The “Holy Bible”, Not the King James Version.

I have in the past written and posted why we should not be referring to the “Holy Bible” as the KJV but refer to it as the KJB instead, therefore making clear to the other side that we believe and know that the 1611 Bible text (which is also contained in many un -altered preceding editions) we honor as God’s word in English is without a doubt the “Holy Bible” (that contains God’s words) that came down through out history by the providence of God, protected and preserved for all generations.

When we refer to the “Holy Bible” as a version with title King James Version, we are unwittingly and unknowingly leaving an inroad for the legitimacy for any modern version to exist, and are destroying or at the least weakening our claim that the “Holy Bible” King James edition is the true “Holy Bible”. I quit referring to the Holy Bible as the KJV when this revelation hit me one day as I was doing research into the version issue.

I was looking at the title page of the 1611 Holy Bible one day and it just stood out very plain, nowhere on the title page was the title, the King James Bible and nowhere in the 1611 was the Holy Bible ever called the King James Bible, It was plainly and rightly entitled “The Holy Bible” period. King James was credited for initiating this translation; however, it was not termed his Bible in any way.


Further research into the life and beliefs of King James I found that he in fact never did want his name on the title page or have it referred to as his Bible, he more respect for the word of God than to have it called his Bible, and would have never consented to having it referred to as a mere version of the “Holy Bible”, and not the actual “Holy Bible” that contained God’s word. We, (me included), have thrown away a good point in our defense of the “1611 Holy Bible” merely by our terminology in referring to it as the KJV. I posted one day to recommend that we discard the KJV title and use the KJB instead even though that too is not quite correct, however, it at least does away with the version tag.

I know many use the KJB or KJV to distinguish it from the plethora of modern versions in print; however, that still gives the other side an arguing point.
Example in point:

I was talking after service to a visiting pastor at a Church I use to attend about the perversions I had found in the NIV. He looked at me kind of strange and in an almost defiant way and said, “Well, I use a NIV at times, and did you know that King James was a Homosexual”. I was stunned at his remark and having no knowledge of this claim, I said no I had never heard that. I was also taken back at his unwillingness to discus what I had found, either to refute it or agree with it, this said to me this pastor was less than an honest man.

I soon found out in my research that this was a claim by an enemy of King James who had tried to stop the translation process by killing King James and the translators. This was levied by this enemy years after King James had passed away, every one knew it was false and it was discounted as the lie that it was. However, the enemies of the 1611 Holy Bible have went back dug up this lie and have circulated it to disarm 1611 Holy Bible defenders..

The truth is, even if that had been true as the modern versionsit like to contend, it would have made no difference concerning the text of the 1611 Holy Bible. The 1611 is very clear in what it teaches on that life style. But again this is the one the many shaky and un-intellectual arguments posed by the modern versionist, all they have are stale lies propaganda and ignorance of history.

Summary: If we allow the modern versionist to label the “Holy Bible” a version and buy into that description of the 1611 we have helped keep the door open the for as many other version as any one wants to print. I f we acquiesce that the 1611 text is merely a version and not the true “Holy Bible”, then what logical argument could we use to claim that another version is not or could not be just as good as the 1611 text we are defending.

Definition of version from:
Webster’s unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia
H.S. Stuttman Co., INC., Publishers (1959)

Version; one person’s account of anything as compared to someone else’s.

[Biblestudent]

I don't (or very, very seldom) call it "KJV", too. I call it "King James Bible", for it's the Bible.

[Brother Tim]

I too have adjusted my terminology to use "KJB" when discussing the issue with those who use different translations, and the "Word of God" or the "Scriptures" when preaching and teaching.

By the way, Brother Clyde, I would encourage you to use the phrase "the Holy Bible that is the Word of God", rather than "the Holy Bible that contains the Word of God". Even some of the modern (per)versions contain the Words of God in places, however limited they may be. The word "contain" implies that there could be more that is not Scripture. I have even heard this phrase used by the modernists because it goes along with the false teaching that all English versions are acceptable, since "the message is the same. " (yeah, right!)

Thanks, Brother Tim, I never realized that point, excellent point I will adjust from now on.
God's blessings , Clyde

Me too, I've never quite seen it that way before either and will adjust myself as such... thank you brother