly omitted these extra verses.

    John Gill comments on Psalm 14:3 – “Here follows in the Septuagint version, ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN COPY, all those passages quoted by the apostle, (Romans 3:13-18);which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture.”

    SUPPORT FROM AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE – ST. JEROME

    In Adam Clarke’s commentary on Psalm 14 he notes: “Yet IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED, PARTICULARLY BY ST. JEROME, THAT PAUL DID NOT QUOTE THEM (the verses in Romans 3:10-18) from this Psalm; but…he collected from different parts several passages that bore upon the subject, and united them here….AND THAT SUCCEEDING COPYISTS, FINDING THEM IN ROMANS INSERTED THEM INTO THE SEPTUAGINT, from which it was presumed they had been lost. It does not appear that they made a part of this Psalm in Origen’s Hexapla. In the portions that still exist of this Psalm there is not a word of these additional verses referred to in that collection, neither here nor in the parallel Psalm 53.”

    Now keep in mind, that in working on the Latin Vulgate in 380 A.D., Jerome began to consult the Hebrew texts. Here is testimony from a learned scholar way back in 380 A.D. who held to the idea that the LXX borrowed whole verses from the already completed N.T. text, and transplanted them back into their LXX version.

    CHARACTERISTICS OF ST. JEROME’S WORK

    Jerome originally thought the Greek translation of Origen’s Hexpla was the inspired version, but later in life he came to believe that the LXX was not inspired, but instead, it was the Hebrew texts which were the inspired words of God.

    Jerome then began to write several works on the supremacy of the Hebrew texts over the various Greek translations. Jerome writes: “It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages which in church-copies are marked with daggers and asterisks [symbols indicating words present in the Greek but absent in the Hebrew, and vice versa]. The Jews generally laugh when they hear our version of this passage of Isaiah, ‘Blessed is he that hath seed in Zion and servants in Jerusalem [Is. 31.9].’ In Amos also … But how shall we deal with the Hebrew originals in which these passages and others like them are omitted, passages so numerous that to reproduce them would require books without number?” – [ Jerome’s Letter LVII]”

    In Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation of 405 A.D. , he did NOT include the extra 6 verses . Psalm 14 (13 in the LXX and Latin) does not contain the additional 6 verses found in the LXX. It can be seen here:

    http://speedbible.com/vulgate/B19C013.htm

    “St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-392 A.D., he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

    The ancient Syriac Peshitta does not add the extra verses to Psalm 14, nor did John Calvin add nor even mention the extra verses in his Latin translation or commentary. The Bishops’ Bible of 1568 did not add the extra verses, nor does any other Protestant Bible I am aware of since then. If current thought about the LXX is right, and Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, “quoted” directly from the LXX version of Psalm 14 to give us Romans 3:10-18, then WHY do all modern versions OMIT these words from Psalm 14 NOW?

  • Hello Will,

    First, I approved your earlier comment but for some odd reason, it doesn’t show no matter what I do to fix it. I was going to be emailing Patheos for technical support on the issue but since you posted again and it is now working, I won’t need to. If you notice (which it appears you haven’t), I thanked you for the comment you left (the above one) at the bottom of the article, indicating that some small changes had been made on Oct 22 to the article.

    Second, I never deleted the Facebook post (it’s still there), nor did I leave the group. You sir, who accuse me of lying, are a strange man indeed. I pity the hostility you harbor inside and the need to constantly make accusations about others. If you can’t know how your own Facebook group works, how and why should anyone trust you with academic matters? It baffles me.

    It appears to me that you seem to suffer from difficulties with reading comprehension. You claim that I lie regarding a number of verses, such as Acts 14:7. This makes no sense though. Your point seems to be that the missing verses shouldn’t have been included in the KJV. You thus imply that I intended to claim that they “should” be included. Yet, that’s what I ever said. Likewise, this article never argues that Psalm 14 “should” have had those verses, but merely acknowledges that previous English Bibles did and the KJV made the decision (correctly) to remove them. The only point of this article was that the same situation that currently occurs between KJV readers and modern translations once occurred as well to readers of the Bible in 1611. Bibles didn’t agree with one another, no different than today.

    It appears to me thus, that you genuinely struggle to understand the message of this article and are having a conversation with only yourself. Regardless of everything else, I thank you for raising to my attention the fact that 2 Samuel’s KJV text is repeated by some other translations more modern.

    Blessings.

  • Will,

    What on earth possesses you to post all of this? This article never argues that Psalm 14 should contain the extra material. It merely points out that other earlier English Bibles had contained them. Your responses are thus retorting something never claimed and as such, are completely unneeded. I’m sorry that you feel so hostile to an article that merely reports history.

  • willkinney

    Hi Matthew. Thanks for explaining what happened to my previous post. As for your post on Facebook King James Bible Debate, I said “apparently” you deleted it. It is now gone and none of the moderators took it down. So I could only assume that you deleted it. Maybe you didn’t. But I don’t know how else it could have disappeared.

    Facebook King James Bible Debate site –

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/

    You never did answer our questions. Here is the main question you kept refusing to answer.

    Do you believe there IS such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language, TRANSLATED OR UNTRANSLATED? If you do, can you SHOW US A COPY of it, or tell us exactly which one it is, so we can go out and get one too? Yes or No?

    If you do not believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible, are you honest enough to admit it?

    If you simply do not know for sure, then tell us “I don’t know.” At least that would be an honest answer. Thanks.

  • Outspider

    I can see Will Kinney’s comment, thought it says the comment is awaiting moderation and I have to click a “show comment” button to see it.

    His comment confuses me for the reasons you describe, plus his apparent reliance on extremely dated scholars and non-scholars. In his item on “brother of Goliath,” he cited 4-5 scholars/theologians from the 17th-19th centuries, and one pastor with no academic training at all. He acknowledges that “brother of Goliath” was not in the ancient text, but just seems to think that it can be inferred from the text. His only real support for that presumption is that some other versions have also added it to the text after the KJV did so. I cannot see any justification for the addition, except that it resolves a contradiction.

    His arguments on 1 John 5:7-8 generally focus on the mentions by ancient commentators and doesn’t really seem to address the substantive critiques of authenticity, to explain why it only shows up in occasional commentary and not in texts, to explain how the minority Arians (or gnostics) could have removed it from every manuscript, or to persuasively explain why the most clear evidence for the Trinitarian view would have been basically ignored during the trinitarian debates. On the latter point, he argues that they were reluctant to use it because it identified Jesus as the “Word.” But this provides no basis at all for leaving it out of the debate. After all, he goes on to acknowledge that Jesus was identified as the “Word” in 6 other places in the New Testament.

    He also argues that the Johannine Comma is authentic because it brings the total number of mentions of Jesus as “Word” to 7, and “We all know how significant the number 7 is, representing the spiritual perfections of the Godhead.” Also, “in the epistle of 1 John itself, the word “ho logos” (the word) occurs exactly 7 times when including this verse. See 1 John 1:1,10; 2:5,7,14; 3:18; and 5:7. Just another coincidence – huh?”

    When you have to invoke numerology, I think that’s a good sign you are pretty far out in left field.

  • Guthrum

    I prefer the KJV and the NKJV. The NIV publisher made some changes, among them was the ill-advised, “gender neutral” version that came out a few years back in some misguided effort to please the pc crowd.Many churches dropped the NIV like a hot rock.

  • Alan Christensen

    KJV Onlyism is especially ironic in that none of its adherents “conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.” They’re pretty much all independent Baptists or in similar traditions.

  • KingstonJack

    Which amply demonstrates how KJV Onlyists pick and choose which bits they’ll subscribe to – just like the rest of us.

  • KingstonJack

    What possesses Will is a strange obsession with a collection of words printed on paper. I can’t help but notice that there seems to be zero interest in the teaching of the gospels, only an unhealthy focus on something called an “inerrant bible”. It seems peculiar to me that anyone should be so focussed on which is the “only true version”, rather than “Who is this God revealed to us?”

  • Evermyrtle

    Great answer, considering the difference in languages, hundreds of years between then and now, to affect the understanding, of this ancient written book of messages from GOD, with so many wanting to change them to suit their own opinions of right and wrong!!! We must understand, though, right is still right and wrong is still wrong, nothing can change that,as given in HIS WORD, in any language!!! For what the Bible says about this, read Revelation 22:18-19 and be careful how you might want to add or take away for what HE says!!

  • Gary Murray

    Just a thought… I am in no way a KJV-onlyist… used to be, but have since come to realize that the fact that Erasmus, when developing what we now call the Textus Receptus (received text) which was primarily used for the adoption and writing of the KJV… didn’t have the whole of scriptural texts, OT and NT… Primarily he pulled from texts he had from 12th century and later… We now have older texts from older centuries which edifies us in greater detail than the 12th century text he used to compile his works. That said, my critique of your own writings above is that while you are correct in most of your analysis of things removed/edited from the KJV… I would, in the future, use the KJV 1611 version of texts rather than whatever you used in the above verses to fashion your points, because neither the KJV, NKJV, or KJV 1611 or KJV 1769 of Psalm 14:3 begins (as you have listed)
    “But they are all gone out of the way, they are all together become abominable; there is none that does good, no not one.”
    KJV 1769 Psalm 14:3:
    “They are gone aside, they are all together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
    KJV 1611 Psalm 14:3: (where l is s textually)
    “They are all gone alide, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no not one.”
    NKJV Psalm 14:3:
    “They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

    The verse you listed in Psalm 14:3 and quoted begins “But they are all gone out of the way” You may be pulling from the Greek or the Latin, and while this may seem minuscule, I’m reading this from the perspective of a KJV Onlyist (which I used to be for the first 10 years of my faith until God finally awakened me) that I would have rejected any clarification or admonishment about the KJV from anyone using anything other than the KJV or the textus receptus.

    That said, I concur with your conclusions, but, would be certain in the future that if pontificating on KJV issues you’d be sure to use KJV verses… which would be more than enough to prove or highlight its shortcomings

  • Alison Ely

    thank you for this. i struggle with knowing the authenticity of what i read in the bible. i am reading it all the way through (of course, skimming the longggg lists of descendants, etc, since i’m not interested in researching genealogy or knowing how many of what items were used for certain things), and found a stopping point when i got to romans 13:1-7 today. that part of the bible is definitely worth discussing because it doesnt fit in with god’s love. how am i to subject myself to an evil authority, especially when god has many examples of supporting people who opposed evil governments? i got to searching online and ended up at this article of yours. it is becoming clear to me that while it’s important to know what “the” bible says, it really doesnt end there!! we are also supposed to search our minds and hearts, communicate with god, and ask him for wisdom, since people are imperfect and have not necessarily presented god’s perfect word when they publish a new bible. just because it says not to alter it, doesn’t mean that people won’t before jesus is supposed to return. so since im getting through romans now, im almost done with the bible, and am seeing that as grand as the bible is, it is only part of what i am supposed to discover when it comes to god’s word. i need to ask him for what he truly means for us, and follow what i see as an example of real love, so he will continue to reveal his REAL self to me, regardless of human errors surrounding me. thank you for all this information, it’s what i needed today. i will read the whole rest of this bible, but let god’s word in my heart be the ruler.

  • willkinney

    “The King James Bible Removed Verses”

    Answering a really NUTTY anti-King James Bible blog – And anti – ALL bibles, even the modern ones.

    This Version Rummaging Bible Critic is by far the worst example I have seen of some guy who clearly has made his own mind his final authority.

    He titles his screed….er….his scholarly blog “The King James Bible Removed Verses”

    It is written by a young man named Matthew J. Korpman. He looks like he just got out of high school, and somehow got the deluded notion that he is some kind of an expert on the text of the Bible.

    He calls himself “a minister-in-training” and he is a self confessed “active member of the Seventh-day Adventist church”

    Of course Matthew J. Korpman will NEVER show us a finished product of what he honestly thinks is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God in ANY language. He does not believe such a thing exists.

    Maybe he thinks it is his calling to finally put one together for us. There are a lot of people I run into today who apparently think the same thing of themselves. – “In those days there was no king in Israel; EVERY MAN DID THAT WHICH WAS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES.” Judges 21:25

    Perhaps if we play nice with this budding “scholar” he might just give us an autographed copy of his “inerrant Bible” when he finally gets done working on his long overdue masterpiece. Ya think?

    You can see this “scholarly” piece of Baloney here –

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/biblicallyliterate/2017/10/the-king-james-bible-removed-verses/#disqus_thread

    I will briefly comment on the examples he brings up.

    His first blunder is telling us that Psalms 14 has a whole bunch of words that the KJB omitted. Well, so too do all modern versions.

    Those extra words all come from the so called Greek Septuagint, which was written AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

    They took those words from Romans chapter 3 and put them in the LXX. They are NOT found in the Hebrew texts.

    See my article on the so called LXX. Scroll about 1/3 down and you will see this.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

    Proof that the LXX was copied from the New Testament

    Psalm 14 with Romans 3:10-18

    Psalm 111:10

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, a good understanding have all they that do thereafter: the praise of it endureth forever, [praise the Lord for the returning again of Aggeus and Zachary the prophets.]

    These extra words in Psalms 111:10 are NOT in the Hebrew text, nor even in the so called Greek Septuagint. I have no idea where he got them from.

    I don’t even see them in the Latin Vulgate or the Syriac Peshitta.

    The guy who wrote this article is, as they say in England a real NUTTER.

    When he gets to John 7:29 and tells us that these extra words were deleted-

    [I know him, and if I see that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar;] but I know him, for of him I am, and he sent me.

    Those extra words are not in the Greek texts, not in Westcott and Hort, not in any modern version, nor in the Syraic nor even in the Latin Vulgate. I have no idea where he got them from other than the Wycliffe bible. They are not found in the Great Bible 1540 as he said, nor in Matthew’s bible 1549, nor the Bishops’ bible 1556 nor the Geneva bible 1587, nor even in the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610, nor in any modern version I am aware of.

    As for Acts 14:6-7 those extra words in verse 7 were found in Some Latin Vulgates and manuscript D (which is notoriously corrupt), but not in other Greek mss. not even in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, and they are not found in any modern version either, nor in the Syriac.

    Acts 14:6-7

    …they understood, and fled together to the cities of Licaonye, and Listris, and Derben, and into all the country about. And they preached there the gospel, [and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them. Paul and Barnabas dwelled at Listris.]

    He goes on to lie about Romans 4:23-24 as well, when he says:

    Romans 4:23-24 – Nevertheless it is not written for him only, that it was reckoned to him [for righteousness;] but also for us, to whom it shall be counted [for righteousness,] if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.


Then he comments: “Modern translations have reversed the KJV’s judgement and now typically include the portions in bold, recognizing them as authentically what Paul actually wrote.”

    This is a bald faced lie. The two extra words “for righteousness” are not even in the modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman nor in the text of the Nestle-Aland 28th edition. They are not in the United Bible Society critical text either.

    One of them (the first one) comes from D correction (not the original D) and only the first one, but not the second one, is found in the Latin Vulgate copies. Not even the Catholic versions follow the Vulgate in these two verses.

    The NIV alone totally paraphrases Romans 4:24 and adds things not even found in the Critical Text upon which it is based.

    It adds the words “God” and “righteousness” to Romans 4:24. Not even the Vulgate does this. They just made it up.

    Then our “minister in training” complains about 2 Samuel 21:19 and how the KJB “added” the brother of Goliath to the text. Apparently he thinks two different guys killed the same giant named Goliath.

    I deal with The Who Killed Goliath in my article.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam2119goliath.htm

    As for those extra words in Mark 15:3 “but he answered nothing”, they are not even in the modern versions. This reading came from some few Greek copies, but the Majority of them including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not have them.

    This guy is really weird and obviously his own authority. He has NO inerrant Bible to show to anybody. He is just making up his own “bible” version as he goes.

    He is also wrong about John 8:6 when he says:

    John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not.]

    “Minister in training” Matthew then comments: “The same thing as before is true here. No previous English Bibles included it and virtually no modern Bibles since the KJV will consider it anymore (the only exception to this I know of is the 1833 Webster Translation).

    He is wrong. Here is my article on John 8:6

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/john86heheardnot.htm

    A good Proverb to keep in mind when reading a silly blog like this is Proverbs 14:7

    “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.”

    ALL of grace, believing the Book – the King James Holy Bible.

    Will Kinney

    Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

  • Will, I am honored that over eight months after my initial post (and your initial criticism of it), that you still feel the urge to be obsessed with my work. It is a deep blessing to know that one’s writing can have such a lasting impact on someone’s life. 😉

    I am also flattered that you think I look so young.

    It seems that you have difficulty understanding other people’s words, so let me clarify what is painfully clear to anyone who has seriously read any posts on my blog: I have plainly stated elsewhere that I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. The Bible itself does not teach that it is inerrant. Like the incarnate Jesus, I accept it as a perfect mixture of imperfect human and perfect God. I have no problems with that and so I do not need a perfect translation like you feel that you need.

    I suspect that if this blog post has so irritated you, that you will be further upset to learn that you can expect a book from me to be published in the future that deals with these topics.

    I pray that in time, Christ may touch your heart and lift you out of this dark hole you find yourself within. Blessings, my brother in Christ.

  • Angela

    Matthew,
    Not only are you wasting your time studying the Holy Bible, you have no understanding of the content. The old and new testaments repeatedly say that salvation is only for the children of Israel who is Jacob. If you do not fit the curses in Deuteronomy 28, you have no chance of getting into heaven. The 12 gates in the Kingdom have the sons of Jacob on them, and the gentiles are those Hebrew Israelites who don’t know who they are yet. All other nations are going into slavery because it is a righteous recompense seeing how the lands have never been returned to their rightful owners.First, you are an Edomite and The Most High hates Esau. You actually come from the Caucus Mountains of Russia.Every person walking on this earth has a biblical identity. The only people who fit the curses are the seed of Jacob or Israel and they are not the fake jew-ish people in the land of Israel today. The only people who have gone into “Egypt” again are those people who were in Egypt the first time. Now, who is that? Well, history fills in the blanks that churches tried to hide. The 12 Tribes of Israel are still scattered in all nations. The “so called” Negros are from the same tribe as the Only Begotten Son which is Judah. The other tribes include the Gadites who are today’s so called Native Americans, and the Issacharites are the so called Mexicans. Ephraim are the people in Puerto Rico, Reuben are the so called Seminole Indians, Benjamin are the West Indies, Naphtali are Argentina to Chile, Asher is Columbia to Uruguay. Zebulun are Guatemala to Panama, Manasseh are the so called Cubans. Simeon are the so called Dominicans and the Haitians are the Levites. The tribe of Dan is mixed in with other tribes. The Book of Obadiah tells you what your fate is, and your fate consists of a recompense for what your forefathers did all over the earth which is rape, rob, and murder. America is Great Babylon which is a country built on the blood of innocent people who just so happen to be the Apple of the Most High’s eye. What you and any other remnant of Esau should do is enjoy your heaven which is this world because the 12 Tribes get the kingdom that is forever. The seed of Esau will be eliminated off the earth after you go into a thousand years of hardcore bondage. I’m surprised that you didn’t get that understanding from the Apocrypha because it clearly states in Baruch that so called christianity and religion in general are an abomination to the Creator. Christianity is responsible for putting up the image of a white Jesus by whitewashing the image of the highest Judge especially since the scripture describes in detail what Jesus and his apostles look like. The image being worshiped today is the second son of Pope Alexander VI. Caesar Borgia who was a homosexual who raped his sister before he killed her. Rev 13:9-10, “If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with a sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints”. You should check out the Internet because you will see that the 12 Tribes are as we speak awakening. We are waiting patiently for the Lamb and the promises and the glory that is coming soon, and it feels good to know that all those men who your police are killing in the streets will not be forgotten. All those people who are being kept out from Mexico will also receive justice through the Most High. You should really put that book down because it’s not for you. All praise to the Most High

  • Brandon Roberts

    the bible isn’t 100% reliable