Use of Modern Bible Versions in Teaching and Warning
Question
Man shall live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. After watching your last sermon, why are you still promoting modern corrupt versions instead of warning against them? Because you often say in other versions or Bibles it is rendered, but you know that these modern versions are all satanic luciferian counterfeits. If you want to compare or want to use other versions, why then using only the Textus Receptus Bible such as Geneva, the Bishop’s, Great Bible, Tyndale, etc.?
Originally published in Vol. 1, Number 9, September 2026, Ask The Theologian Journal.
Answer
The charge that I “promote” modern versions misunderstands what I am doing when I reference them. My settled position in preaching and teaching is to use the King James Version as my Bible. When I refer to other versions, it is almost always to demonstrate how they differ from the KJV and, more importantly, from the underlying traditional text.
To cite a rendering from the NASB, ESV, or another modern translation is not to commend it, but to expose where it departs from the text or obscures doctrinal nuance. One cannot intelligibly warn against something without identifying it, quoting it, and comparing it. Mentioning that “other versions render this phrase differently” is not an endorsement; it is a starting point for critique.
If one insists that even acknowledging an alternate rendering is tantamount to promoting it, then meaningful textual and translational analysis becomes impossible. Such a standard would also forbid mentioning pre-KJV English Bibles (Geneva, Bishops’, Great Bible, Tyndale), because they, too, sometimes differ in wording. Logically, either all comparative work is prohibited, or careful comparison is permissible. It is inconsistent to allow comparison with older English versions drawn from the Textus Receptus while condemning any mention of modern translations as “promotion.”
The Role of Comparison
My own experience illustrates the value of comparison. I used to teach from the New American Standard Bible and was largely unaware of KJV-only circles. It was precisely through studying Greek and comparing texts and translations that I came to see the superiority of the KJV and the underlying traditional text. That process required me to look directly at alternative renderings and to evaluate them.
I have seen many others make a similar journey. They were not persuaded by being told, “Do not ask questions; do not look at other versions.” They were persuaded when someone patiently showed them, passage by passage, how and where modern versions weaken doctrine, omit phrases, or flatten important distinctions. That kind of demonstration requires saying, “The NASB says this,” or “The ESV omits that phrase,” and then showing why it matters.
Warning While Teaching
Far from promoting modern versions, I regularly warn against them by highlighting textual and translational problems. When I say, “In other versions this is rendered such-and-such,” the very next move is typically to show why that rendering is inferior—textually, doctrinally, or linguistically. The aim is to strengthen confidence in the KJV and the preserved text, not to create appreciation for the alternatives.
To label all modern versions with charged terms and then forbid any direct citation of their wording does not help people see what is at stake. It simply tells them not to inquire. Many contemporary believers, however, have grown up on these translations. They will not abandon them merely because someone denounces them in the abstract. They need to see the concrete differences.
Why Not Limit Comparison to Older TR-Based English Bibles?
The suggestion that, if one must compare, one should restrict oneself to TR-based English Bibles such as Geneva, Bishops’, the Great Bible, or Tyndale is selective. Those versions, while closer in text than modern critical versions, still contain differences of wording and sometimes of interpretation. If identifying differences in wording is inherently “promotional,” then mentioning Geneva or Tyndale is no more acceptable than mentioning the NASB.
If, on the other hand, one recognizes that comparison can be done without endorsement, then there is no principled reason to refuse to name modern translations when critiquing them. The issue is how they are used: are they cited as authorities to correct the KJV, or as exhibits to demonstrate the value of the KJV and the traditional text? My use is the latter.
In sum, I do not promote modern versions. I advocate the King James Version, use it exclusively in preaching and formal teaching, and warn about the deficiencies of modern translations. Referencing them explicitly is often the most effective way to equip people to see those deficiencies for themselves and to move them toward a more faithful Bible.