KJVER: King James Version Easy Read

More underlining than text. Copious stupid explanations that try to correct the text. Lazy heading for the next book. Hebrew names, because Hebrew is magic.

A friend lent me a copy of the KJVER ® edition – King James Version Easy Read.  After looking it over to see what it is like, I have made some observations.  In short, I don’t like it.  It  is a ham-fisted search-and-replace edition with stupid and misleading footnotes. It supports evolution, zionism, and works salvation. And it’s ugly.

What is the *ER

It says this about itself:

KJVER, The Trusted King James in an Easy Read Format™
Hebrew names of God indicated and explained
Special word meanings noted
Complete red letter edition
Old testament – the direct words of God in red
New testament – the words of Christ in red
Dictionary – concordance
Map section with new original study maps

ER is supposed to stand for “Easy Read”, although it might also stand for “Emergency Room”. My first thought on this edition of the Bible is that the “ER” is short for error:

KVJ Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

This edition has rendered this very verse as:

*ER Matthew 22:29 Je’sus answered and said to them, Youp do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

In addition, it offers small print corrections and clarifications:

do err: are wrong
knowing: understanding

For the rest of this article, I’m going to refer to the *ER’s rendition as: “Je’sus answered and said to them, You(p) do err (are wrong), not knowing (understanding) the scriptures, nor the power of God.” Putting something away in a footnote or a sidenote serves only to draw attention to it – a normal reader reads the footnotes as if they are part of the text.

So does “knowing” mean “understanding”? Did the saducees have knowledge of the scripture, but somehow lacked actual understanding? No: they simply didn’t know the scripture. If they had spent more time knowing it, they would also have understood. Knowing is not understanding. Another verse, which speaks about understanding the scriptures, the *ER has rendered almost without alteration:

KJV Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

*ER Luke 24:45 Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

The only change here is horrific honorific capitalisation of pronouns – a stupid and meaningless gloss that adds nothing useful. The Bible already makes a distinction between knowledge and understanding. Dulling that distinction is not helpful. Jesus told them they were ignorant: not that they somehow lacked understanding without there being a reason.

I name this book the Search-and-Replace Edition with Amplified Footnotes (SREAF).

Copyright page

Here is how they would like their work to be acknowledged:

Scripture quotations marked (KJVER) are taken from the King James Easy Ready Bible, KJVER ®, © 2001, 2007, 2010, 2015 by Whitaker House. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Well good for them to have worked for 15 years on this book, but this acknowledgement says that they are “scripture quotations”. When I quote the KJVER, I’m arguably not quoting actual scripture – according to their own standards – so maybe no acknowledgement is due.

They have an impressive trademark portfolio: KJVER ®, Word of God ™, Sword Study Bible ™, the Sword Emblem ™, Word for Word ™ and Red Letter Old ™ are registered trademarks of Whitaker House. Wow, they trademarked the Word of God ™. They t®ademarked Jesus™!

The introduction

Here’s what the introduction to the book says – many revealing things:

  • “it is a unique Bible study tool” (page vi) – oh, you can bet your socks it is.

  • Change from “archaic verb forms” to “modern counterparts” (page vi). This is the most inoffensive aspect of this edition.

  • “scholars, as well as ordinary people, will differ as to whether or not this or that particular- verse or passage should have been red” (page vi) Scholars are not ordinary people:

  • Capitalisation of pronouns for deity – no reason given. (page vi) I absolutely despise this. It’s like adding a dash of sugar to every Good Ingredient: it seems very sweet at first, but after a while you realise it is just wrong, and wonder why your teeth are sore. God said not to use his name in vain, but they cannot resist expanding his law to something he did not say – to not use his pronouns without vain capitalisation.

  • This claim: “Unless one is a time traveler from old England, he or she will scarcely notice the difference, except for an improved understanding of God’s Word, here and there.” Wow. They say that they’re presenting the KJV in an easy read form, but here they show their contempt for those who read it (“Art thou some kinda time traveler?”) and they also show the spirit of the age, “one” instead of “the reader”, and “he or she” instead of one of “he” or “she”. There’s a grain of honesty left in them: they say that the advantage of their translation is only “here [and] there”. It’s actually more nowhere.

Hebrew roots

From the introduction, “Another unique feature of this Bible is the emphasis that has been placed on providing the reader with indications of the Hebrew names of God used in many places in the Old Testament. A complete explanatory section of the names of God and the significance of each is also included. These names of God, usually listed at the end of each appropriate Old Testament verse, will prove to be a continual source of added inspiration and blessing. The reader will need only to consult the explanatory pages for the basic meanings of each name of God a few times, and then, he or she will soon find his Bible reading enriched whenever a particular name of God chosen by the Holy Spirit is encountered.”

Let’s think about that. It is indeed unique. Why do we want things in our Bible that nobody else has? Things that generations before us did without? They say these names are a source of “added inspiration”. I thought that the words themselves were inspired by God, but now they are adding inspiration. They say that if you consult their name list then you will be changed for life, and never able to simply hear what is said, and ponder it, because you will be too enriched by the great study of the Hebrew names. Isn’t this an English version? Isn’t it supposed to be EASY? Why are we suddenly being thrown things in other languages? Does the meaning of the text lie in the original languages? Do the words have no inspiration when they are translated into modern language? Apparently so, think these folks.

The publisher explains, and puts his foot in it: “The publisher hopes that Bible readers will gain much additional understanding and blessing from the numerous indications of the names of God throughout this Bible.” (page viii) There is something extra here, and it’s not the word of God. It comes from the publisher.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Almost every page in the old testament tells us that the KJV translators were in error when they translated Jehovah as LORD. Apparently nobody will be able to figure out what the meaning of the word “God” is, nor what “Lord” means. In order to have a proper understanding of who God is, we need to learn these words in that sacred and holy language, spoken in modern times almost exclusively by those who hate the Lord Jesus Christ.

Underlined words

“Underlined words are explained at the end of the verse in a smaller typeface … The reader should not necessarily view the explanatory words as alternative or corrective translations.” Wow. The reader “not necessarily” – so it’s not necessary that the reader view these as corrective, but if the reader wants to treat them as corrective, the reader is welcome to do so? “Experience has proved, however, that these explanatory words will often open up the meaning of a word or a portion that often has been otherwise not understood or misunderstood.” There you go folks: the meaning is not in the text: you need the power of the explanatory words, lest you don’t understand or misunderstand.

“Good theological doctrine”

“Good theological doctrine tells us that it is only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (the original texts) that are inspired of God, not the copies nor the translations. We believe, however, that God so preserved the manuscripts from the ancient world that we do indeed have the entire Bible, and that we have it accurately. That is what we present here …” Here they give away their affiliation: they are with the modern scholars, whose scholarship rejects printed copies, and accepts only hand-written copies, artificially discarding everything not preserved to the present time for their own superior minds. They side with the “good theological doctrine” of these lying snakes that tell us that only the ink that John used on the first copy of the book of Revelation, was inspired, and that the second to seventh copies were rubbish. They believe in the preservation of ink, and not in the preservation of words. They most certainly don’t believe in the concept of translation of God’s word. The languages Hebrew and Greek have mystical power, and only in those languages does God speak. They don’t believe in the work they are doing, but we hold their work in our hands. What are we supposed to think? Clearly we’re not supposed to think: we’re supposed to go with the flow.

Distracting rubbish

Americans cannot spell correctly. The *ER has adopted American spelling for words like saviour, honour, valour. That’s a big deal. We have Joseph wearing a coat of many colours, but the *ER gives us a coat of many colors. Anything that was supported by Andrew Carnegie should be treated with great suspicion – freemasonry, evolution and other evil isms that he supported are not the friends of the truth.

Attempts at clarifying pronunciation. A difficult and unfamiliar name like “Jesus” is rendered “Je’sus”. A horribly complex name like “Abraham” (I’ll bet you’ve never met someone with this name) is simplified to “A-bra-ham”. That city Jerusalem (which you have never read in the newspaper) is rendered as “Je-ru’sa-lem”. Names, places: you read like a kid, so let’s spell them out for you – over and over. If you’re an adult, then you suddenly can’t read anymore, because of all the little marks littering the text. Even “Olives” has to be corrected to “Ol’ives”, so you don’t inadvertently say oh-LIVES. What kind of stupid do you have to be to benefit from this? Never mind that: in the selected font, the space generated by an apostrophe is almost as big as a space between words, and the apostrophe is so high that in some cases it really does look like two words. They could have taken more care, but they don’t care.

Which brings us to typography: the verse numbers are printed without indentation against the left margin, in the same font and font size as the text. This doesn’t look great: it’s just lazy. The space between lines is negative, so that the tops of tall letters run into the underline of the line above.  The header on each page is in the same font as the text, and blandly tells you what chapter starts on that page, even if another chapter occupies the bulk of the page before that – the page that is from Revelation 2:3 to 3:1a is headed “REVELATION 3”. The chapter titles are universally in the form “CHAPTER 1”, in bold text, in the same font as the text, with an empty line above and an empty line below. What is the most common word in this Bible, after “the”? Possibly “CHAPTER”. The first word of every chapter is capitalised and drop-texted, and bold face. This is just ugly – especially once I had noticed the other “features” of this edition and had no more patience for arbitary choices. The titles of books are also done without any inspiration: double spacing, continuing in the same column after the preceding book. It’s easier to do things this way with a modern word processing system, but it’s still completely lazy.

And then at the end of the book it says this, “THE END OF THE NEW TESTAMENT”. Compare what the original authorised version of 1611 said: “FINIS.” It doesn’t sound as finished – presumably they are planning more editions.

Gospel verses examined

Let’s see what they did to the gospel verses of the Romans road. I know these verses, and what they should say, so hopefully I won’t let something pass.

Romans 3:10

KJV Romans 3:10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

*ER: The text is unchanged!

BUT the *ER provides cross references to Psalm 5:9 and Isaiah 59:7-9. This is exceedingly unhelpful, because these verses apply to a later part of the text. References to Psalms 14 and 53 would have been a little helpful. There’s a subtle thing going on here though: the phrase “there is none righteous, no, not one” does not appear in the Old Testament. By providing a reference, the easy reader is deceived into supposing that it does, and when he finally does look it up, he doesn’t find what he’s been told to expect. The footnote stands there, pitting the old testament against the new, when the only problem here is the footnote itself.

Romans 3:23

KJV: Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

*ER: Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come (fall) short of the glory of God

If you come short of something, have you fallen? Maybe they believe that coming short is falling short? Well, in Hebrews 4:1, we read “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.” For this verse, the KJVER offers an explanatory note explaining exactly what fear is – it is to “be careful” (!?) – but here the *ER does not explain that “come short” means “fall short”. The reason for that is that in this context it is a lot more obvious that it does not. They err because they do not know the word “shortcomings”.

Romans 6:23

KJV: Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

*ER: Romans 6:23: For the wages of (payment for) sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Je’sus Christ our Lord. (Eze. 18:4)

The cross reference to Ezekiel is not too bad (“the soul that sinneth, it shall die”) but there is a problem here. The explanatory note that “wages” are “payment” is misleading. Why explain what wages are? Why not rather explain what a gift is? Why not rather explain what “eternal” means? But no, they go with wages, and explain it wrong.

Wages is the payment for labour – the reward for work done. To explain wages in terms of payment, you would have to say that it is payment due, not just payment. The wages of sin are not paid by the sinner, but to the sinner – sin pays its wages to the sinner. Turning “wages of” into “payment for” says that sins are being purchased – and that is not what is happening. Jesus bought sinners, not sins. Jesus did not buy us sins, but he bought us righteousness. He received the payment due for our sins, but rose again to give us life – where o death is thy sting. If you think that he made payment, then it makes a little less sense why he rose again.

Revelation 20:14-15, 21:8

KJV: Revelation 20:14-15: And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

No change, no problem.

Revelation 21:8: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

No change, no problem, but seriously, Mr *ER, don’t you think that words like abomniable, whoremongers and brimstone could use a little clarification? Disgusting, fornicating men, molten sulphur – why don’t you want to make that Easy Read? Could it be that you only care about making things that affect certain doctrines easy?

Romans 5:8

KJV Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

*ER Romans 5:8 But God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were yet (still) sinners, Christ died for us.

“Still” is a perfectly good explanation of “yet”, but it can’t substitute for “yet”, because it has the additional meaning of “unmoving” – other than that, no objection here, except for the stupid capitalisation of “His”.

1 Peter 2:24

KJV 1 Peter 2:24: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

*ER 1 Peter 2:24: Who His own self bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

Here is a case where to vs unto makes a difference. To live “unto righteousness” means that we live and actually obtain righteousness. To live “to righteousness” can mean that, but more easily means that we head off in the direction of righteousness with the intention of obtaining it. That is a salvation that is maintained by works.

Acts 16:31

KJV Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

*ER Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Je’sus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house. (John 3:16, Eph 2:8-9)

Not badly mangled, and okay cross references, but again, this “Je’sus” is horribly distracting. It’s like another Jesus – similar, but not the same.

John 3:16

KJV John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

*ER John 3:16 For God so loved the world (ie. the people of the world), that He gave His only begotten Son (Jesus), that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Acts 16:31)

Is there anyone, anyone at all who might misunderstand the meaning of “world” in this verse? Is there anyone at all that would suspect that the Son is someone other than Jesus? Why is it underlined and explained in this verse? Verse 13 and 14, just a few verses back, introduce us to the Son, where the term is not underlined for explanation, but in this more popular verse, a distracting and bland explanation is provided. If the purpose of the explanations is to explain the difficult words, then why are simple words explained so blandly? I believe the explanations serve the purpose of distracting from the text.

Romans 10:13

KJV Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

*ER Romans 10:13 For whosoever (whoever) shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Joel 2:32)

Wait a bit! Is “upon” not an ancient word that nobody understands? What is it doing here? And why is it not explained, and the simpler “whosoever” is explained as this-word-has-a-‘so’-it-doesn’t-need? And then I went over to Joel 2:32, and they say whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered (saved)”.

Deceptive maps

The maps are an interesting work of singlemindedness. The following “maps” are given:

  • The middle east before the flood

  • Origin of nations from descendants of Noah

  • From the exodus to the judges

  • The land promised to Israel; the kingdoms of David and Solomon

  • Sixth century B.C. Empires

  • Major nations of the Bible then and now

  • Palestine – old and new testament

  • Jerusalem in 66 AD

What about these maps? Something is missing! The map of the churches of the new testament – the travels of Paul; the 7 churches of Revelation; Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Where are these? Why are they missing? Well, the answer is in what is included – only maps with a distinctly Jewish flavour need apply. These maps exist to support the pre-tribulation rapture view of prophecy, and its bastard cousin zionism. 66 AD was the year of the Jewish “great revolt” – an event not recorded in scripture, which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD. Why have a map of this time? Because this is when, as Jesus had foretold, the great Jewish hope was forever destroyed. Why mention it? Because they hope to revive it in the end time – a zombified resurrection of the corrupt religion of the Pharisees with some antichrist reigning as messiah over the restored pretenders. To the drawers of the maps, Jerusalem in the time of Christ is not as important as Jerusalem in the time of the unopposed rule of the party of the Pharisees.

Noah – a little flooddie

There is a map in the back of the book on page 268 titled, “The middle east before the flood (Geesis 2:4-17)”. It lists geographical features such as “?”, showing post-flood names like Gomer and Magog in the north, the garden of Eden (shaped like a tree), the tree of life (marked B), the “probable Pison” river, and the “traditional Pison” river, the Gihon River, Havilah and Ethiopia. It is complete and utter speculation. The notion that you can draw a map of the world before the flood is complete unbelief of the record of scripture, and ignorance of nature. The idea that you can place Gomer and Magog on such a map, and further call it by the modern name “the middle east” is unadulterated zionism and speculative pre-tribulation rapture theory (the pre-tribulation rapture likes to get Russia into the mix, as if it is Magog or something).

Here’s what actually happened to the world of that time, without this map being drawn:

Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

It’s gone. All of its geographic features have been rearranged.

And then I wondered how Noah was treated, and I found this turd – repentance is explained as grief – in a verse which has “grief” independently:

KJV Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

*ER Genesis 6:6 And it repented (grieved) the LORD (El(s.f.) that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

There is also a bizarre explanatory note for Genesis 6:16. The explanatory note here says that you should be uncertain about what a window is. Perhaps someone might be confused that this refers to windows, the operating system made by Microsoft, so they are at pains to point out that it is perhaps a … roof. That’s not an explanation. That’s just doubt. It’s a breach of the promise of the preface, that these explanatory words “will often open up the meaning of a word”.

KJV Genesis 6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

*ER Genesis 6:16 A window (roof?) shall you make to the ark, and in a cubit shall you finish it above; and the door of the ark shall you set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shall you make it.

Map: origins of nations from descendants of Noah

It has this “gem” on page 269: “[H] HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION… Through the Sciences of Archaeology, Anthropology and Linguistics confirm research data that three factors can alter Genetic Coding in small populations. They are: Excessive Climate Change, Excessive Diet Change and Extreme Stress. The Sovereignty of God Implanted Latent Genes; this change is not through Mutations.” No, I did not make up that capitalisation and punctuation, nor the meaninglessness of the sentences of words without meaning.

How many damnable heresies can you spot in this?

  • Revered and capitalised science falsely so called: these sciences are not experimental science but bean counting

  • Climate Change, a doctrine of modern atheism, revered with capitalisation. Diet Change and Extreme Stress, supposed drivers of evolution by natural selection are revered with capital letters, and pretended to be the cause of differences between nations.

  • Racism: There are differences between men which are through mutations which we will pretend are God’s original design.

  • Calvinism: Sovereignty revered – God’s inexorable will in forming one race for honour, and another for dishonour, predestination and all that. Who would have thought that God is racist.


When you treat Hebrew as a sacred language with hidden meaning in the sound of its words, then you are promoting one aspect of Zionism. And sure enough, the other aspects are there too:

KJV Genesis 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

*ER Genesis 12:7 And the LORD (Jehovah(sf)) appeared to A’bram, and said, To your seed (descendants) will I give this land: and there built he an altar unto the LORD (Jehovah(sf)), who appeared unto him. (Acts 7:5, Gal 3:16)

Here the cross reference giveth, but the footnote taketh away. The cross reference says that it’s Jesus. The footnote says that it’s random descendants:

KJV Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

*ER Acts 7:5 And he gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet He promised that He would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed (descendants) after him, when as yet he had no child. (Genesis 12:7)

Actually, now that I read this: it was promised to him personally, even though he never set foot on it. Either that means that God broke his promise, or he actually promised two things: land to Abraham, and land to his seed, which is Christ. They want to take away what is Christ’s, and give it to the supposed descendants of Abraham after the flesh, whose real claim to fame is rejecting him for thousands of years. They have it wrong.

KJV Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Underlined words misplained

In practice the underlined words are frequently explained incorrectly. Yes, misplained is not a word, but neither are these explanations correct, nor consistent.


KJV Psalms 109:11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.

Do you know what an extortioner is? It it like a gangster boss, who takes your money for “protection”? No, apparently it’s a “creditor”. Actually “exortioner catch” means “creditor seize”. Who would have thought that the word meant something so very different?

But it was not necessary to explain what an extortioner is in any of these verses:

KJV Isaiah 16:4 Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler: for the extortioner is at an end, the spoiler ceaseth, the oppressors are consumed out of the land.

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

1 Corinthians 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Yes children, one of the hard words in the KJV bible is “your” – it needs to be underlined and given a note of explanation. Here’s the verse with the tricky “your”:

KJV 1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

*ER 1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, you(p) do wrong, and defraud, and that your(p)(i.e. to your) brethren.

That’s just wrong. You can say “you do wrong to your brethren” but you cannot say “you defraud to your brethren”. They have misunderstood “do wrong” as being the verb “do” and the noun “wrong”, where it is the verb wrong.

You do wrong your brethren
You defraud your brethren
You wrong your brethren, you do.

howl for vexation of spirit

KJV Isaiah 65:14 Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.

*ER Isaiah 65:14 Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you(p) shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit (i.e. cry with a heavy heart).

No. Vexation is to be provoked. Howling is to scream. This is a scream of frustration, not being overcome with sadness.


Did you neglect to pay attention in school? Well, the KJVER will teach you something new. The word “teach” does not mean to impart knowledge and wisdom. No, like all the modern versions agree, here’s what it means:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Matthew 28:19 Go you(p) therefore, and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Did it occur to anyone at all that when the Bible says “temptations”, it actually means “temptations” and not “trials”?

KJV James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

*ER James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when you(p) fall into divers temptations (various trials);

The word trial is used in the Bible (1 Peter 1:7, 4:12) – so the translators were not ignorant of the word, and yet they chose to use “temptations” here. When you get tempted, it’s a big laugh – it should be pure joy. Your faith should come out better.


They went search and replace for all the instances of “begat” and replaced them with “fathered”. What on earth does “fathered” mean here?

KJV James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

*ER James 1:18 Of his own will fathered He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.

But sometimes it’s okay to be begotten, rather than fathered, but it must be explained:

KJV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

*ER 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten (i.e. through spiritual birth) us again unto a lively (living) hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

But wait until you get them both together, and see what a confusing mess it is to Easy Read:

KJV 1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

KJV 1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

*ER 1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Je’sus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loves Him that fathered loves Him also that is begotten (born) of Him.

*ER 1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep (obey) His commandments.

Here, by changing from “begat” to “fathered”, the agreement between born-begat-begotten in verse 1 is broken, and you cannot see that we are to love the children of God, because all of the “Him”’s are capitalised. If they were capitalising correctly, it would read more like “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of Him.” This is the first and greatest commandment in the law, and the second is like it.


Ever wondered with righteousness is? Apparently it’s like justice. And unrighteousness? Well, that’s injustice:

KJV 1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

*ER 1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness (injustice) is sin: and there is a sin not to death.

Again changing “unto” to “to” makes the sentence squishy. It says rather simply that not every sin will get you dead, but that second one could mean that some sins tend to condemn the innocent, but not all do so.

Also, ever wondered what sin is? Apparently sin is injustice. Who would have thought. Except that it’s only injustice in some contexts. In the context of 1 John 1:9, it means what it says:

KJV 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The concordance

The dictionary / concordance at the end of this book has been prepared for a non-KJV Bible. Including it with the lightest touch of editing is just lazy. It includes things that do not appear in the KJV, nor in this particular odious edition.

Definitions to make you friends with Rome, the mother of harlots:

  • “Advent”, “Maundy Thursday”, “Good Friday”, “Epiphany”, “Beatitudes”, “bendiction”

  • “Easter, a Sunday in Spring when Christians celebrate Jesus’ resurrection (see Jesus, his life).” Why “Spring” is capitalised is anyone’s guess. Also, this definition is wrong (in the Bible it refers to the feast and the days after it), but especially wrong in the southern hemisphere.

  • “cross, symbol used by the Christian church because Jesus died on a cross.” That is the weirdest definition of cross ever. It is an appeal to tradition, and it explains nothing.

It also includes misleading definitions:

  • “pray, communicate with God (asking, thanking, praising, confessing)”. For context, consider the first occurrence of “pray” in the Bible, and by this definition, Sara is God: Genesis 12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

  • “Zealot” – with a reference to Luke 6:15 – “who was called the Zealot” – but the text says Simon Zelotes – not quite the “zealot” they were looking for.

  • “harlot, a woman who mates with men for money.” What kind of perverted mind wrote that definition? Men do not “mate” unless you are an evolutionist that thinks we are a bunch of apes.

  • “kneading bowl” – actually, kneadingtrough. In Exodus 8:3, the explanatory note makes it “kneading trough(bowl)” – so they are giving definitions for the footnotes. Either the dictionary was for something like the NASB or they prefer the altered reading. (Ha ha, I typed goofnotes. That’s about right.)

  • “Jews, people tracing their beginning to Abraham; Hebrews, Israelites” – no, Jews are the people of the country of Judah. We trace our beginning to Abraham, since we have faith like he did. This is pushing zionism, as if the modern Jews have anything to do with Abraham.

  • “booth, a room built of branches of trees and often used at festival time (Sukkoth) to remind the Hebrews of the days God cared for them while they traveled in the wilderness (Deut 16:13)” Why is there a foreign word in this definition? Because zionism, that’s why.

  • “hell, a place or way of punishment for those who turn against God; furnace of fire, outer dark.” We’re not sure where or what this is, but it’s hard to get there, you would think. Actually, you need to overcome to avoid burning in the lake of fire for all eternity.

  • “God, he who made and rules the universe and is worshipped by man; Crator; Father; Lord; the Almighty; Holy One; Yahweh” … sorry, WHAT? WHO? Who is this “YAHWEH”? The Germans started writing “Jaweh” around the 1850’s, but that’s pronounced “Javeh”. You can’t just take letters from German where they say “V” and bring them to Engish to say “W” and pretend it’s business as usual. This is not the only occurrence of this misname in this book.

  • “repent, to feel sorry for having done wrong”. “repentance, a change in one’s life because he is sorry for having done wrong.” These definitions make God a sinner who does wrong. They are just wrong.

This entry was posted in Stuff and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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