Everybody Loves A Hypocrite :: By Todd Strandberg

The dictionary defines a hypocrite as someone who “pretends to be better than he really is or to be pious, virtuous without really being so.” A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does the opposite.

One of the main reasons people have double standards is that they desire to have the best of both worlds. They go to church on Sundays and as soon as they walk out the door, they go back to living their “regular” lives.

“Do the right thing” doesn’t mean to do that which best serves our lustful desires. A lack of respect for the seducing nature of sin has led many to live hypocritical lives. In our heart of hearts, we know fully well that something is morally wrong with our actions, but we do it anyway because it feels good or is convenient.

The people committing hypocritical acts normally try to use some form of rationalization to justify their actions. A man committing adultery may say that he is only breaking his wedding vows by having sex with prostitutes. The ultimate rationalization is the phrase, “I just couldn’t help myself.”

In the past few years, several high-profile public leaders have been caught in hypocrisy. The grievous nature of some people’s moral blunders proves that no one is immune from stumbling from a lofty perch. I have listed below some examples.

Hypocrites’ Hall of Shame

Jim Bakker – He was once the head of the now-defunct “Praise The Lord” network. In the late ’80s, Bakker was found to have been carrying on a relationship with church secretary Jessica Hahn. He compounded the salacious nature of the affair by funneling her $265,000 in hush money. Another area in which Bakker was a hypocrite was his call for sacrifice on the part of donors to help reach the lost.

In his self-serving confessionI Was Wrong, he admitted using church funds to pay for luxury cars and his six mansions. Bakker and his wife, Tammy Faye, also came up with some truly inventive ways to squander ministry money. They once spent $100 on cinnamon buns just to scent the air of their hotel suite. They equipped a dog house with air-conditioning, which was too noisy for Fido to sleep in. They also spent $60,000 on gold-plated bathroom fixtures.

Jimmy Swaggart – In the late 1980s, Jimmy Swaggart Ministries was the largest televangelism operation of its kind. His operation raked in more than $150 million annually. Every week, his television program, “The Jimmy Swaggart Telecast,” attracted 8 million viewers. The downfall of Rev. Swaggart was probably one of the most spectacular in Church history. The seed of his downfall began when he helped defrock fellow Assemblies of God minister Marvin Gorman, who had been caught in an extramarital affair. When the PTL scandal erupted in 1987, Swaggart went on CNN and told Larry King that Bakker was a “cancer in the body of Christ.”

In 1988, Marvin Gorman learned that Swaggart had been spotted regularly in areas frequented by prostitutes. He hired a private detective to take photos of Jimmy with a sleazy Louisiana hooker named Debra Murphree outside the Travel Inn in Lake Charles, Louisiana. When Swaggart refused demands for blackmail money, the photos were shown to church elders. The moment the media learned of the scandal, Jimmy Swaggart Ministries was doomed. His actions against Gorman and Bakker have become case studies in hypocrisy.

Rush Limbaugh – In referring to himself, Limbaugh once jokingly said he was “a man so virtuous you can trust [him] with your wife in a Motel 6, overnight, while you’re away on business.” When it came to providing moral leadership for America, Limbaugh had serious words to say on many subjects. As the king of conservative talk radio, Rush frequently discussed the evils of our nation’s problem with drugs:

“What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too” (Oct. 5, 1995, The Rush Limbaugh Show transcript).

In Oct. of 2003, Rush Limbaugh announced during his radio program that he was addicted to painkillers and would be checking into a rehab center to “break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me.” Limbaugh said he started taking painkillers “some years ago” after his doctor prescribed them following a spinal surgery. Rush denied that his actions were hypocritical, saying, “My behavior doesn’t change right and wrong. And just because I may have been doing something that appeared to be contradictory to what I was suggesting others do doesn’t mean that what I was suggesting others do is wrong.”

Because Rush was making his comments before he entered treatment, his mind must have been under the influence of the painkillers. A person cannot escape the label of “hypocrite” by saying he or she was only offering a suggestion to other people. Hypocritical acts involve doing the opposite of what one stands for.

Pat Robertson – Troubles began for the founder of the Christian Coalition when a reporter for the New York Times discovered that Robertson owned a two-year-old racehorse named “Mr. Pat.” The paper detailed financial involvement in racing to the tune of more than $500,000. One newspaper ran the mocking headline, “Praise The Lord And Put A 10-Spot On Mr. Pat To Win.”

In his defense, Robertson said he saw no contradiction between his condemnation of gambling and his ownership of a racehorse. “I don’t bet, and I don’t gamble,” Robertson said. “I just enjoy watching horses running and performing.” Robertson eventually told his followers in a letter that he had decided to sell his racehorse: “I am sorry that my fondness for the performance of equine athletes has caused you an offense.”

William Bennett – The former Secretary of Education and Drug Czar, and author of The Book of Virtues admitted to losing more than $8 million in casino gambling. Bennett would receive as much $50,000 in speaking fees to address conservative groups on the moral issues that face America. The money he earned would quickly end up in the pockets of people who promote the type of values he rallied against. Bennett’s typical day of gambling would have him heading to the high-limit room of the nearest casino and blowing money on video poker or $500-a-pull slots.

Bennett was one of Bill Clinton’s biggest critics during the former President’s “moral failure.” Of course, his own credibility was put into serious question by his high-stakes habit. When asked if he was a hypocrite, Bennett said he was not because he did not claim to be a moral authority. He also says he did not have a gambling problem.

Strom Thurmond – “Hypocrite” is about the most suitable word one can use to describe the late U.S. Senator from South Carolina, who built his career as a staunch segregationist while supporting his own mixed-race daughter born of his liaison with a 16-year-old family maid. The daughter, 78-year-old Essie Mae Washington-Williams, revealed the relationship after his death. When asked why she remained silent all those years, she said she didn’t want to harm him. Of course, her humble spirit made dear old Dad look all the more like a scoundrel. Thurmond said blacks and whites should have nothing to do with each other. “All the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement,” he said.

The Senator did demonstrate a strange bit of honor when he paid for his daughter to attend a university. He also sent her money before her marriage and after she was widowed with four children.

Jesse Jackson – If there were an award for hypocrisy, Rev. Jesse Jackson would be strong contender. During the dark days of Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, Jackson bravely dove into the media storm and paid a visit to the President to offer moral counseling. Jackson brought along staffer Karin Stanford, who was visibly pregnant.

It turned out later that Jackson was the father of that child. To try to cover up his “little error,” the good reverend used organizational money to arrange for his playmate to live in a home worth $345,000 and to receive $10,000 per month. Because Jesse Jackson is a darling of the liberal media, the magnitude of his hypocrisy was quickly lost by the press when it declared the whole affair resolved.

Being Hypocritical about Hypocrites

Everyone would probably agree that hypocrisy in any form is no good. However, because the moral failings of various leaders allows the average person to justify his or her own moral inequalities, the actual view of hypocrisy tends to be rather positive. This is particularly true for those who aren’t Christians. They seem to love it when authority figures get caught with their pants down.

If the president of the Southern Baptist Convention was nabbed in a prostitution raid, or if the Pope was discovered to own stock in a Las Vegas casino, millions of people would use these grievous examples of immorality to rationalize their own smaller transgressions.

Because God created us with a built-in moral compass, we constantly feel the need to justify our actions. It is comforting to be able to point to the deeds of someone else and say, “I may have my faults, but I’m not as bad as he is.”

Rationalization is a useful tool for relieving guilt and removing ourselves from responsibility. A person who is 70 pounds overweight can look at someone who is 150 pounds overweight and marvel at the other’s obesity. But a person can’t make himself thinner by finding people who are fatter than he is. He may have a lower percentage of body fat than other people, but nonetheless, according to the basic guidelines for weight, he is still fat.

How Did They Get into That Mess?

If you were to study 100 cases of hypocrisy, I doubt you would find a single person who intended to become a hypocrite. Most people start off with good intentions and along the way their moral values somehow get off track.

Because our flesh likes the things of this world, compromise is inevitable for those people who play with temptation. If you keep dancing on the edge of the abyss, you’ll eventually fall in. It takes people who are honest and humble to know their limits.

The apostle Paul gave some very good advice to the Thessalonians on how to avoid becoming a hypocrite. He told them to, “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22). Notice he said Christians should not only abstain from whatever is wrong, but also that we should abstain from whatever appears to be wrong.

What makes this such good advice to follow is our inability, at times, to use proper judgment in avoiding sin. By the time we realize we’ve gone too far, turning around becomes difficult.

Many believers who have decided that no harm would result from going out to have a few drinks with friends or co-workers have later wondered how alcohol was able to destroy their lives.

An old public service announcement about drinking urged people to know their limits. The problem with this advice is that the only way for someone to know his limit is by surpassing it; some folks may see their limit as only being reached when they end up in jail for DWI.

Image Is Everything

When people present themselves as moral leaders, they automatically commit themselves to living by a higher standard. Pat Robertson and William Bennett, two of the examples listed in the Hypocrites’ Hall of Shame, found this out the hard way. Robertson said he only owned a racehorse because he liked the sport. Bennett argued that he never actually had presented himself as a moral authority. Both men branded themselves as hypocrites by failing the most fundamental rule of morality – leadership is made by example.

The Bible warns that preachers will be judged more severely than others. If some religious leaders knew of the tough standards facing them, they would probably replace their titles of “bishop,” “deacon,” or “holiness” with a more humble title of simply “message carrier.”

“My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1).

One the greatest examples of hypocrisy in the Church today is top-bill preachers who mire themselves in worldly goods. It is a witness-destroying contradiction for men to point to heaven as the final hope while they continue to lust after all the finer things of this life. The example that Jesus gave in His life on earth should be reason enough for us to tend towards modesty.

“The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath no where to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20).

Because the main task of a moral commentator is to convince people to do things that contradict their fleshly desires, any indication of a double standard completely destroys the message.

When I was in high school, Mr. Block, my history teacher, talked to the class about the dangers of smoking. He had good intentions in warning us about smoking, but he compromised his message through a conflicting financial interest.

Because Mr. Block had previously told the class that he owned stock in a big tobacco company that had done extremely well for him, he said, “I wouldn’t mind taking a hit on my stock if it meant some of you young folks would not take up the habit.” Because his capital gains were generated by people consuming tobacco, his ethics and stock portfolio were in conflict with each other.

The Danger of Too Few Hypocrites

One of my favorite pastimes is researching prophetic commentaries written as far back as the 1800s. By reading vintage books on Bible prophecy, I’m able to get a non-biased view of how the world is progressing towards the end times.

It commonly known that the generations that lived before us had a much stronger moral foundation that the one we find today. The Bible was used as a guide for all sorts of matters that would be unheard of today. The Good Book was used as reference in such common fields as business, education, and politics. Of course, it would be considered bizarre–or in some cases unlawful–to use the Bible as a manual for daily living.

Oddly enough, I’ve noticed the cry over hypocrisy then was much louder then than it is today. From reading some of these 100-year-old commentaries, you would think they were living in the golden age of hypocrisy.

The decline in moral standards is the most obvious reason we see a shift away from a two-faced approach to morality. If people don’t live by a moral code, they really can’t be considered in violation of something they never vowed to uphold in the first place. A hypocrite loves God and his sin. Someone who is totally depraved has no such contradiction.

Very few hypocrites lived in Sodom and Gomorrah. The inhabitants of those two cities were fully dedicated to their wickedness, and this fact did not escape God’s attention. It is easy to see that our generation is headed down that same path.

God Does Not Judge on a Curve

I once watched a Christian-produced video that featured a crew asking individuals at random if they were ready to enter Heaven. Most people believed they were in good standing with their Creator. They arrived at this belief by concluding that they were somehow safe because they knew there were many others who were worse sinners.

The requirement for salvation is solely based on how we react to the gift presented to us at Calvary. It has been estimated that nearly 100 billion people have lived on this planet at some point. If all members of this great mass of humanity trusted in Jesus as their Savior, they would make it into Heaven. If only a dozen of them chose to follow Christ, they would be part of the lucky few.

I don’t know where people get the idea that salvation is determined by people fitting under a “nice person” category. Far too many people seem to think that only the most evil percentage of humanity will be the ones who don’t make the cutoff.

The basis of our salvation is trusting in Jesus Christ as our Savior. You might be a person of high moral standards, but if you make works your foundation, you will not qualify for the Kingdom of God.

A world full of hypocrites cannot save your eternal soul. It’s nice to point to hypocrites for excuses, but there is nothing they can do to better your odds. God has already determined their fate. The occurrence of hypocrisy is more negative than anything. It demonstrates how difficult it is to resist sin.

Most folks spend far too much time assessing the sins of other people. The fact that people are unable to live perfect lives is not really breaking news. Instead of measuring our lives by what hypocrites do, we need to model our lives after the One who set the perfect example.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).


King James Onlyism :: By Todd Strandberg

Yet Another Distraction

Distraction is one of Satan’s favorite tools for hindering the work of God. If he can’t pervert or stop the message, he does his best to sidetrack the messenger with trivial debates. After studying the issue of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO), I’ve concluded that we have yet another prime example of the devil’s handiwork.

The advocates of KJVO believe that the King James Version is the only God-inspired translation of the Holy Bible. They insist that all modern translations have been modified to the point that they are unreliable or even dangerous for Christians to use as a resource. One writer claims that these “New Age” translations are somehow preparing the way for the rise of Antichrist.

I have a long list of problems with KJVO folks. First is my inability to find the damage supposedly being caused by all these other translations. I haven’t found any major Bible version that contradicts well-established Christian theology.

Some so-called translations do corrupt the Word of God but these versions are best described as revisions rather than translations. For example, the New World Translation Bible, produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is more of a rewritten version of the Bible than a translation. The New World Translation renders John 1:1 as: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Notice that the word “God” has been changed to the phrase “a god.” Another example of a version that’s been rewritten rather translated is the gender-neutral Bible, which tries to rob God the Father of His masculine nature.

Burden Of Proof

Most who promote the teachings of KJVO avoid personalizing the sinister actions of the translators. If all of these scholars were actively involved in perverting the Holy Bible, they would have to be classified as men of evil intent. The Bible very plainly says that those who tamper with the Word of God are destined for the lake of fire.

Because middle-aged scholars translated most of the Bible versions several years ago, a good percentage of them have now gone on to their eternal reward. If the translators of the New International Version, Good News, Amplified, New English Bible, Living Bible, Revised Standard Version, and many others were actually doing mankind a godly service, anyone attacking them would have to answer to the Lord of heaven.

Because the consequences of being wrong are so high, I think the critics of the new translations should build a stronger case against the non-KJVO crowd. I’ve yet to find one KJVO person who bothers to speculate about how this massive conspiracy might have been pulled off.

Validation Is A Two-Way Street

The errors cited by the advocates of KJVO deal mostly with missing or downgraded words. They point to an example of new versions eliminating the name Jesus by inserting the pronoun “he” in place of the Lord’s name. The NIV is repeatedly cited for omitting the name of Jesus, but that version actually uses His name more than the New KJV.

The main problem with these errors is that the KJVO watchdogs only look for examples that have the KJV using a proper name for God, while the same verse in another translation uses a pronoun to represent deity. Error finding needs to be a two-way street. If the KJVO researchers would do even a quick concordance check, they would find the following examples:

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” ( Colossians 2:9 NIV).“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9 KJV).

“Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things?” (Acts 4:25 NASB).“Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?” (Acts 4:25 KJV).

“To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now forever. Amen” (Jude 25 NASB).“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen” (Jude 25 KJV).

Another good example of the King James Only people failing to cross-check their facts is their claim that the KJV uses the proper name “Jehovah” while the modern versions substitute the word “Lord.” They claim the switch is meant to depersonalize God and that it is somehow an attack against the Jews. These statements are ridiculous in light of the fact that the KJV uses the same “Lord” dozens of times where the Hebrew word “Jehovah” [“Yahweh”] is found.

Going Concordance Crazy

Gale Riplinger, in her book New Age Bible Versions, takes the practice of one-sided validation to a new height. She makes plenty of comparisons that are intended to show non-KJV translations in a bad light, but she also draws a comparison between “New Age” writers and the modern Bible versions. Riplinger uses quotes from a wide variety of sources with religious views that conflict with Christianity. She implies by example that the thoughts of evil men have been written into all these corrupted translations.

Her quotes are so extremely brief, I don’t understand how Riplinger can dare claim that they are from the sources she cites. For example, she implies that “the Blessed One” of Mark 14:61, NIV, actually refers to some exiled Hindu guru named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Even if a demonic hand were at work in the NIV translation, plenty of other evil men have been called “the Blessed One” at some point.

Riplinger goes totally overboard in her “new age,” “new world,” “new order,” “old order,” and “former order” examples. Of course, these words are all highly satanic (I’m being sarcastic) and any appearance of them in a Bible translation confirms its evil origin. She put together a nice little list of how these praises appear in non-KJV Bibles. To assemble this list, she needed to reference 18 translations, and in most cases the offending praises only appear once in the various translations.

Her absurdity reaches its peak with her claim that the word “age” in Matthew 28:20 has a sinister meaning. The King James Version says that Jesus will be with us until “the end of the world.” The NIV says the Lord will be with us “to the very end of the age.” Because the Bible informs us in Isaiah 45:17 that the world will never end, the NIV translation is probably a better interpretation of Matthew 28:20.

“But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end” (Isaiah 45:17).

The King James Version is the only major translation that contains the word “gay.” Does this give someone the right to claim that the KJV was written by homosexuals to plant the seeds of the “gay movement?” The answer would be “yes” if we employed the same type of logic as the KJVO crowd.

The Snail Pace Conspiracy

One of the most widely quoted verse used by the folks who argue for the King James version’s supremacy is Colossians 1:14. A comparison is made to all the modern translations has them omitting the blood of Christ from this passage. If no one bothered to investigate why those three words were deleted, it would be very easy to conclude that skullduggery was at work.

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14 KJV).“In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14 NIV).

There is a very simple explanation why the scholars who produced the NIV did not include the words “through his blood.” When the passage was translated into English, the words did not come from the early Greek manuscripts. The phrase was most likely borrowed from Ephesians 1:7, which happens to be a parallel passage to Colossians 1:14.

The King James translators got a little wordy in their translating. The NIV translators simply corrected what should not have been added to the passage. The KJVO crowd, however, says that we should trust their favorite translation over manuscripts that date back to the third century.

There is a lot of talk about the removal of the phrase “through his blood” as being some sort of conspiracy to destroy the doctrine of the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. If the devil were working to corrupt the Bible, this would have to be his slowest-moving scheme of all times. It makes no sense to do this with only one verse while leaving dozens of other verses untouched. Here are a few examples:

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.” (Ephesians 1:7 NIV)

“But with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19 NIV).

“To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” (Revelation 1:5 NIV).

“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:13 NIV).

“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that led to death, so that we may serve the living God!” (Hebrews 9:14 NIV).

English Bias

Supporters of the King James Only doctrine often claim that Elizabethan English translation is superior to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts upon which it is based. They take this step to try to defend themselves against the contradictions the early translations create for their exclusive view. If the KJV has no source document, it has to be a new revelation from God.

Because we have the original Hebrew and Greek, we don’t need to rely on an English translation that was written 1500 years after the fact. If the original Greek was good enough for the scholars who produced the King James Bible, it should be good enough for us. Even Jesus said, “I am Alpha and Omega” (Rev. 1:8). He didn’t say, “I am the A and Z.”

If KJVO proponents are right, where does that leave the 2,000 non-English translations? German-speaking people have the same right to claim their version of the Bible as the one and only “infallible translation.” The only way to resolve differences between the translations is by checking the ancient original Hebrew and Greek.

Errors In The KJV

Many people believe that the King James Bible is infallible. They boldly claim the translation is so blessed by God that it is 100-percent free of errors. This kind of talk is just bluster because there are several minor translation errors in the KJV.

As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God’s Holy Word.

In Hebrews 10:23, the word “faith” is erroneously substituted for the word “hope.” All of the source documents use “hope.” It is very obvious that Paul meant to use faith, hope and love in verses 22, 23, and 24.

“10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works.”

In Revelation 22:19, the scholars made the mistake of thinking Jesus was speaking of the “Book of Life.” Researchers have found 99% of all Greek manuscripts reading “tree of life.” The context of verse 14 verifies that the Lord was speaking of the “tree of life.”

“22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”
“22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

One of the most obvious errors in the KJV is the word “at” in Matthew 23:24. It’s not grammatically proper to say, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The translators should have used the word “out.” The most common English translations that pre-date the KJV bear this out:

“Blinde leders; clensenge a gnat, but swolowynge a camel.”–(Wyclif, 1380.)
“Ye blinde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammyll.”–(Tyndale, 1534.)
“Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a camell.”–(Cranmer, 1539.)
“Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnate, and swalow a cammel.”–(Geneva, 1557.)
“Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel.”–(Rheims, 1582.)

There Is No 1611 King James Bible

For many people, it is not enough to just have any King James Bible. They take the extra step of proclaiming the Authorized 1611 KJV translation to be the only true Word of God. Because the King James used today has been revised several times, they don’t feel it can be trusted.

I have some bad news for these 1611 KJVO folks: There is no existing copy of the original manuscript produced by King James’ faithful translators. The pre-print text and the original autographs confirming the validity of the translation have all been lost to history. There is no way the KJVO advocates can be certain that the 1611 translation has not been tampered with.

According to a pamphlet written in 1660, the king’s printers possessed the finished product five years before it was published. Because the KJVO camp is fond of conspiracies, the time gap should cause great concern. After all, they have no way of knowing if the original KJV translation made it to the print press.

The 1611 KJV Bible has indeed seen several revisions – 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the final one in 1850. The concern over the validity of the modern KJV Bible is silly because the vast majority of the changes were simply spelling changes or single word updates.

The Need For Clarity

Language is always in a constant state of change. A word may mean one thing one year and have an opposite meaning a year later. If the Bible is not periodically translated into the language of the common person, the meaning of the original text becomes lost to the reader. Just consider the following KJV words:

Almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes. (1)

Dr. Jack Lewis put together a good example of how the KJV has changed. His original writing goes on for several pages. Here is small excerpt that gets his point across:

“Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With some we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!” (2)

I’m sure Satan would love to keep the Bible shrouded in mystery. When the King James translation came out, many church leaders complained that it was too easy to read. We’ve forgotten that church leaders once tried to keep the public in the dark by opposing all efforts to modernize the Bible.

The best way to show how the new translations can help clarify the meaning of the Bible text is by example. Listed below are comparisons between the King James and the New King James Version produced by Thomas Nelson Publishing:

Matthew 10:42
“And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward” (KJV).
“And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward” (NKJV).

Matthew 17:25
“He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon?” (KJV).
“He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon?'”(NKJV).

Matthew 18:32
“I forgave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me” (KJV).
“I forgave you all that debt because you begged me” (NKJV).

Mark 8:33
“For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (KJV).
“For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” (NKJV).

John 8:46
“Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (KJV).
“Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (NKJV).


1. Jack Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Baker Book House, 1981)
2. Jack Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations (ISBN 0-945441-04-5)