Kent Hovind’s KJV, Corrupted?

Kent Hovind doesn’t review questions before taking them. He doesn’t sit down and study a topic prior to airing a Question and Answer video. As a result, it is often the case that somebody will ask a question, and Kent will give an odd-to-ridiculous response that does little more than itch his ear.

In a recent broadcast, one writer asked about “the difference between ‘examples’ and ‘ensamples’ in 1 Corinthians 10:6 and 10:11.”

Both verses read as follows:

1611 King James Bible (Spelling modernized)
6 Now these things were † our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for || ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Gr. our figures. || Or, Types.

I don’t believe I have ever heard the word ensample. My mind was immediately taken to the prefix, en. This struck me as being different than ex; after all, enter and exit are two different words, assuming fixed directionality (See Coming or Going, Noah?).

Kent apparently felt the same way, but was even more certain in his response:

“Excellent question. My theory is that one is external, and one is internal. Some things you see, and you say ‘whoa, that is a good example.’ Other things are internal—you think about it, like ‘wow.’ I think there is a distinction there, and the King James preserves the two words.”

I too think there is a distinction there, in English. But English is irrelevant. Was there a distinction when Paul wrote the letter? That is the question we ought to be asking ourselves.

Hovind’s last statement stood out to me; “…the King James preserves the two words.” When a King James Onlyist speaks of preservation, my ears perk up. If there is indeed a preserved distinction, we ought to see evidence of this in other translations as well. Unless, of course, they’re all just corrupt ☺.

Let’s take a brief walk through a few renderings of these passages, starting with the Latin Vulgate, and ending with the English Standard Version:

Latin Vulgate (~400 AD)
6 Haec autem in figura (figure) facta sunt nostri ut non simus concupiscentes malorum sicut et illi concupierunt. 11 Haec autem omnia in figura (figure) contingebant illis scripta sunt autem ad correptionem nostram in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt.

This first reading is of particular interest to me, because the term figure was cited in the margins of the Authorized Version for verse 6. Note, however, that both verses use the same term: figura.

Wycliffe Bible (1382)
6 But these things were done in figure of us, that we be not coveters of evil things, as [and] they coveted. 11 And all these things fell to them in figure; but they be written to our amending, into whom the ends of the worlds be come [soothly they be written to our correction, or amending, into whom the ends of the world have come].

Note again the use of figure; and in both passages.

Tyndale New Testament (1526)
6 These are ensamples to vs that we shuld not lust after evyll thinges as they lusted. 11 All these thinges happened vnto them for ensamples and were written to put vs in remembraunce whom the endes of the worlde are come apon.

Now we arrive at William Tyndale’s work. Tyndale uses the term ensamples not in one passage, but in both passages. While he uses a different word than Wycliffe, he leverages the pattern of using it twice.

Textus Receptus (1516)
6 ταῦτα δὲ τύποι (typoi, typos) ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν 11 ταῦτα δὲ πάντα τύποι (typoi, typos) συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντησεν

Above is the TR; the foundation from which the New Testament of the King James Bible was constructed. Granted, it’s Greek, and King James Onlyists despise Greek more often than not. But this is the KJV Greek, so perhaps they’ll give it  a pass.

Note how the term typoi/typos is used in both verse 6 and verse 11. At this point, we can argue confidently that the King James Bible, rendering two different English words, is not a very good example of preservation in the formal equivalency sense.

Geneva Bible (1599)
6 Now these are ensamples to us, to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things came unto them for ensamples, and were written to admonish us unto whom the ends of the world are come.

Note: The above text from the Geneva was taken from an old scan (scans below). I tried to reflect it accurately, but the quality was very poor. While I own a Geneva, it is a modern product, and may have slightly-revised content.

The Geneva Bible follows Tyndale, and uses ensamples in both verses. Some Geneva bibles today may contain a margin note for verse 6 staying “Some read figures,” calling back to Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate.

So at this point we have the Latin using a single term, twice. We have Wycliffe using a single term, twice. We have Tyndale using a single term, twice. And lastly, we have the Textus Receptus using a single term, twice. A pattern is established.

1611 King James Bible (Spelling modernized)
6 Now these things were † our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for || ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Gr. our figures. || Or, Types.

Now we get to the 1611 AV. It breaks from the pack, and uses two terms: examples, and ensamples. Though it broke the pattern, the translators referenced the Latin term figure in verse 6, and the Greek term typos in verse 11.

As I read this version, I wonder if the translators were tying our to examples, and them to ensamples. Pure speculation. What we do know is that the Greek from which the KJV NT was derived doesn’t use two words, and most (if not all?) of the preceding English translations also used one word.

Lets keep pressing forward in History.

King James Bible (1769 on BibleGateway, and BibleStudyTools)
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Here we arrive at today’s King James Bible. Note how today’s KJV has rejoined the pack, using a single term in both verses. If indeed the presence of ensample and example are signs of preservation (as Kent stated), then we have a clear example where the modern King James Bible removed a preserved distinction.

Update 4/19/2016: Some King James Bible’s today still contain “ensamples,” while others contain “examples”. Unfortunately, it has been difficult determining when the wording changed, and who was responsible for the change.

Lets wrap up our journey through history with the English Standard Version:

English Standard Version (2001)
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

We see yet again, one word, used in both passages. The King James Bible has been brought back into the fold with other translations (including modern ones).

Herein lies the problem: Kent Hovind, and King James Onlyists like him, assume nearly every distinction between the King James Bible and other modern versions is some type of substantive preservation from the very Hand of God. As he stated himself, “…the King James preserves the two words.

What Kent failed to realize is that his KJV likely does not contain both terms. So if indeed the presence of both is preservation, the absence of one must be corruption.

Is your King James Bible corrupted, by Hovind’s reasoning?


Geneva and King James Bible scans, as promised.

1 Corinthians 10:6 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (King James Bible)



God Creates Evil?

So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? (1 Corinthians 14:9a, KJV)

King James Onlyists often claim the KJV is, without question, the easiest of all translations to read and understand. They’ll cite articles claiming modern translations require an 8th or 9th grade reading ability, while alleging the King James requires little more than a 5th grade education. Now, these studies are questionable (and perhaps worth debunking), but lets first evaluate the practical reality of this claim.

Suppose you were a middle-aged man, and have had your mind washed in the Word of God for nearly 50 years. Each year, you read the King James Bible cover to cover. So confident are you in your understanding of it, you decide to make a life of ministry to others. For decades, you stand before multitudes, and lead many thousands to the Lord.

One day, during a routine online broadcast, a young Christian woman by the name of Amber writes-in regarding a verse that gives her some confusion. “I love the King James, and read it only” she says, but she has encountered an odd passage:

…I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

You read the passage on the air, but you struggle to form an answer. In hopes of being rescued, you reach for Peter Ruckman’s Errors in the King James Bible, and begin fanning through the pages. After a moment, you find Ruckman’s book to be dumb (in the traditional sense, of course).

What now? You quickly defer to a joke, and move on to the next question.

The tragic ending to this story is the young woman is left wondering whether God is directly involved in committing moral evils. After all, isn’t that what the King James Bible says in the book of Isaiah?

I wish I could say the above story was purely a work of fiction, but it is not. Today, on his evening YouTube broadcast, Kent Hovind was unable to clear up this minor semantic issue. Rather than turn to other translations or commentaries for clarity, he turned to Ruckman.

When critics of King James Onlyism ask if the King James Bible could be improved in any way, this is precisely the type of thing we have in mind. When Dr. James White sat across from Steven Anderson, and inquired about the conflation of hades and gehenna, this is the type of thing he had in mind. Sadly, advocates of onlyism refuse to concede the point.

So what does Isaiah 45:7 say, exactly? Well, lets seek out a multitude of counselors, per Proverbs 11:14, and see what we learn:

New American Standard Version
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

English Standard Version 
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.

New King James Version
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.

1599 Geneva Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

What we find by looking at other translations is that “calamity” is a very popular alternative. It’s also worth noting that “calamity” serves as a meaningful parallel to well-being, and peace. This adds even more to its weight as an alternative reading.

When we consult older translations, such as the Wycliffe (from the Vulgate), or the Geneva (from the Masoretic), we see the same terms are used that are found in the King James Bible. This suggests the term “evil” floated through each English translation since Wycliffe, and may have once enjoyed a broader semantic range.

Imagine for a moment that the tables were turned, and “calamity” appeared in the King James Bible while “I […] create evil” appeared in the modern versions. Gail Riplinger and Kent Hovind would take every opportunity to declare this  to be heretical, and attribute it to Satan.

Blue Letter Bible is a great resource for those of you who wish to continue digging beyond this point. Utilizing this resource, we learn that the Hebrew term here is רַע (raʻ, rah), and has the following semantic range:

  • evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
    • evil, distress, adversity
    • evil, injury, wrong
    • evil (ethical)

For completeness, I’ll close with Calvin’s commentary from the mid-1500’s:

Making peace, and creating evil. By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort.

Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences.

If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

Coming or Going, Noah? (Updated)

Update: On March 2, 2016 I sent the following article to Dr. Kent Hovind. My expectation was that, since he issued the challenge on his broadcast, he would consider my response on his broadcast. On Kent’s March 28, 2016 broadcast (at 23:30), the first line of my email was read before Kent decided to skip the email entirely, going on to another question.

A picture of Jonathan Sampson's email to Kent Hovind
Original email sent to Dr. Kent Hovind after he issued a challenged to Jonathan Sampson regarding God’s command for Noah to go/come into the Ark.

A Bit of Backstory

If you know me, you likely know that I used to be a King James Onlyist. I adopted the perspective shortly after moving to Pensacola, FL as a young man around 2003.

Shortly after moving to Pensacola, I was surrounded by a group of wonderful people who all began to show me where my Bible was “missing” verses like Matthew 18:11 (see Luke 19:10). Having no knowledge to catch me, I fell by persuasion rather swiftly, and began parroting the same arguments.

Fast-forward now, 13 years later, and I am no longer a King James Onlyist. However, many of my friends are, including Kent Hovind (yes, that Kent Hovind). Since his release from prison, Kent has been leveraging YouTube to uncritically gush over the works of Gail Riplinger. I watched each broadcast, but eventually became so frustrated with his/their misinformation that I had to begin responding.

Well, my responses caught Kent’s attention, and before long I was banned. Yes, banned. Kent once threatened to throttle my comments on YouTube; this never happened. Almost immediately afterwards, my posts became visible to me, and me alone.

Kent Issues a Challenge

In spite of his decision to block me, Kent has called me out in a recent video:

“Jonathan (I assume you’re still watching), did God tell Noah to ‘come into the ark’, or ‘go into the ark’? I would just like an answer to that one question.”

— Kent Hovind, 2016-02-23 YouTube broadcast at 29:30

Kent claims, once again, that there is a crucial difference between the King James Bible, and the modern “perversions” (his words, obviously). For the record, lets look at the contrasting renderings:

English Standard Version (source)
Then the Lord said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.

King James Version (source)
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The distinction here is with God being inside the Ark, in the KJV, while being outside the Ark, in the English Standard Version (and others). So which is it? Coming or going, Noah?

God’s Perspective

Normally, I wouldn’t spend much time on this type of issue. Theologically, nothing here is at stake. The Bible teaches the omnipresence of God. His eyes are in all places; no secret place can hide you from the God who fills Heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:24).

Given God’s absolute omnipresence, He is both within the Ark, and without. It’s proper for Him to say “come in,” and “go in,” given His unique perspective. Consider the record in Genesis 19:24 where God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah:

King James Version
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

So the Lord is on the Earth calling down fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. So where is the Lord? In heaven, or in Earth? Is the Lord sending judgment, or calling judgment? The question is flawed.

One thing that frustrates me is how King James Onlyists, and Kent in particular, pretend that these types of variant readings are part of a larger ploy to attack God in the modern “perversions” (again, his words). To test the consistency of their claim, I’ve made a habit of first checking earlier English translations to see how they rendered these passages:

Wycliffe (1382) “Enter thou and all thine house into the ship…”
Tyndale (1530) “goo in to the arcke both thou and all thy houssold…”
Matthew’s (1537) “Go in to the arcke; both thou and all thy household…”
Geneva (1599) “Enter thou and all thine house into the Ark…”

(Wycliffe and Geneva on BibleGateway)

Was Wycliffe trying to damage God’s Word? Tyndale, the originator of many famous Authorized Version passages, rendered the text “go”. Even the Geneva, stemming also from the Textus Receptus, rendered it without a reference point; “Enter thou…into the Ark.” There is no conspiracy, Kent.

And Finally, a bit of Hebrew

I fully expect Kent to check-out at this point (or maybe try and push one of Riplinger’s books), but for those of you who are interested in actually studying a matter out, we can briefly look to see which word is in question, and how else the King James Version translates it.

According to an online Hebrew Lexicon, the term used here is bow’. Now, I don’t speak, read, or comprehend Hebrew, but thanks to the many people who do, I don’t need to. A cursory glance at a couple of online resources shows the semantic range of this word:

בּוֹא bôwʼ, bo; a primitive root; to go or come

According to Strongs, this word appears 2,577 times, and with the following renderings:

come (1,435x), bring (487x), … in (233x), enter (125x), go (123x), carry (17x), …down (23x), pass (13x), …out (12x), misc (109x).


I feel pretty content with what we’ve learned here. I still feel it was an unnecessary journey, but I learned a couple of things along the way and am better for it. So whether you’re coming, or going, I wish you godspeed in your continued study of His Word.

Who Can Say Jesus is the Lord?

The King James Bible says, in 1 Corinthians 12:3:

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (emphasis added)

We are told that the NIV, ESV, NASB and many other modern translations are the direct efforts of the Devil to deceive Christians, and ultimately attack Jesus Christ. What then, pray tell, do we do with passes like Jude 1:25 in the modern verses?

New International Version
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

English Standard Version
to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

New American Standard Version
to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Compare these verses with the same passage in the King James Bible:

King James Bible
To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Note the omission of “through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages” in the King James Bible. In light of a major King James Onlyism thesis (that the newer versions are tools crafted to attack Christ), and the assertion made in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that one cannot truly profess Christ as Lord, but by the Holy Ghost, does this strike you as the type of “corruption” we should expect from a bunch of “Satanic bible-correctors”? I don’t think so.

I would love to have dug a bit deeper into this variant, but I recently gave my only copy of Philip Comfort’s New Testament Text and Translation Commentary to a dear friend, and well-known King James Onlyist. If you would like to help me reclaim a copy, you can always purchase one for me off of my wishlist.

Satire: NIV Onlyism Works Just as Well

I just saw some King James Onlyists on facebook discussing the frequency of certain words/phrases in the King James Bible as opposed to other versions. Just to show that a foolish handler of the NIV can play the same game, I’ve written the following – please note that this is entirely satire, and I do not endorse this type of reasoning.

Term(s) NIV Instances KJV Instances Difference
“Jesus” 1,284 924 28% Deleted
“Christ Jesus” 82 56 32% Deleted
“Messiah” 73 2 98% Deleted
“Redemption” 24 20 17% Deleted

“Jesus” appears in the NIV 1,284 times, and only 924 times in the KJV. The KJV has deleted 28% of all references to the name “Jesus”!

“Christ Jesus” appears in the NIV 82 times, and only 56 times in the KJV. Again, that’s a 32% reduction in the number of references to “Christ Jesus” in the KJV!

“Messiah” appears in the NIV 73 times, but only 2 times in the KJV – you read that right, TWO TIMES! That’s a 98% deletion!

“Redemption” appears 24 times in the NIV. 4 and 2 make 6, the number of man, which is more proof that man will be redeemed. In the KJV, this same glorious word shows up only 20 times! And let’s not forget that Joseph was sold by his brothers for “20 pieces of silver,” which is itself a shadow of the attack on Christ where he was sold for a price as well.

Don’t you see? Can’t you tell just how deep the corruption flows in the KJV? It is readily obvious to anybody who has “eyes to see, and ears to hear.”

We do this research to proclaim the message of Jude 1:25, “to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.” (NIV)

Oh, look, Jude 1:25 happens to be one of the instances where “Jesus” and “Christ” are deleted in the KJV, making no reference to “our Lord”!

“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”

Note here, again, how the KJV deletes nearly 20% of the words!

Anderson Uncovers the Mark of the Beast in the NIV!

Many of you may be familiar with Pastor Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church out in Arizona. He’s been featured in videos on YouTube getting harassed by border-patrol, praying for President Obama to get brain cancer, and stressing the importance of urinating standing up – really, that last one is legit.

Pastor Anderson is back with more of his anti-NIV nonsense. This time, it’s some special mathematic revelation in the book of Mark as found in the NIV.

So the argument is this: there are 678 verses in the book of Mark found within the King James Bible. The NIV lacks calls into question the last 12 verses of Mark, which means the NIV has (678-12) verses, or 666 for ease! Clearly this is no coincidence!

I don’t know what it is with King James Onlyists and trying to find special meaning in arbitrary math. I had thought that this type of ‘reasoning’ was limited to Gail Riplinger alone and her Titanic theory, but apparently it’s all over.

At the surface, we must say that this is incredibly silly. Even if it were true, what would this prove? Is the Devil trying to sneak little signatures into the NIV for King James Onlyists to discover? I think not.

Of course, not only is this silly at the surface, but it’s just wrong as even a cursory study would reveal.

The error was in assuming the NIV contains all of the verses the KJV has up to the last verses of Chapter 16. So we started with the assumption that if we count the last 12 verses of the NIV, we would have 678 verses in the book of Mark. Remove those verses and we are left with 666. This is wrong.

The long-ending of Mark isn’t the only portion of the book of Mark that is thought to be a deviation from the original text of the document. Several other passages are also not present in the NIV, due to lack of support.

Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44 and 9:46, Mark 11:26 and lastly Mark 15:28 are all easy examples. These are 5 verses that the NIV lacks in the book of Mark. But Mr. Anderson either didn’t feel like sharing this, or didn’t actually take the time to look at the very translation he was criticizing – either way, a ounce of research would have ruined his conspiratorial story-telling.

So when he take off another 5 verses, we end up with 661 verses in the NIV in the book of Mark. Sorry, Mr. Anderson, but we don’t find 666 verses in the NIV. Please apologize to your congregation for misleading them.