Hovind Won’t Quote the KJV

“Now, at the end of the Flood, the Bible says ‘the mountains arose, and the valleys sank down, and the water rushed off.’ That’s in Psalm 104.”

—Kent Hovind, Bible Study #14 (09:38), Bible Study #17 (08:24)

I noticed years ago, while working for Kent, that he would not quote the King James Bible when reciting Psalm 104:8. Instead, he would quote something like the New American Standard Bible, or the English Standard Version. I found this to be odd, but a quick glance at the King James’ wording reveals why Kent avoids it:

1611 King James Bible
They [the waters] go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Notice here that the waters are moving—not the mountains or valleys. Kent must not prefer this, since he quotes a different version of the Bible which has the mountains and valleys moving—far more catastrophic:

New American Standard Bible
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.

If the King James is perfect, why doesn’t Kent prefer it’s account of what happened? For what it’s worth, the 1599 Geneva sounds more like the NASB than it does the KJV:

1599 Geneva Bible
And the mountains ascend, and the valleys descend to the place which thou hast established for them.

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)



Riplinger Fails to Hash Out a Defense

[Breathe, Jonathan. Just breathe. Oh, the reader has arrived.]

Oh, hey friend. Do you remember a couple of months ago when Gail Riplinger claimed the MD5 hashing algorithm was used to distort her voice? If not, allow me to jog your memory:

“Since the MD5 algorithm is open source, programs to distort a voice and make it subtly more difficult to discern are widely available to non-professionals; dozens of apps can be purchased to do this.”

In the above sentence, the word “since” means “because”. The statement “the MD5 algorithm is open source” is given as the cause to the statement “programs to distort a voice…are widely available.” Gail claims MD5 can distort audio.

I pointed out in my response that MD5 hashes are used for many things, but they aren’t used for audio distortion. Her assertion to the contrary demonstrates a complete lack of relevant knowledge on her part.

Recall that the MD5 hashing algorithm accepts variable-length input, and produces 32 characters of output. Most importantly, recall that this algorithm loses all original data. Pass in 64,512 characters of data, and you will get 32 characters of output. Pass in 0 characters of data, and you will get 32 characters of output.

Well, Gail is now trying to save face. Or not. Honestly, I have no idea what this lady is thinking. To even attribute thought to her aimless scrawlings is generous.

In her most recent post, Gail claims that I am “unsure as to how MD5 is related to audio forensics.” As shown in my earlier article, I understand how MD5 is used to test file integrity. But Gail didn’t attribute MD5 to file-integrity; she attributed it to voice distortion.

It seems now that Gail is claiming to have used MD5 to test the file signature (or, the hash generated from the file). As I pointed out in my original article, this is a legitimate use of the technology.

Gail provides a couple of helpful quotes:

“Any changes, even the simple act of opening and resaving a file without any content changes, can alter the calculated MD5 value.”


“Two of the most common hashes used in the audio/video forensic field are message-digest algorithm 5 (MD5….)”


Correct. No disagreement here. These authors understand the topic. Gail does not.

Let us, for now, pretend that Gail never claimed MD5 was used in audio distortion. Let us pretend that Gail claimed from the start that she used MD5 to authenticate James’ debate audio. Now, let us see how quickly even our imagination betrays us.

What audio does Gail have in her possession? Well, she claims to have received “originals” in the form of one or more cassette tapes:

“On the originals, my voice is clear…I received the original tape from a listener.”

I called Gail after reading this, hoping to get her copy of the debate to compare for myself, and perhaps upload for the consideration of others. After all, if what she claims is correct, and James has an edited copy, James should be confronted.

Gail told me that she did not have a digital copy; only a cassette. She did, however, say that she would try to get a family member to digitize the audio. I believe she was going to check with her son-in-law.

So lets assume that Gail does have a recording, and that the recording differs from James’. Lets assume she has her very own cassette tape (as she claims), just as James has his.

Dr. James White holds up his cassette tape containing the 1993 debate with Gail Riplinger on KRDS during his February 16, 2016 Dividing Line.
Dr. James White holds up his cassette tape containing the 1993 debate with Gail Riplinger on KRDS during his February 16, 2016 Dividing Line (https://youtu.be/JRV6CAiN5wE?t=2105).

What problem has Gail created for herself now? Gail claims to have performed a forensic analysis using MD5 on the debate audio; but MD5 doesn’t work unless you have a digital copy (such as a WAV or MP3) to begin with. You cannot do digital analysis on a cassette tape, Gail.

You may be asking yourself, is there any way Gail can redeem this MD5 story? There might be, but it’s going to take a little more lying on her part.

If KRDS had provided identical (bit for bit) MP3 files to White and Riplinger, and White uploaded a manipulated version to a public share, Riplinger could then download White’s file and check its MD5 hash against the hash from her own original MP3. This would tell her whether White made modifications or not.

But even in this alternate history, Gail’s own source says “…the simple act of opening and resaving a file without any content changes, can alter the calculated MD5 value.” So even if Gail performed a digital analysis, a variant MD5 hash doesn’t necessarily mean manipulation; it could mean nothing more than a harmless re-saving of the data.

Quit now, Gail. For your own sake, quit now.

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.

Gail Riplinger Caught Lying

Gail Riplinger wrote a lengthy note a few weeks back (Published by Kent Hovind’s website on February 11, 2016), accusing Dr. James White of many terrible things. In her article she made numerous bold claims that I would love to dig into, but frankly don’t have the time. She did, however, walk right into my wheelhouse in her attempt to discuss audio forensics.

I’m not trained in audio forensics, so I won’t pretend to be an authority on the matter. But given Gail’s short write-up, I can say with absolute confidence that she cannot possibly be an authority on the matter either. You see, in her attempt to sound authoritative, she made reference to something I do know a great deal about—hashing algorithms.

Since the MD5 algorithm is open source, programs to distort a voice and make it subtly more difficult to discern are widely available to non-professionals; dozens of apps can be purchased to do this. (as of 2016-02-24)

The above was Gail’s statement from the original post. I have, quite honestly, no idea what possessed her to pull MD5 into this discussion. It has nothing to do with generating clicks, pops, or any other audio artifacts as we’ll see momentarily.

I’ve been a software engineer for nearly two decades. In fact, as a young man (over a decade ago) I built Gail Riplinger’s website avpublications.com (as of 2016-02-24, it is still in use). The Lord must have a sense of humor.

Hashes exist in software security to store sensitive data (passwords, in particular) in a way that isn’t easily compromised in the event of a data-breach. Hashes are also used to confirm that files haven’t been subject to tampering. Think of hashes like trash compactors that take in loads of garbage, and output an indiscernible heap.

How about we look at an example?

Suppose you registered an account on my new website, and you provided the password “Genesis 1:1”. In my database, I could store a hash to represent this password. A hash, in this case, is a 128-bit value that represents your password. The above password would result the following hash: 15b4bd0bf02b2f1a591643c1af015c9d.

Here are a couple other hashes. Note that the size of the data being hashed has no impact over the size of the resulting hash. Each hash is 32 characters long:

Input MD5 Hash
jonathan 78842815248300fa6ae79f7776a5080a
1611 7a6a74cbe87bc60030a4bd041dd47b78

The great thing about hashes is that they are one-way, meaning I can generate the hash if I have your password, but I cannot generate your password if I have the hash. Each time you come to my site and provide a password to login, I hash the password you’re attempting to log-in with, and authenticate you only if the new hash matches the hash on file. (To my fellow engineers, I’m avoiding a discussion about salting, rainbow tables, etc).

Since hashes are determined by the input, they are used to confirm file integrity as well. A program author passes their program through the algorithm (like we passed a password earlier), and a 128-bit value is produced. That generated hash allows others to detect changes to the program (such as an embedded virus) upon download. If the hash you generate after downloading the program doesn’t match the hash published by the author, there’s a good chance you downloaded a corrupted file.

Back to Gail. Gail seems to think this has something to do with creating distortions, clicks, and pops in an audio file. She’s wrong. It doesn’t. An algorithm that adds distortion needs to output something that sounds almost like the input. MD5 hashing loses all of the original data.

What I am left wondering is why Gail would pretend to know something like this, at the risk of embarrassing herself. Does she think Hovind’s community of followers are too ignorant to catch her red-handed?

What this example demonstrates to me is that Gail is willing to lie in order to appear authoritative on a matter. I am left wondering how serious she could possibly take KJV Onlyism if she is willing to spread misinformation in its defense.

What saddens me most is that Kent Hovind continues to hold to the mast of Gail’s sinking reputation. Why he won’t let go, per the advise of so many around him, is beyond me. I can do nothing more than pray for his sight, and expose her blindness.

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!

More Anachronism from the KJVOs

Dr. White, over at Alpha & Omega Ministries, just posted an exchange he had recently with a radical King James Onlyist. I felt it summarized rather well some of the types of discussions I’ve had in the past with some of my friends. It’s astounding how quickly a KJVO will justify their anachronistic ignorance when confronted on it. “You’re a Bible denier, no sense in trying to argue with you” they say. Easy way out.

Read White’s Exchange Online

Micah 5:2, and the NIV.

The Conflict

Micah 5:2 happens to be another verse in the New International Version that King James Onlyists detest. This is a prophetic verse speaking of Christ, and his coming. Let’s take a look at the King James Version and then the New International Version:

Micah 5:2 King James Version,
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

Micah 5:2 New International Version,
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins [b] are from of old, from ancient times. [c] “

The last part of both texts is what we’re interested in. The “origins” and “ancient times” as the New International Version puts it. King James Onlyists teach that by using the word “origins” to refer to Christ, the NIV teaches that Christ is a created being whose existence had a beginning. Furthermore, they teach this beginning was later in Creation, a long time ago during “ancient times.”

Don’t be so Presumptuous

One must always be cautious when they hear “The [insert translation] teaches [insert odd doctrine]” after reading a single verse. You can teach just about anything if all you are required to do is quote a single verse. Teachings in scripture come from studying the scriptures, not from reading a single verse. An equivalent example from the King James could be John 6:54:

John 6:54 King James Version,
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Do you see the harm in suggesting any translation teaches anything after reading only one verse, or a small portion of a context? We’ve just argued, by King James Onlyist standards, that the King James Bible teaches cannibalism of Christ is a Christian teaching. Of course if you fail to study the text, you may indeed come away with some very unscriptural ideas – but that isn’t the text’s fault, it’s the fault of the lazy reader.

Is Christ a Created Being in the NIV?

So, back to our text. King James Onlyists prefer the King James’ “goings forth” over the NIV’s “origins.” Why? Because they assume the origin is in reference to Jesus’ existence. This is not the case though, as we can see from other passages in the NIV. For instance, John 1 in the NIV still teaches that Christ is The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1 refutes the idea that Christ was created:

John 1:3 New International Version,
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

Note the point here, everything that was ever made, was made through Christ. This precludes the possibility that Christ was made, because Christ cannot be made through himself. He must exist for anything to be made at all, and all that was made, was made through Him – again, precluding the option of He Himself being made.  This statement is made in other places in the NIV as well.

Colossians 1:16 New International Version,
“For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”

Again, the NIV teaches emphatically that Christ was the Agent by which all that has been made was made. All things created, things in Heaven and Earth, visible things and invisible things – everything. Everything was made by Christ, and through Christ. So don’t permit the King James Onlyist to say the NIV teaches that Christ is a created being – He isn’t. He is the uncreated Creator of all that is created, according to both the King James Bible, and the New International Version.

Back to the Origin!

So if Christ was not a created being, how can he have an “origin”? The use of “origin” is in regard to what place Christ came from, not whether Christ was created. Somebody may ask you where your family originated – they’re not asking how your family came into being, but rather where they came from. This is the same thing with Christ.

The thoughtful King James Onlyist shouldn’t consider this a problem. Or, if he does, he should note that it is then a problem for him as well. You see, the phrase “goings forth” only appears once in the King James, preventing us from getting a better understanding of how it’s used, and what it is intended to mean. But, if you look it up in Strong’s (H4163) you will see that it’s under the noun mowtsa’ah. This word has the following definition.

  1. origin, place of going out from
    • origin
    • places of going out to or from
      • privy

So the word “goings forth” also means “origin” or the “place of going out from,” which is pretty much the same thing we stated above. Christ had an origin in the sense that he came from some location, but not in the sense that he was created. Both the NIV and the KJV are saying the same thing, they’re just using different terms. While the NIV uses a more familiar wording, the KJV uses a very strange and foreign wording.

From Ancient Time?

This is one that baffles me. I’m not sure why the King James Onlyist even finds this alarming. Most of our King James Onlyist friends attend rather conservative Churches which undoubtedly sing Hymns – I’m sure many of them know and love the “Ancient of Days” hymn. Clearly when we refer to God as “Ancient” we are not placing him in history alone, for God is timeless, from eternity to eternity.

We find the “ancient of days” phrase throughout Daniel 3 times. Further, we happen to find the exact phrase “ancient time(s)” found in the King James too five times.

2 Kings 19:25 King James Version,
“Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it, and of ancient times that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps.”

Psalm 77:5 King James Version,
“I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.”

Isaiah 37:26 King James Version,
“Hast thou not heard long ago, how I have done it; and of ancient times, that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities into ruinous heaps.”

Isaiah 45:21 King James Version,
“Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”

Isaiah 46:10 King James Version,
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

So these are the instances of “ancient time(s)” in the King James Bible. Does it sound like we’re just looking at events that took place in recorded history? When does God’s declaration about what will happen really take place? When did God declare the end from the beginning, and the things that are not yet done? This phrase seems to be pushing events back into eternity past.

Although the NIV says Christ is from “ancient times,” this doesn’t mean he is from history. Although the KJV calls God “wise,” this doesn’t mean He learns new things. While we use these terms to help understand our Creator, we must keep in mind how their meanings differ from when we use them against any other object. Man’s origin is unlike God’s origin. Man’s wisdom is unlike God’s wisdom. This distinction must always be made.

Digging a little deeper

The phrase “ancient times” appears in the Hebrew as qedem yowm. This also happens to be the same exact Hebrew words found in Micah 5:2 (KJV), translated “from of old, from everlasting.” While you may hear Onlyists object to the NIV’s wording in Micah 5:2, the fact is that the King James performed the exact same translation in other instances of these words. Hardly sounds like a conspiracy now, right?


So in the end, we don’t have any grand conspiracy, no Satanic secrets, nothing of which to base a Dan Brown book on – just two translations of the same text, using different words but saying the same thing. In fact, we even have strong testimony from the King James that the translation made in the NIV “ancient times” of qedem yowm is a legitimate translation, thanks guys!

An actual 1611, Online.

Most King James Onlyists claim that the 1611 KJV is God’s Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible and Perfect Word. They do this while shaking their leather-backed and neatly bound Bible labeled “KJV” on the cover. But the fact is that the book they hold in their hand is not the 1611 – not even close. The point of this post isn’t to discuss how they got their Bible from the original 1611 Bible. Instead, I want to share with everybody a very neat resource I make daily use of – an actual 1611KJV online:


I spent hours last night viewing each page at 8x zoom, and soaking in the margin notes (many of which are missing in more modern King James Bibles, unfortunately) and the commentary provided by the translators. This is truly a rich historical document that will be of interest for most Christian bibliophiles like myself.

If you would like a physical copy (like I do I got one! Praise the LORD!), you can purchase a facsimile from ChristianBooks.com


First page of the Book of Romans, KJV1611
THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apofle to the Romanes. King James Bible 1611