The King James Version is the Only Correct Version of the Holy Bible
CO-FOUNDER OF THE NASB ( the New American Standard Bible ) DENOUNCES THE NASB:
The following is a quote from Dr.Frank Logsdon, Co-founder of the New American Standard Version about what he thought of the New American Standard Version after hehad finished working on it: "I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in troublewith the Lord...I wrote the format...I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard Version, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
PSALMS 12:6 IN ALL VERSIONS SAYS TO USE THE KING JAMES VERSION:
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a fornace of EARTH purified SEVEN TIMES" Psalms 12:6.
Notice, it says the words of the LORD are purified in a fornace of EARTH seven times. On earth men, men who are of the earth, purified the word.
The first Bible translated into English was the Wyclifte Bible, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the original languages that the Bible was written in: Hebrew for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament. The Bible translated from William Tyndale was the first Bible translated from the original languages into English. And namely and very importantly, the Greek transcripts used by Tyndale were those prepared by Erasmus. Tyndale's Bible was not taking Wyclifte's work and purifying it, but Tyndale made a completely new work, starting all over, using the original languages. There were seven remakes, or purifications, of Tyndale's Bible, the seventh being the King James version.
In order from Tyndale's they were: Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible (Whitechurch's), the Geneva, the Bishop's, the Douey-Rheims and the seventh-the King James version. There were a few editions of the above, George Joye's for Tyndales, Taverner's for Matthew's, and a few translations of Psalms by others, and portions of the Bible by others, but not a whole complete work of the entire Bible, or more importantly-of the Erasmus Greek of the New Testament. Each of these versions above are a "purification" of the preceding work, i.e. Coverdale's work was a purification of Tyndale's, Matthew's work was a purification of Coverdale's before it etc. And therefore a purifcation of the Erasmus Greek New Testament. The Old Testament was also purified in the above succession. A complete and thorough dissertation bibliography of this is found in Alfred W. Pollard's "Records of the English Bible" section "The Earlier English Translations ( 1380-1582 )" published by Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, London, 1911.
TWO DIFFERENT NEW TESTAMENTS. AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A CORRECT VERSION:
What many Christians who do not take the time to research and understand is that there are two issues regarding the validity of a version of the Bible, not just merely translation: 1. "Word for word" versus "dynamic equivalence" (dynamic equivalence is a paraphrase and an opinion of what one thinks a passage should mean as opposed to a word for word). 2. That there are really only TWO versions or rather TWO DIFFERENT BOOKS that are called the New Testament, or two different New Testaments of the Bible regarding the original Greek that the New Testament was written in, namely, the original "Textus Receptus" as compiled by Erasmus, which is the original Greek Text the King James Version was written from. And the combined "Sinaiticus-Vaticanus", which is a very similar but different New Testament original Greek book than the Textus Receptus.
The Sinaiticus-Vaticanus is what the versions following the King James Version use, except the New King James Version (NKJV). However, the "New King James Version" IS NOT a new King James Version because it changes the word definitions from what the original King James was and mistranslates the original texts in many places because it is not a "word for word" translation, it employs the use of "dynamic equivalence" (what they call "complete equivalence").But even the preface to the New King James Version denounces the use of the Sinaiticus-Vaticanus. Hence the reason they call it the New King James Version,they use exclusively the Masoretic Hebrew text for the text of the Old Testament as the original King James did and exclusively use the Textus Receptus forthe New Testament as the original King James did.
When one refers to "the original Greek" and doesn't specify which original Greek, he is deceived.
HAS THE NEW TESTAMENT BEEN WRONG FOR 2000 YEARS?:
The Codex Sinaiticus wasn't even discovered until 1844, and the Codex Vaticanus was written in the fourth century and was put in the Vatican library in about 1481 but was not even noticed till 1819. In fact, these texts were not even published in a Bible till 1901 in the American Standard Bible. The versions before the King James Bible all used the Greek texts called the "Textus Receptus", which was also called the "Erasmus", for the New Testament. Thus the proponents of the Sinaiticus-Vaticanus would then have to conclude THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT USED IN THE PAST WAS WRONG FOR 2000 YEARS. All the versions prophesy of the "apostasy" and the changing of doctrine in the last days (they couldn't find an "original" that omitted those prophecies) and these other versions are one fulfillment of those prophecies.
The Sinaiticus-Vaticanus texts were created by a group called the Gnostics, a group classified as heretical by the early church.
THE OTHER VERSIONS OTHER THAN THE KING JAMES VERSION ARE A DIFFERENT RELIGION:
OPPOSITE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION:
The other versions other than the King James Version have an opposite doctrine of salvation. There are many examples but one example is Romans 8:1 where the King James says that "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Most other versions that came after the King James Version omit the words "who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." thus omitting the requirement for "no condemnation". The words "who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." are omitted in the latter versions because the translators of those other translations claim those omitted words are not in the "most reliable" original manuscripts, when actually the most reliable manuscripts, the Textus Receptus, have those words. Notice, one requires holiness for salvation, and the other does not. One takes you to heaven the other cannot. The NKJV, the New King James Version, doesn't change Romans 8:1 in the text, but denounces it in a footnote, and is a false version as noted above and below.
Another example is the removal of the word "repentance" for some key passages. Matthew 9:13 in the King James: " But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. And the King James in Mark 2:17 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Now in the NIV, or the New International Version, and the other versions other than the KJV except for the NKJV, Matthew 9:13 " But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” And Mark 2:17 in the NIV and other versions other than the KJV except the NKJV " On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” NOTICE, the word "repentance" was taken out, removing a requirement for salvation. NOTICE, the KJV takes you to heaven the other versions cannot.
IS IT OK TO SIN AS LONG AS YOU DON'T KEEP ON SINNING? CAN YOU STILL BE SAVED?
KJV 1 John 3:6,9 "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
NIV, ESV, TLB & others 1 John 3:6,9 "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God."
And there are many many other such examples.
OPPOSITE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST:
Another example is John 3:16 from the KJV: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Now John 3:16 from most of the other versions, such as the NIV, NLT, and the NASB "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The NASB changed this verse to "begotten" after complaints, but even then it has a foot note for "begotten" as "unique" or "one of a kind".The difference is one takes you to heaven and the other cannot. In order for Christ's sacrifice to be sufficient and legit, he had to be born in the flesh. In order for Christ's sacrifice to be sufficient and legit, he had to be born in the flesh. "Begotten", by definition, means procreated, as born in a physical body in the flesh of another person, John 1:14. Christ was the only son of God actually born in the flesh of Him. In later verses the Bible says Christians are "begotten" but it also says that Christians are "adopted", Christ was not adopted but actually born of the Father in the flesh.The important point here is that the Gnostics of 1 John vs. 2, 3 and 2 John vs.7 that said Jesus "did not come in the flesh" believed Jesus was God's "ONE and ONLY Son", and that He was "unique" or "one of a kind", but, they did not believe that He was "BEGOTTEN", that is, was not born in the flesh. So, the King James Version takes you to heaven, the other versions cannot. Also, regarding a different doctrine of Jesus, and of God, see the next point directly below.
JESUS WAS BORN IF A VIRGIN IN THE KJV, NOT FROM A VIRGIN IN OTHER VERSIONS
Isaiah 7:14 "Behold a Virgin shall conceive & beare a Son" in the KJV. But the NIV & TLB have Virgin but have "young woman" in the footnote. The NASB has "maiden" in the footnotes (which usually means virgin, but they use "maiden" to give you doubt). Many others probably deny the Virgin Birth, which is required by Jesus in order for us to have eternal life.
FOOTNOTES IN OTHER VERSIONS AGAINST THE KING JAMES COMPLETELY FALSE & KEY VERSES ABOUT WHO GOD IS TAKEN OUT
Many other versions have taken out 1 John 5:7 & added a footnote saying that there are no early manuscripts or there are no manuscripts before the 14th century that have 1 John 5:7, but that is basically a misleading statement, & there is NO reason to take it out since it meets the criteria for a valid verse, just as valid as any other verse in the Bible: It is found in the Early Syriac, a Bible version dating 170 AD, many quotations of that passage are found in letters of the Early Church Fathers dating back to 200 AD, & at least 8 Manuscripts the earliest of 10th Century which is Codex 221 and these are manuscripts that have all of the words of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."dating as early as 10th Century.
For documentation on this see the links below among many others you can find:
In these other versions Mark 16:17-20 has been taken out & footnotes falsely claimed the same lie, it is not in any or any early manuscripts. Not only is there no evidence of this, but if you take the time to do a little research yourself, many missionaries have claimed they have cast out demons, survived drinking poison etc by quoting this exact passage. Of course the demons behind the other versions do not want you to know the power of this passage.
And there are many many other footnotes that are lies and verses taken out. Do your own research.
THE WORD "IT" IN REFERENCE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE KING JAMES IS THE EXACT CORRECT WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION & IS THE CORRECT GRAMMAR BECAUSE THE WORDS "SPIRIT" AND "CREATURE" IN THOSE VERSES ARE......NON-GENDER IN THOSE PASSAGES IN THE GREEK & IN THE ENGLISH.
Many critics of the King James Version claim that the words "IT" & "ITSELF" in reference to the Holy Spirit in the KJV is a mistranslation in John 1:32 & Romans 8:16 & 8:26 because the Holy Spirit is not an "it" but is a "he". But the use of "it" & "itself'" in those passages is the CORRECT FOR WORD TRANSLATION OF THOSE VERSES & NOT A MISTRANSLATION". AND IS THE CORRECT GRAMMAR AS THE REFERENCE IN THOSE VERSES IS NON-GENDER. Also the use of "it' in 1 Peter 1:11 is not incorrect. This is also clearly shown in Romans 8:21 where the word "itself" is used in reference to "creature" which is NON-GENDER
Those critics actually are the ones to mistranslate those verses. Get a copy of an Interlinear Textus Receptus & see for yourself. Find someone who majored in Biblical Greek and ask them.
WHY LUKE 22:1 REFERS TO ONE SINGLE DAY, NOT "THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD"
WHY THE CORRECT WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK WORD IN ACTS 12:4 "PASCHA" IS EASTER.
WHY THE WORD "EASTER" IS THE CORRECT WORD IN ACTS 12:4 & WHY THE WORD "PASSOVER" IS A MISTRANSLATION IN THAT VERSE AS THE OTHER VERSIONS USE.
THE WORD "EASTER" DOES NOT COME FROM THE PAGAN GODDESS ISHTAR.
1. There is no need to wait till after "Passover" or the Days of Unleavened Bread since Herod was trying to please the Jews, & it pleased the Jews to kill Jesus on Passover. It would make more sense if he waited for another reason. That being Easter, or the Christian Passover that was in full swing at that time see pts 5,7,9.
10. Some say the "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the pagan worship of Ishtar that Herod would practice being an Edomite, but that holiday didn't happen till June in Palestine, & their are other reasons why it wouldn't be this pagan celebration as explained in the link above in point 9.
11. If the word Pascha in Acts 12:4 meant the Jewish Passover & meant also "the days of unleavened bread" this would be the ONLY place in the Bible & in Christian History, & perhaps Jewish History outside of the Bible.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT CORRECT VERSES FOLLOW A FALSE ONE IN THE OTHER VERSIONS:
That's because people take out and use the incorrect verses ignoring correct verses that may follow in the versions other than the KJV. Remember, the snake in the Garden of Eden was subtle!
THE SINAITICUS CONTRADICTS THE VATICANUS:
There are many contradictions and mistakes between the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, these are inserted and applied in the various versions of the Bible after the King James. The proponents of the Sinaiticus-Vaticanus claim these are better than the Textus Receptus because they are "older and more reliable", first of all they are not older, recent discoveries and the letters of the first century fathers show the Textus Receptus is older, and they cannot be more reliable because the Sinaiticus differs, and most of the time, contradicts the Vaticanus 3036 TIMES JUST IN THE FOUR GOSPELS ALONE!!
CONFIRMED SATANIC SYMBOL ON THE COVER OF THE NKJV, THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION:
When the NKJV, the New King James Version, first came out it had a Satanic symbol on the cover, if you don't believe this you can check this out for yourself on the internet or Google. It is called a "Triqueta". It is an intertwining design of three parts and all three are equal and the same no matter how you turn the symbol, but it can have two of the parts on the top or two of the parts on the bottom. The NKJV and the Satanic examples both have the exact position, two parts on the bottom. BUT, this symbol is also "666", the three parts are 6's. It is supposed to represent the trinity, it does represent "a" trinity, but not the Christian trinity, but the Satanic trinity. How do we know this? Recent research shows it was not used by any Christian group but a heretical group called the Gnostic s, and used in history by many Satanic groups such as you can Google and see for yourself, for example "A Witches Book of Shadows" by Dorothy Morrison. And used by famous top rock groups.
THE CORRECT OLD TESTAMENT:
The Old Testament is a very similar and lengthy issue as a subject, and the results of using the wrong Old Testament version, for one example, is in the error which is the topic of this dissertation, omitting the word "his" in Genesis 1:11,12.
THE OTHER VERSIONS ARE A DIFFERENT RELIGION THAN THE KING JAMES VERSION:
REMOVAL OF VERSES AND REMOVAL OF WORDS = REMOVAL OF DOCTRINE = A DIFFERENT RELIGION:
The other versions REMOVE 16 to 25 WHOLE VERSES from the New Testament. Most of these are crucial to doctrine!! The other versions, including the NKJV, the New King James Version, remove words as the following:BLOOD: As in the blood of Jesus, removed 26 TO 174 times. In the NKJV removed 23 times!!!!!HELL: Removed 40-41 times. In the NKJV removed 22 times.DEVIL: Removed 80-87 times. In the NKJV removed 81 times.HEAVEN: Removed 83-186 times. In the NKJV removed 50 times. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE OTHER VERSIONS ARE A DIFFERENT RELIGION THAN THE KING JAMES.
THE PURPOSE OF MANY TRANSLATIONS IS SO THE CHURCH CANNOT BE IN ONE ACCORD
That is Satan's purpose for many translations. A new translation comes out alomost every year. Why do so many people just believe that the latest version of the Bible is valid? Who says it is valid. This link, or web site, proves the King James Version is the only valid version.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A COVENANT IN 50 VERSIONS:
The Bible refers to itself as a "Covenant". The part of the word-"Co" means 2 parties, thus there is a requirement for 2 parties, God and us. Also, according to the dictionary, the word "Covenant" means "A binding and solemn agreement", and, "A formal,sealed contract". Legal contracts are written in a legal style so there can be no misconstruing of what is referring to who. The Bible is the EXACT same situation. When there is a Mortgage, or car loan, or any other legal contract, if you don't understand something you don't ask the attorney who did it to redo it do you? All these Bible versions ARE NOT a matter of updating to a more modern language as there has been 188 new versions since the late 1880's and currently there are 45 popular and widely used modern English translations. This suggests that the work of the previous 44 versions are so bad they had to be redone. When you don't understand something in Scripture it is the job of a minister to explain it to you as in Acts 8 with the Ethiopian, when he didn't understand Isaiah Philip didn't male an Ethiopian translation, he just explained the passages to him. 44 versions NULIFY and make VOID the Bible contract or covenant because it changes the wording and references, THUS THEY ARE NOT VALID.
The Use of The Words "THEE", "THOU", "THY", "THINE" and "YE" and The Inflectional Endings of "-ETH", "-EST", "-ST", "-lT" and "-RT".
The translators of the King James Version of the Holy Bible intentionally preserved, in Early Modern English, archaic pronouns and verb endings that had already begun to fall out of spoken use. This enabled the English translators to convey the distinction between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person singular and plural verb forms of the original Hebrew and Greek sources.
1. It is impossible to have a word for word translation of the Bible without the use of the words: "thee", "thou", "thy", "thine" and "ye". (See the following section on second person pronouns)
2. The words "thee", "thou", thy", "thine" and "ye" and the inflectional endings are a literary dialect and a deliberate style of antiquity. See the article paper "Was the Bible written in 'street language' ?" by Michael Marlowe. The whole paper is important but pages 6 and 12 refer to these words and endings specifically.
3. The words "thee", "thou", "thy", "thine" and "ye" and the inflectional endings were not in common use when the Tyndale Bible (not a complete Bible) and the King James Bible were translated. The popularity of these two Bibles resurrected the use of these words and endings.
4. The grammar for these King James words is: "Thou" and 'thee" are used for second person singular, referring to one person in the second person. "Ye" and "you" are used for second person plural, referring to more than one person in the second person. NOTE, this is important as not only is this exactly what is in the original Greek,and Hebrew has, but there is NO modern English equivalent without added several words, AND there is NO modern version that has this distinction AT ALL, they don't even add the additional words needed to make the distinction, losing all legal reference to what the passage is referring to.
This is easy to remember: "Y" has 2 lines going up, at an angle, for more than one, and "T" has one line at the top of the word going across for just one person.
The inflectional endings of "...est" and "...eth": Some second person singular verbs end with "...est". Some third person singular words end with "...th". This is easy to remember: for "...est" the "s" is for second person, and for "...eth" the "th" is for third person.
The rest of the King James grammar is similar to modern English: "Ye" and "Thou" are the subjects of the sentence, "Thee" and "You" are not subjects of the sentence.
"Thy" and "Thine" are used for singular possessives. "Thy" is used before a word that starts with a consonant, and "Thine" is used before a word that starts with a vowel or the letter "h", or at the end of a sentence.
Point 1. above continued-second person pronouns: The original Hebrew Old Testament and the original Greek New Testament have singular words that distinguish between singular second person pronouns and plural second person pronouns. In other words, they distinguish between the singular words for "you"- singular and the singular words for "you" - plural. The modern English language has no such one word equivalences.
The King James correctly translates the singular words for the singular second person pronouns, or singular words for "you" singular as: "thee", "thou", "thy" and "thine". And the singular words for the plural second person pronouns, or the singular words for plural "you" as: "ye", "you", "your" and "yours". When reading the KJV a simple rule to remember is that if the pronoun begins with the letter "t" it is singular, referring to one person, if the pronoun begins with the letter "y" it is plural, that is, it is referring to a group or more than one person. This is important.
Look at Jeremiah 5:13-14 in the NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV: "and the prophets become wind, for the word is not in them. Thus shall it be done to them. Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: 'because you speak this word, Behold, I will make My words in your mouth as fire'". Here it sounds like because the prophets speak falsely God will make His word in their mouth as fire. This, of course, doesn't make sense, and is not what the original Hebrew says.
The KJV correctly translates this passage as v.14:...."Because ye (plural-the false prophets) speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy (singular-Jeremiah) mouth fire". This not only is the correct translation, but it makes sense.
Another example is John 3:7,11,12. The following is in the NKJV but the NIV and the NASB have the same incorrect usage of the word "you". See if you can tell which of the words "you" are singular and which are plural or whether they are all singular or all plural. "Do not marvel that I said to you , 'You must be born again'....most assuredly, I say unto you, we speak what we know and testify what we have seen and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?". Can you tell? The only way you can is to have first read it in the KJV.
Look at the correctly translated KJV in this same passage: "Marvel not that I said unto thee (singular-Nicodemus), Ye (plural-all people) must be born again....Verily, verily, I say unto thee (singular-Nicodemus), We speak that we do know and testify that we have seen; and ye (plural-the Pharisees) receive not our witness. If I have told you (plural-the Pharisees) earthly things, and ye (plural-the Pharisees) believe not, how shall ye (plural-the Pharisees) believe, if I tell you (plural-the Pharisees) of heavenly things?"
In the NKJV of the passage above it seems that it is possible Jesus was only referring to Nicodemus when he said "you must be born again" when the passage means all people must be born again. Notice, this is life or death. We take for granted the references to the word "you" in the NKJV because we've read it in the KJV for so long. But if we had not first translated it correctly in the KJV we would have a religion of false doctrines. And people going to hell. You cannot tell by the context in the NKJV in this passage which of the words "you" are plural and which are singular and who exactly is being referred to (and other passages of like situation).
Also, it's not Nicodemus that is not receiving or not believing Christ, he is coming to Christ in the passage. It's the Pharisees that Christ is referring to as not receiving and believing. There are many other examples.
To translate the second person pronouns in modern English you would have to use extra words not in the original texts and the choice of those words many times would be of personal interpretation and many times be awkward or worse yet a mistranslation and a leading to a false doctrine or false belief as in the examples above.
Important info as to how the King James Bible was translated is found in the preface that the King James translators wrote to the 1611 King James Bible, which was the first edition of the King James Bible.
It explains that:
1. The Masoretic text for the Old Testament was exclusively used because they claimed that the Septuagint was a rushed work and, therefore, inaccurate. And that the Latin Vulgate had so many versions it was muddied and could not be accurate.
2. It was translated not just in the language of the people of the day, but in "the language of Canaan" and then in the language of the day. That is completely different than in just 'the language of the day'.
3. They did not believe in repeating an interpretation of a word exactly the same in every appearance of that word or repeating the same grammatical rule every time in the exact same way.
4. They claimed that they were led by the Holy Ghost in the work of translating the King James Bible.
Why the other Bible versions other than the KJV could not be a work of the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit):
If you study the translators of the King James version you will find that they were Anglicans who believed Holiness as a requirement for salvation and that you could experience the Holy Ghost. The members of the translating committees of the other versions, within the committees, disagree greatly on the definition of or what the Baptism in the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) is, the role of the Holy Spirit, and whether or not the Holy Spirit can be experienced, and if so, how He was experienced. Many openly admitted or admit that they are not Christians, and some have professed, promoted and openly practiced sinful lifestyles.
THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE ONLY VERSION WITH A RHYTHM IN ITS WORDS THROUGHOUT, EVEN IN THE PROSE, A CHARACTERISTIC EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, IF NOT HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE.
See many good articles on this subject on the internet such as "The Mystery of Rhythms in the King James Bible" & others. Some unbelievers are in denial of the obvious divine nature of this, as unbelievers don't believe in God. But read the King James Version for yourself, & many good articles of this fact.
Conclusion: The King James Version Bible is the only Bible translation that meets BOTH criteria (actually all three criteria):
1. Uses the correct original manuscripts.
2. Is a "word for word" translation.
Also, 3. Is a work led by the Holy Ghost.
Note: Even if you don't consider the issue of the use of the words: "thee", "thou" etc. the King James is still the only version that meets both, and/or all three criteria.Words in the KJV that have meanings no longer in use or in which the meanings have changed over time: There are about 650 of such words, about 250 of which can be understood by the context. One can obtain a list of the modern definition of these words from several sources. One is the "King James Concord Reference Bible" from Universtiy Press, Cambridge #RC 262. There is a list of these words and their modern definitions in the back. Another source is from the Trinitarian Bible Society, London. And other sources. There may be KJV Bibles that footnote the modern definitions available, the correctness of which would be of correct research and a leading of the Holy Spirit. In most regular Dictionaries, usually the "Archaic" definition of any word is the definition of a word in the King James where that word in the King James may have changed. There would be no logic, of course, to do a whole new translation because of these words. Also, the KJV definition of many of these words can be found under the "Archaic" meaning of the definitions as found in the Webster's Dictionary.