Are Modern Translations Corrupt?

This excellent article copied with permission from:

King James Only Controversy, King James Only, KJV Only

If you enjoy this article you would like Pastor Mark’s book, King James Onlyism: Is the KJV the Best Bible Version? The book is available in both Kindle and paperback formats from Amazon. To purchase from Amazon, CLICK HERE or click the book image to the left.

Let me start this and state from the outset, that I do not have any issue with the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. This is not an anti-KJV post but rather one to balance some of the arguments the KJV-only proponents have used to ridicule and malign some of the modern translations such as the NASB, NIV, ESV etc.

Just so it is clear, my position is this: that the version of Bible you use (be it KJV, NASB, NIV etc) is a personal preference and it will not affect your ability to live a godly life, your walk with the Lord, or your ability to win souls to Christ. Most of the modern translations are extremely accurate to the original texts in their original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

The argument that the KJV is the only perfect version of God’s Word is incorrect and most of the arguments used to support that position are wrong, or disingenuous. As I complete other posts about the KJV-only issue, they can be found here.

The passage below is one of those used to argue the superiority of the KJV.

Luke 2:33 in a couple of different translations says the following:

KJV: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

ESV: And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

NASB: And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

NIV (1984): The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

This passage is one which is often used to support the erroneous view that the modern translations (often labelled “perversions” by KJV-only supporters) are trying to deny the virgin birth, of all things. Their argument basically states that the modern translations state that Jesus’ father was Joseph and not God and thus He was born of a natural union between Joseph and Mary. Only the KJV refers to Joseph by name and thus preserves the truth of the virgin birth.

A quote from the site “Scion of Zion” for example states this: “The effect of changing “Joseph” to “father” will teach that Jesus had an earthly father which completely voids the cardinal doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. If Joseph was the earthly father of the Lord Jesus, then He would have had to inherit the sin nature which was passed down from Adam. . . . By removing verses which support the virgin birth, it brings Jesus down to the level of just a human being. If Jesus was born with a sin nature, then He was an unqualified candidate for atonement for the sins of His people and therefore we Christians are still in our sins.”

So, are the modern versions trying to mislead the people and deceitfully move people away from the virgin birth and thus into a position of deny the ability of Christ to save? Not at all. The concept is absolutely preposterous. This is an argument which typifies the idiocy in the KJV-only movement. It tends to be based on hysteria and deception.

There are many facts of evidence which clearly state that the modern translations are not trying to deny the virgin birth.

Firstly, if that was the case, they would need to systematically remove all reference to the virgin birth. However, in the previous chapter, the NASB, for example, mentions the virgin birth 3 times (Luke 1:27, 34). Also, in verse 35, the miraculous aspect of His birth is mentioned a couple more times. So the conspiracy essentially dies with that.

Secondly, to all intents and purposes, Joseph was Jesus’ father. He raised Him, cared for Him, loved Him, provided for Him, and taught Him a trade even. Now, my wife is adopted. She was raised by a couple who were not her birth parents. Yet she calls them her mother and father. She does not specifically her “adoptive mother” and “adoptive father”. That is clumsy and impractical. The same goes for this situation too – Joseph was Jesus’ father – an adoptive father.

Thirdly, the KJV actually has no problem calling Joseph His father elsewhere. Luke 2:41 in the KJV says: “Now His parents went to Jerusalem…” And again in Luke 2:48 the KJV says: “Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” Here the KJV itself has referred to Joseph as His father and His parent.

The modern translations in no way hint or suggest or otherwise to be trying to deny our Lord’s virgin birth. They simply have used a word clearly understood by the read to convey the relationship Joseph had with Jesus. To suggest otherwise almost insults the intelligence of readers. So, it is actually not the KJV that is the problem here, it is rather the people who use it as a tool of their manipulation in their war on God’s Word.

In this instance, the KJV and the modern translations both provide a perfectly valid translation for their readers. No one is left bereft of vital, fundamental information.

King James Only Controversy, King James Only, KJV Only

If you enjoyed this article you would like Pastor Mark’s book, King James Onlyism: Is the KJV the Best Bible Version? The book is available in both Kindle and paperback formats from Amazon. To purchase from Amazon, CLICK HERE or click the book image to the left.

This book will give you a quick synopsis of the key issues and prepare you to more than hold your own against the cultic onslaught of the KJV Only Cult. Learn about the manuscript evidence discovered after 1611, advances in linguistic understanding, modern scholarship about Hebrew and Greek idioms, and doctrinal problems with the KJV.



Other books by Pastor Mark Swarbrick, click the image below…

Pre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation RapturePre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation RapturePre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation RapturePre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation Rapture

Comments are welcome. Scroll down to comment.



  1. The arguments between KJV onlyism and newer translations is a moot point. This wrestling match on scripture accuracy has gone on since the 1st century AD. As a historian who has researched pagan, Jewish, biblical history and secular history pertaining to these mentioned followings, I found the whole issue disheartening and head spinning.
    Hundreds and perhaps thousands of biblical doctrines and scriptures have come and gone, and what we have left of a Bible is taken from literal scraps of papyrus or vellum, a treated animal skin. Thousands of lives have been lost in those years in man’s attempt of coagulating an accurate library of books into a Bible.
    But the interesting thing is, the true church of Christ (the Jewish Messiah) blossomed for centuries without a Bible. How is this possible? Through the fire baptism of the Holy Spirit of God starting at Pentecost transferred into born again believers in the salvation work of Jesus over the past 2000 years. True Christianity is not a religion, and anyone referring to it as a religion doesn’t understand Christianity.
    Jesus never said to read a Bible, go to a seminary or Bible college or join any religion. He simply said, repent and be born again, and believe on ME. This is the gospel, and what Jesus told his disciples to do, and then to tell others. If we have repented, are born again in His fire baptism Spirit, then we too are His disciples, and our commandment from Jesus is to tell others, and not necessarily tell them to go read a particular Bible.
    The reason there is this disagreement over Bibles is because there were two main streams (ignoring the Codex Vaticanus from the Roman religion) of manuscripts that translators could work from. One stream of Greek translations came through Antioch (Acts 15:30) into Asia Minor or the Byzantine empire, now Turkey.
    The second stream later came from Egypt or the Codex Sinaiticus. These were discovered in a Monastery at the foot of the perhaps MT Sinai by a student named Tischenforf, who brought them to Russia before England purchased them. The monks were burning the documents for kindling, so it was highly regarded as forgeries by his contemporaries.
    The early reformers translated scripts from the Byzantine Greek documents. This is where the KJV came from. After the invention of the printing press, many translators then used these documents to translate into other languages. Many Bibles were printed for royalty (King James was one) to store in their personal library (which many people still do today), or for personal recognition. It was often a race to see who could get their Bible to press first, often without regard for exact translation, which could be corrected later in another revision.
    In the 19th century, two supposed excellent translators of ancient documents named Westcott and Hort took on the job of using Textual Criticism to translate mostly from the Codex Sinaiticus, thinking it was the oldest available script, and therefore most accurate, which it wasn’t.
    It should be noted that WH depended more on their translation skills, not necessarily believing the scripts were the word of God or asking the Spirit of God to guide them, which arguably the earlier reformists (other than Erasmus) did.
    Neither one was a true Christian, and actually had dabbled into the occult and Darwin’s theory of evolution. In all fairness, I don’t think either of these activities somehow infiltrated their Bible translations, but leaves one to wonder their reason for dropping some words or verses, other then the argument they weren’t written in all available documents.
    The outcome of this textual criticism is one reason we have so many different Bibles today, and not necessarily from the oldest and best translations available.
    However, the other reason and most disturbing is, why so many Bibles? It has nothing to do with an older or more accurate translation, and everything to do with recognition and money. For if a few words or phrases are changed or deleted, you can obtain a new copyright, and sell a new translated Bible for thousands of dollars and place your name upon God’s holy Bible. This is the situation we have today.
    With today’s internet, it isn’t difficult to read direct from Greek or Hebrew bibles from sites such as It only takes a couple clicks to reference changes from these bibles into which ever Bible a person chooses to read from. Indeed, every Bible that I have referenced has, at some point, mistranslated the Greek and Hebrew texts. This doesn’t mean we can’t discern the word of God, we can, especially with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
    “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:26
    ref: 7 Things to know about the Bible: Why So Many Bibles? Ebook by Don Nordstrom.


    1. Hi Don, I recommend you listen to some lectures by Dr. James White on the reliability of our Bible and the King James Only cult. I recommend these:

      I also recommend you read my book:

      I would also recommend you read the guidelines for posting comments which is here…

      God bless,

      Pastor Mark


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge