Back in 2017 I set out to write the definitive defence of all the core doctrines of those of us known as “Concordant” believers in one place. Basically, I wanted a one-stop-shop for all things “Concordant” theology, and so I wrote an eBook containing just that. Of course, I used the CLV (the Concordant Literal Version) to do so, since I considered it to be the best English translation of Scripture at the time, although I also used other literal versions such as the YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) at times as well.
However, I quickly learned that a lot of people (Christians and non-Christians alike) are convinced that these literal versions aren’t good translations of the original Hebrew and Greek, and that they wouldn’t even consider reading my book or considering my arguments because I used these translations, so I began asking myself whether it might be possible to prove our doctrines using one of the less literal Bible translations instead. And so, as an experiment, I began to go through the KJV (the King James Version) — sometimes also known as the AV (the Authorized Version) and as the KJB (the King James Bible) — looking at every one of the passages relevant to “Concordant” theology, especially (although not exclusively) as it pertains to the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, and to my surprise I discovered that it actually wasn’t mistranslated in the way that many “Concordant” believers (myself included) assumed it was after all, and that it was actually very easy to prove that the KJV clearly does teach Universal Reconciliation — and every other one of our core doctrines too — despite the fact that we’ve been told by nearly everyone on both sides of the debate that it actually does teach the popular doctrine of never-ending punishment (largely due to those on both sides of the debate not considering the context of the KJV as a whole rather than just cherry-picking scary-sounding words out of context from it, as well as those on both sides misunderstanding the actual meaning of many of these words used in the KJV; and I’m referring to the meaning of the English words used in the KJV as they should have been interpreted back in 1611 when it was first published rather than to the meaning of the original Hebrew and Koine Greek words they were translated from — although the meaning is technically the same in the relevant cases — because many of these words just didn’t always mean what either side of the debate assumes they did in English back in 1611 when the King James Version was first translated), although I should say that this seemed to go for nearly every other English Bible version out there that I looked at as well.
Of course, I wanted to share the evidence that I believed conclusively proved this fact, which led me to update my entire eBook back in 2021 (and also to rename it — a number of times at this point, for reasons I won’t get into here) to use only the King James Version in order to prove that our theology is scriptural rather than also using the more literal translations I relied upon heavily when I first wrote it.
As for why I originally chose the KJV to do this rather than one of the more modern Bible versions, there are a number of reasons, but the main two were A) the fact that many Christians simply won’t consider scriptural references from anything other than this one particular Bible version, and B) it’s one of the most popular and recognizable Bible versions out there anyway (or at least it was when I began my experiment). And as for why I stuck with the KJV when updating the book, well, the first two reasons still remained, and I wanted to reach the largest audience possible, but on top of that, aside from the fact that it was just fun to prove that the Bible translation which uses the word “hell” more often than any other version (at least from what I could tell when comparing Bible versions) actually teaches Universal Reconciliation, whether or not God actually did perfectly preserve Scripture in English the way many Christians think He promised to do, I became convinced during my research that it actually is the best of the various less literal English translations of Scripture, especially when it comes to proving “Concordant” theology. By which I mean, if you’re going to use only one English translation of Scripture to prove “Concordant” theology, I believe the KJV does the best job overall (even more so than the CLV itself does, surprisingly enough).
Of course, many “Concordant” believers are skeptical of this claim, and some even still believe that it is a bad translation, but that’s mostly because they haven’t thoroughly read the updated version of my eBook where I demonstrated that words like “hell,” “everlasting,” “eternal,” “never,” “for ever,” and even “for ever and ever” don’t necessarily always mean what most people assume they mean when used in the KJV and other less literal translations, since these are often figurative translations in these versions (and I’d argue that it’s unfair to treat the KJV like a literal translation when it’s clearly not intended to be read literally throughout, as I proved in my eBook).
As for how I can say the KJV is more “Concordant” than even the CLV is in places, well, just compare 1 Corinthians 12:13 in the KJV to how the CLV renders it for one example:
“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” — KJV
“For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit.” — CLV
That might not seem like a big difference at first glance, but “orthodox” Christians wanting members of the body of Christ to be baptized in water have used translations similar to the CLV to argue with me that the Bible says “for in one spirit” we’re all baptized rather than “for by one Spirit” we’ve been baptized (see also my How one baptism proves two Gospels article for why this is important).
Another good example of why the KJV is better than basically every other one of the less literal Bible translations is its translation of Galatians 2:7, and I trust I don’t have to say anything else about that (although, yes, the CLV gets this one right too, but if we’re using only one version, the KJV translates 1 Corinthians 12:13 better, as we just learned).
Of course, there are also the verses that are left out of the CLV and various other modern versions, especially Acts 8:37, which is an important one when it comes to proving the existence of two Gospels in the Bible, as I discussed in my eBook.
As for examples of why I prefer the KJV to the YLT overall, even though they’re both based on the TR (the Textus Receptus) when it comes to the Greek Scriptures, well, there’s the aforementioned 1 Corinthians 12:13, of course, but there’s also the way the YLT translated passages like John 3:7 as “born from above” rather than “born again,” and I believe “born again” is the right translation for reasons I also got into in my eBook.
There’s also all the “thee’s” and “ye’s” in the KJV, which basically no other version uses, and those are important for a number of doctrines, since they can clarify who a specific statement in the Bible is intended for (and getting this wrong has led to a number of doctrinal mistakes, as I, yes, discussed in my eBook).
I’d also argue that the CLV can be more confusing when it comes to certain important verses, such as 1 Corinthians 15:2, for example, as I explained in my What is a feigned believer? article, although we can see that it technically isn’t a bad translation in this verse when one learns what it actually means (but it has caused a lot of confusion and consternation among “Concordant” believers).
There are a number of other examples I could get into, and did get into in my eBook (and I might add more to this article later — I threw this article together rather quickly before needing to head out for dinner), but my point is simply that if we’re going to use just one Bible version, the KJV seems to teach “Concordant” theology better as a whole than any other English translation does, which is why I now stick to using it for basically all my theological discussions, both in and out of my eBook.