Comparison Between: The KJV vs. the KJVER (The King James Version Easy Read)

[Bible Highlighter]

Comparison Between:
The KJV vs. the KJVER (The King James Version Easy Read):

Overall Assessment:

Kind of good, and yet also bad. Kind of good only if you know the differences and you have a hard time reading the “thee’s and “thou’s starting out in studying the Bible or if you want to switch on occasion to read the KJV in a more modern tongue. I have looked at different KJV versions (like the AKJV, NKJV, KJV2000). This one seems to be the best one so far in regards to not perverting the text beyond recognition (albeit still not perfect). Slight changes are a concern here, but they are not a major problem like other King James Bibles out there (like the New King James). But one has to realize that a reader of the KJVER is losing information here they are not aware of these changes. It passes in some cases, and fails at other times in the pure Cambridge Edition test given by Bible Protector (See here). It gets 9 out of 12 right; But there are other changes, as well (of which I mention below). Please take note that this is not an exhaustive examination. I would also like to encourage my fellow KJV advocates to look more into the KJVER Translation by comparing it with the traditional KJV for themselves, as well.​

Rating:

The score is a “B-” if you know the differences.
The score is an “F” if you don’t know the differences.
Score for aesthetics & quality of construction only (Not the translation):
The KJVER Sword Study in Brown Leather, Indexed, Giant Print Physical Quality: A+

If I was being picky, it would be an A- because the pages are thin, and can stick together in some places. If you don't want to damage the pages and get frustrated in opening them sometimes, just get a fingertip moisturizer like this one:

Spoiler

Amazon.com

The Sort of Good and the Bad:

The sort of good?

1. Well, distinction in persons is made: The KJVER renders Jeremiah 34:16 correctly. It says “whom you[p]...” suggesting the same thing as “whom ye” in the Cambridge Edition.
   
   
2. They do not add the defined words buried in the heart of the sentence itself, but simply put the defined words in a smaller font below the verse.
   
   
3. Upon my initial investigation: It appears many verses are not mutilated beyond recognition like other KJV Bibles. But I am still examining this version to see the differences still. So the KJVER Translation is kind of decent so far, but it is still under an impending investigation.
   
   
4. This translation is known for being available in the Sword Study Bible. If you get the KJVER Sword Study Bible, make sure it is:

​

​

(a) Indexed​

​

(b) Leather​

​

(c) Giant Print​

​

(d) Not the black lettering on a black cover (unless you like ominous or morbid looking things).​

I have the brown/red leather cover with gold lettering with a gold edge (You can check it out here). Very nice. I can say it is probably my favorite Bible in regards to presentation and the feel. In regards to the aesthetics alone and not the translation: It’s probably the best physical Bible I have ever owned. Granted, if you don’t like super thin pages, then this is not the Study Bible for you. But I love the leather, and how it holds in my hands. I also love the red ribbon bookmark, the indexes showing me the books in the Bible, and the giant print (Note: The giant print is good because the defined words are really small). If you are more of a die hard KJV only person, you can get the KJV Sword Study Bible, instead (Just be forewarned that it still may have a few of those pesky bad footnotes that push the Modern Translation agenda; But it does not change the text all too much though). Just do not get the black leather with the black lettering. I made this mistake and had to send it back. The black on black looks kind of ominous (or not so wholesome or heavenly looking).

The bad?

1. Can subtly push you into the Modern Translation camp way of thinking if you believe some of their footnote definitions (See my points below).
   
   
2. They do get a few words wrong.
   
   
3. They list the changes of words, but I have found a few changes that do not appear in their listing.
   
   
4. They say it lines up with the NKJV on the back of the box (that the Bible came in). This is not something to boast in. The NKJV is seriously altered in many verses and does not faithfully follow the Textus Receptus alone or the faithful KJV. From my assessment of the changes in the NKJV that is for the worse, it does not appear the KJVER is siding with the NKJV (Which is a good thing). Perhaps they were suggesting the KJVER lines up with the NKJV in regards to it removing the “eth” from words, and replacing the “thous” with “you” or something. In either case, they should not boast that this is like the NKJV (If they want to attract King James readers because most KJV advocates (like myself) consider the NKJV to be a bad translation).

Actual Changes to the Text That Affect The Meaning:

Major Changes on Words That Alters Meaning:

#1. Zech. 11:17 KJV "Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock!"​

Zech. 11:17 KJVER “Woe to the idle shepherd that leaves the flock!” worthless​

This is problematic because an “idol shepherd” suggests that this shepherd is both worthless and idolatrous. An “idle shepherd” is just a worthless shepherd and not an idolatrous one.

Changes on Words That Should Have Been Left Alone, and Simply Defined:

#1. Matt. 26:73 KJV, “for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”​

Matt. 26:73 KJVER “for your speech betrays you.” ............................................................................................ ​

The KJV says “bewrayeth” and the KJVER says “betrays” in Matthew 26:73. While this can be defined as such in the dictionary, it can also mean “to expose.” The word should have been simply updated slightly to “bewrays” and it should have simply been underlined and defined (as a footnote) in at least two ways. For it is an older word that can potentially have two different kinds of meanings in context here.

Comparison of Nuances:​

1. Bewray​

• Meaning: To reveal, disclose, or unintentionally expose something
• Nuance: Often unintentional. It’s about making something known, not necessarily doing so with malicious intent.
• Example: “Thy speech bewrayeth thee.” — His speech revealed him without him meaning to.

2. Betray​

• Meaning: To deliver someone over treacherously; to be disloyal or deceptive
• Nuance: Intentional and malicious. There's a moral breach of trust or loyalty involved.
• Example: “Judas Iscariot… which also betrayed him.” — Judas intentionally turned Jesus over to His enemies.

Think of it this way:​

• Bewray is like someone accidentally spilling a secret or giving themselves away.
• Betray is like someone stabbing a friend in the back or deliberately turning someone in.

Major Changes on when to capitalize and when not to capitalize that alters Meaning:

#1. 1 Jhn. 5:8 KJV says, “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”​

1 Jhn. 5:8 KJVER says, “And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” .............................................................. .......... ......................................................................... ​

It should be “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8. This should clearly not be capitalized. Only Jesus (the second person of the Godhead) is in agreement with the water and the blood, and not the Holy Spirit. The spirit agrees with the water and the blood.

Other changes on when to capitalize and when not to capitalize that alters meaning:

#1. Acts 11:28 KJV says, “and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world:”​

Acts 11:28 KJVER says, “and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world:” indicated - famine ........................................................................ ​

It should be “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28. This verse appears to be in dispute among believers. It can read both ways, but if one holds to a pure Word (like the Cambridge circa 1900) (like myself), they should favor the uncapitalized version of this verse.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Major Changes in Doctrine and Truths if you follow the footnote definitions as being authoritative:

#1. Matt. 28:19 KJV “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,”
Matt. 28:19 KJVER “Go youp therefore, and teach all nations,” disciple ...........................................................................................................The KJVER uses the word “disciple” in it’s footnote for the underlined word “teach.” This is more in line with the popular “making of disciples” viewpoint from Modern Translations. In this view, they are using the word “disciple” as a verb for the underlined word “teach” in Matthew 28:19 and leading you to think wrongfully about this word. For we cannot make disciples. 1 Corinthians 3 makes it clear that one plants, another waters, but it is God that gives the increase. So we cannot make anything. Only God makes disciples ultimately. For it is God that changes men’s hearts.

#2. Psalm 12:7 KJV says, “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
Psalm 12:7 KJVER says, “You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation for ever.” i.e. the godly ...........................................................................................................Changes the meaning of the word “them” with a footnote in reference to “the godly” instead of in reference to the “words of the Lord” mentioned in verse six. This is wrong because the immediate context is in reference to the words of the Lord. Modern Translation folk do not want you to realize the truth that His words will be preserved forever. They think the Lord’s words only exist in the original autographs that nobody has. The Lord’s words only exist in ancient languages (Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek). But nobody today knows these languages like those people who once knew these languages when they were used back in the past.

#3. 2 Cor. 3:12 KJV says, “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:”
2 Cor. 3:12 KJVER says, “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:” boldness .........................................................................................................2 Corinthians 3:12 KJVER casts doubt on the word “plainness” of speech to “boldness” of speech in the footnotes. The words “Plainness” and “boldness” do not have the same meaning. Nowhere will you find the word “bold” in the definition for the word “plain” in the old Webster’s 1913 dictionary. I believe Modern Translation adherents are trying to cover up the fact that they don’t use the plainness of speech because they constantly refer to the original ancient languages.

#4. Acts 12:4 KJV says, “intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
Acts 12:4 KJVER says, “intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” i.e. pagan festival after Passover .........................................................................................................Acts 12:4 KJVER has a footnote definition for the word “Easter” which makes a huge leap of assumption that the ancient word “Easter” in this verse is in reference to a "pagan festival"; Why is this problematic? Well, the word “easter” and “passover” in the Greek is translated as “pascha.” This lines up with what we see for the word “Easter” in other languages and how it looks very similar to “pascha.”

Other Modern Translations simply translate “Easter” as “Passover.” In other words, the Modern Translation Versions are trying to push the idea that Easter is bad. While Modern day secular Easter is bad with the whole bunny, and easter eggs and chocolate in a basket is a pagan secular holiday, this word did not originally refer to our modern pagan understanding of this word. .....................................................................................
#5. 2 Cor. 2:17 KJV says, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:”
2 Cor. 2:17 KJVER says, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:” peddle ......................................................................................................... 2 Corinthians 2:17 KJVER suggests that the word “corrupt” is the same thing as “peddle” in it’s footnote definition. The 1913 Noah Webster’s dictionary does not define “corrupt” as “peddle.” In fact, if I say these two words to a person, they clearly would not think they are the same thing or be confused between the two. “Peddle” means to “sell.” “Corrupt” means to change for the worse, or to pervert, or to spoil. While newer dictionaries include the definition of peddling, this is not how the word was originally understood even in the early 1900’s. In addition, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:3 this, “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God” So Paul was promoting the authenticity of the New Testament. Paul further states the truth that he and the other apostles have not handled the word of God deceitfully. 2 Corinthians 4:2 says, “nor handling the word of God deceitfully;” This means that Paul and the others did not corrupt God’s Word. There is no reference here to selling God’s Word here in the context. So the word “peddle” is a false push yet again from the Modern Translation camp. .....................................................................................................................
#6. Phil. 3:8 KJV says, “for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,”
Phil. 3:8 KJVER says, “for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,” rubbish ......................................................................................................... Philippians 3:8 KJVER has the word “dung” defined as “rubbish” in the footnote. Poop and trash are both bad but poop is far worse. If a man pooped in his trashcan it would stink up the house. If he tried to put his trash down the toilet, it would clog it up. So no. They are not the same thing. Why do the translators here think they are the same thing? ..............................................................................................................................
#7. 2 Tim. 2:15 KJV, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
2 Tim. 2:15 KJVER says, “Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Be diligent ......................................................................................................... 2 Timothy 2:15 KJVER has the word “Study” defined as “be diligent” in the footnote. The word “study” and the words “be diligent” are not the same thing. This is a subtle attempt to change doctrine in a subtle way if people do not regard God’s Word in our language today as being inerrant, or if they were not properly schooled in basic English. Again, the enemy wants to alter God’s NT Command here. If he cannot change the word in your Bible, he will get you to doubt the original meaning with a footnote. Don’t fall for it, my brethren. Stay the course. Stick to the Word of God. We are to study the Scriptures to show ourselves approved unto God, and not “be diligent” to show ourselves approved unto God. Be diligent in what? The context is talking about studying. It says rightly dividing the Word of truth. That’s the context.​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

#8. 1st Kings 14:24 KJV says, “And there were also sodomites in the land:”​

1st Kings 14:24 KJVER says, “And there were also sodomites in the land:” male cult prostitutes. .................................................................................................. Well, this is not accurate. The term “sodomite” is taken from the city of Sodom (See: Genesis 19:1-26). Clearly we get an idea of the kind of sin that was presented in this city (of which God destroyed with fire), and it was not male cult prostitution (if you know the story in Genesis 19) (Note: The same is shown in 1 Kings 15:12, as well)..............................................................................................................................​

#9. 1 Jhn. 3:9 KJV says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;”​

1 Jhn. 3:9 KJVER says, “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin;” practice .................................................................................................. .....The The problem in 1 John 3:9 KJVER is the defined footnote for the word “commit.” It says that the word “commit” is defined as “practice.” While this word is used to denote habitual ongoing sin, such a word can also be misleading. What am I talking about? Well, if Bob commits a crime, it does not mean that Bob is practicing that crime or making a habit of it. While it may be true that “practice” fits 1 John 3:9, I believe the real truth behind the word “commit” in reference to sin here is in regards to “justifying sin.” For a person can justify a little bit of sin in their life and not practice that sin and be condemned by God. The person who thinks they can sin a little or sin sometimes and be saved by God’s grace without any change in their life is the kind of person who has never known Christ or they fall under the truth of Ezekiel 18:24. For John is concerned with us confessing sin so as to be forgiven of sin (1 John 1:9), and in walking in the light so the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). So it’s having the right attitude towards sin. Are we going to justify sin, or are we going to battle and fight against it? Saying that we are to not practice sin opens the door to letting a little bit of sin on into our lives. This is not an okay thing with God. So the word “practice” is not a good definition for the word “commit” here in the footnote. To my knowledge the first Modern Bible to use the word "practice" as a replacement for the word "commit" in the KJV is the NASB New Testament release in 1963. While this NASB edition emphasized in context "continuous sin," later NASB editions (1977) (1995)k and other Modern Translations do not clarify this fact.​

........................................................................................................................​

#10. Tit. 3:10 KJV says, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;”​

Tit. 3:10 KJVER says, “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject;” divisive. .................................................................................................. ............The Modern Translation folk define the word “heretic” as being “divisive.” This is not correct. The person who holds to heresy is to be rejected, not the person who exposes false doctrine. I believe the Modern Translation camp confuses the issue here. ........................................................................................................................​

#11. Acts 8:9 KJV says, “But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria,”​

Acts 8:9 KJVER says,“But there was a certain man, called Si´mon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Sa-ma´ri-a,” magic - i.e. confused .................................................................................................. Acts 8:9 KJVER defines the word “bewitched” as “confused.” This is not exactly accurate. While I am sure someone who is under the influence of witchcraft is confused, that is not the heart of what the word “bewitched” means. It means to enchant, charm, place under a spell, and or to influence in a bad way usually by the use of witchcraft (Hence, it’s name). ........................................................................................................................​

#12. Col. 3:2 KJV says, “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”​

Col. 3:2 KJVER says, “Set your.p affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” mind .................................................................................................. .........In Colossians 3:2 KJVER, it defines the word “affection” as the “mind” as a footnote. This is problematic because a person’s “affection” is a specific aspect of our mind and not the whole of our mind in general. If we were to replace the word “mind” for "affection," it changes the entire meaning here. If the word "mind" was used, it would mean that you would coldly and methodically set your mind on things above, and not on the earth. This is problematic because we need to live here, and sometimes take care of loved ones, work at a job, etc.; But if the word “affection” simply means what it says plainly, then there is no.problem. ........................................................................................................................​

#13. Mrk. 4:19 KJV says, “And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.”​

Mrk. 4:19 KJVER says, “And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.” worries .................................................................................................. ..........In the footnote definition for Mark 4:19 KJVER, the word “cares” is defined as “worries.” This definition is troublesome. 1 John 2:15 sheds some light here. It says, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” A person may not be worried about anything if they love the things of this world. Yet loving the things of this world would fall under the umbrella of the “cares of this world.” So the word “worried” as a definition of the word “cares” in Mark 4:19 is not correct.​

........................................................................................................................​

#14. 1 Tim. 6:5 KJV says, “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”​

1 Tim. 6:5 KJVER says, “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw yourself.” constant frictions - deprived .................................................................................................. Again, the KJVER gives us more bad definitions as a footnote. In 1 Timothy 6:5 of the KJVER, it erroneously defines the words “perverse disputings” as “constant frictions.” The context actually tells us what these “perverse disputings” actually are. It is: “supposing that gain is godliness.” That is the perverse arguments or dispute that these men are pushing by which we are to withdraw ourselves from. So if somebody is a Joel Olsteen, withdraw yourself from that person. For they believe that gain is godliness. The KJVER also incorrectly defines another word in this verse. They define the word “destitute” as “deprived.” If I say that a man named Rick was deprived of food it makes it sound like it was not his fault. So the word “deprived” is not really a good definition for the word “destitute” here because it is referring to bad men who are guilty in being destitute or devoid of the truth by their own choosing. ........................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................​

#15. Jms. 1:15 KJV says, “Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”​

Jms. 1:15 KJVER says, “Then when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.” full-grown .................................................................................................. Here we see the KJVER siding with the Modern Translation agenda again. In James 1:15, the KJVER defines the word “finished” as “full-grown.” This is because many Modern Translations say “fully grown” (instead of “finished”) in them. They are obviously different words here. If I finish a race, that does not mean I am fully grown. If I am an adult and fully grown, that does not mean my life is finished or over with, either.​

Conclusion:

While the KJVER is less corrupt than other updated Modern KJVs, the footnotes here are a huge problem. They should have called this translation as:

“The KJV with Modern-Translationer Footnotes.”

If they really wanted to sell this to KJV folk, they should have gotten input on the definitions from KJV people; For most in the Modern Translation camp do not even like the KJV. But we as believers in God’s Holy Word know He has preserved His words for today. For...


“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalms 11:3).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Major Changes in Doctrine and Truths if you follow the footnote definitions as being authoritative (Continued):

#17. Heb. 4:8 KJV says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”​

Heb. 4:8 KJVER says, “For if Je´sus had given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day.” PS. 95:7 Joshua (NT name is Jesus.)​

(Note: A similar change is also made in the footnote in Acts 7:45).​

​

The KJVER in Hebrews 4:8 places a defined footnote for the word "Jesus" as being the name of "Joshua." Some Modern Translations outright change this verse to say “Joshua” instead of “Jesus.” While the name “Jesus“ could be defined possibly as “Joshua,” the proper rendering in the text here is "Jesus" in Hebrews 4:8 because it was Jesus who gave Joshua the battle plan to take down the city wall of Jericho, and AI. For Joshua encountered a Pre-Incarnate Christ in Joshua 5:13-15.​

​

#18. Phili. 3:20 KJV says, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:”​

Phili. 3:20 KJVER says, “For our conversation is in heaven; from where also we look for the Savior, the Lord Je´sus Christ:” citizenship​

​

The KJVER is wrong on its definition footnote again. It defines the word “conversation” as “citizenship.”​

Here is the definition:​

1. conversation: life (i.e., manner of living or way of life), conduct, behavior, living.​

Greek (πολίτευμα) (politeuma): Manner of life or moral conduct that reflects one’s allegiance as a citizen​

(i.e., a loyal citizen of Heaven)​

​

Important Note: The Greek word (πολίτευμα) (politeuma) conveys the idea of citizenship only as a deeper secondary layer of meaning when referring to one’s conduct or behavior. The word “citizenship” should not be used as the primary meaning or as a replacement for the word “conversation” in Philippians 3:20 like Modern Bibles falsely render it.​

​

Note: The word “life” can mean, “way of life” (Longman’s dictionary) or “manner of life” (Webster's 6th definition). This fits with the use of the word elsewhere in context for the word “conversation” (Meaning behavior or conduct). The word “life” can also fit because a variation of the word in Greek is used for the English word “live.” In addition, the Wycliffe Translation says, “living,” which conveys the same concept and idea of one’s conduct. Many Modern Translations render this as “citizenship.” While the Greek word can mean citizenship, it does not fit the context if that is the sole meaning. In other words, people can disobey the law of the land and still be a citizen. This is not the case with God’s Kingdom. We cannot rebel against God’s commands and lay claim to being a citizen of his Kingdom. At the Judgment, the sheep and the goats will be separated. At the end of the harvest, the weeds will be pulled out from among the wheat. Those who did not want their Master to reign over them will be slain before Him. While citizenship could be interpreted as living in a broader sense, citizenship can be confused with legal status, while failing to capture that one’s conduct must be in line with being a part of the Heavenly Kingdom. However, the interpretation that one’s conduct and or life in Christ does properly fit the context here. There is nothing in context that ties into one just being a citizen alone here. Also, no English dictionary defines “conversation” as “citizenship.” While “citizenship” may provide another layer of meaning here in the Greek, this is not the sole meaning that the KJV translators wanted to convey. This concept of “citizenship” only exists in the Greek, and not English involving the word “conversation.”​

​

#19. Acts 25:19 KJV says, “But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.”​

Acts 25:19 KJVER says, "“But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Je´sus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” religion​

​

The KJVER says that superstition is like religion in it's footnote definition. This is seriously false. James says this: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”​

​

#20. 1 Cor. 3:17 KJV says, "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”​

1 Cor. 3:17 KJVER says, "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple youp are.” destroy​

​

The KJVER defines the word “defile” as “destroy.” This is not how it is defined in the 1913 Webster dictionary. Defile generally means to make foul or impure; to make filthy; to dirty; to befoul; to pollute, etc. Even the context refers to the Corinthians' sins of strife, and envy in 1 Corinthians 3:3. So they were polluting or defiling their bodies by their own sin. This point is even more driven home with the mention of the man who commits sexual immorality in the church in 1 Corinthians 5. God will destroy a believer who goes back towards the path of sin as a way of life (and they stubbornly refuse to seek forgiveness with the Lord and turn from their evil ways). God will destroy them both body and soul. But the man is not destroying his temple (or body) by committing the sins of strife and envy. They are defiling the temple. It is God who will destroy their temple in this case, and not them.​

​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is an image of one of the covers for the KJVER Sword Study Bibles.

And here is what it looks like on the inside:

It's a pretty looking Bible, but make sure you know the differences between this one (KJVER) and the real deal (the KJV).


Side Note:

You can click on the second image (of the inside view of the Bible) so as to check out the text a little closer.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's also available in black and gold, too.

Very nice looking bibles here. But one thing bothers me in their advertisement, though. It says this:

This is a bad advertisement.
The KJV never needed to be brought back to life.
It has always been a living book.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sample pages inside for the KJVER Translation (Sword Study Bible):

A nice point is that they try to outline in a red box Messianic references in the Old Testament. But it appears they do not do this perfectly as shown above.

Also, as you may notice, some of the definitions in the footnotes are sort of good sometimes, and some of it is not so amazing. The did not need to define the word "devils." Most Christians know what that means. Yet, they pass over other more archaic English words without an explanation.

 

[Broken Fence]

Sample pages inside for the KJVER Translation (Sword Study Bible):

A nice point is that they try to outline in a red box Messianic references in the Old Testament. But it appears they do not do this perfectly as shown above.

Also, as you may notice, some of the definitions in the footnotes are sort of good sometimes, and some of it is not so amazing. The did not need to define the word "devils." Most Christians know what that means. Yet, they pass over other more archaic English words without an explanation.

Wow thanks for the info had no idea wow, can't believe how crafty and bold these modern translations are to God's Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wow thanks for the info had no idea wow, can't believe how crafty and bold these modern translations are to God's Word.

Your welcome. The KJVER Sword Study Bible is sort of good and yet on the other hand it is bad. It's sort of good only if you know your King James Bible, and know about the Modern Translation agenda to change the KJV. The footnotes is the biggest issue. But there are things I like. They do update words by removing the "eth" after them. They also make person distinctions when they replaced words like "ye" with the word "you." They put a small letter "p" above the end of the word "you" or "your" to tell you that it is talking to more than one person. So that's nice. Some of the study aides is kind of helpful, too. Pronunciation of certain words, etc.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Word Changes According to the KJVER Translation:

Click on images below to zoom in on them (so as to check out the words):

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Another Misleading Advertisement for the KJVER:

They may not have changed the words to change doctrine, but they did add a bunch of footnote definitions that changes doctrine. They also should have emphasized on each page that the footnote definitions are non-authoritative, too. Again, if you are aware of the Modern Translation Agenda and the changes they make in other Modern Bibles (compared to the real KJV), this is not a problem to spot their erroneous definitions in certain cases.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The KJVER also provides some redundant definitions in their footnotes that your average person would already know. One example is Luke 7:45.

Lk. 7:45 KJVER says, “You gave Me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in has not ceased to kiss My feet.” i.e. stopped kissing.

This to me is pretty silly. I can understand a slight update on a 1600's English word (like “shalt” to “shall”) to modernize the English, but they already claimed to do that with many words already in the beginning of the book. This is just providing us with redundant information here that everyone knows. Most people know that the word "cease" means to “stop.”