Questioning and Evaluating King James Bible Wording
Question
How would you respond to someone who considers it heresy to question any KJV wording? May we examine added words in parentheses here. How about Easter versus Passover in Acts 12:4, whether Romans 3:26 should read faith of Jesus as in verse 22 rather than faith in Jesus. What would you say to them? There may be more blatant differences between the Textus Receptus and the King James Version, but I don’t know.
Originally published in Vol. 1, Number 9, September 2026, Ask The Theologian Journal.
Answer
One can strongly advocate the King James Version and still insist that its wording should be examined and tested. Treating any questioning of the KJV as “heresy” misunderstands both the nature of translation and the way truth is confirmed.
I believe it is healthy, not sinful, to question every wording in the KJV and every underlying Greek or Hebrew form, precisely because I have confidence that careful testing will confirm the reliability of the text and translation. If something is true and robust, it can stand examination. Refusing to allow questions fosters a cult-like atmosphere and drives serious-minded people away.
Italicized Words and Translator Decisions
The KJV uses italics to mark words supplied by the translators which are not directly represented by a specific word in the original, but are required for clear English. For example, in the Beatitudes the verb “are” is supplied: “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”
English normally requires some form of “to be” in such sentences. The Greek structure allows the sense without an explicit verb. The translators, aware of this, inserted “are” and signaled the insertion with italics. They did not claim new inspiration; they acknowledged a committee-level judgment.
Believers are free to examine these insertions. One might ask: would “Blessed will be the meek” change the sense or violate Greek grammar? It is precisely because the KJV transparently marks such decisions that it invites thoughtful scrutiny. Examining these choices is not an attack on Scripture but an exercise in understanding how translation functions.
Easter versus Passover in Acts 12:4
Acts 12:4 reads:
“And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
Some object: in the days of the apostles, Christians were not yet celebrating what we now call “Easter” as a Christian holiday, so “Easter” must be a flawed or even doctrinally corrupt rendering of the underlying word.
However, the question is not what “Easter” means in today’s English, but what it meant in the English of the early translators. Historical study shows that “Easter” was at that time used to refer to the very time of year associated with the Jewish Passover. Later, translators such as Wycliffe and those following him introduced and normalized “Passover” as a distinct English term. The presence of “Easter” in Acts 12:4 does not prove that first-century believers observed a later Christian festival; it reflects older English usage for the Passover season.
A right approach is to research the term as used in 16th–17th century English, not to read back modern associations and then accuse the translators of teaching anachronistic festivals. Questioning the rendering leads to historical clarification rather than to rejection of the translation.
Faith of Jesus and Faith in Jesus
In Romans 3:22 the KJV speaks of “the faith of Jesus Christ,” while in Romans 3:26 it reads “him which believeth in Jesus.” The underlying Greek construction in both places involves a genitive with “Jesus Christ.” Grammatically, there is debate among scholars whether such genitives are subjective (“the faith exercised by Christ”) or objective (“faith directed toward Christ”).
The KJV translators, like all translators, had to make interpretive decisions within the legitimate range of meaning. It is appropriate to ask whether “faith of Jesus” in one verse and “believeth in Jesus” in another best capture the nuance of each context. The fact that there is a genuine syntactical question does not indicate corruption; it indicates that language is not strictly one-to-one across Greek and English.
There is value in consulting the Textus Receptus, comparing parallel usages, and weighing whether a more consistent rendering would sharpen theological understanding. That kind of work is precisely what serious students should do.
Questioning Without Abandoning Confidence
The King James translation was an extraordinary scholarly effort, backed by significant resources and carried out by highly competent linguists. Its translators themselves, in their prefaces and marginal notes, encouraged readers to recognize where interpretive judgments were made. They did not present their English wording as beyond all question.
For that reason:
We should feel free to test KJV phrasings against the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew text.
We should welcome questions about italics, lexical choices, and syntactical decisions.
We should avoid assigning novel meanings to archaic spellings or orthography, as though different historical spellings necessarily indicate distinct words with distinct theologies.
Forbidding all questions about KJV wording does not protect the Bible; it undermines confidence in it among thoughtful readers. By contrast, patiently walking through the evidence, showing why the KJV translators rendered a phrase as they did, and where it most clearly reflects the underlying text, has actually led many serious students to adopt the KJV as their primary Bible.
To “question the assumptions” of a translation, including the KJV, is not heresy. It is the normal process of theological and textual inquiry. If the KJV faithfully reflects the preserved text, as I believe it does more consistently than modern versions, then honest scrutiny will tend to confirm its excellence rather than overthrow it.