Facebook Twitter Google Digg Reddit LinkedIn Pinterest StumbleUpon Email

Go to the Home Page

Distinguishing features of the Kingdom Bible translation from other Bible translations

The Golden Ratio Format

By far, the first and most important distinctive of the Kingdom Bible Version is the Golden Ratio format arrangement, which is exclusive to all versions published by JHS Publishing. All other Bible versions to date have either continued to rely on the old Chapter and Verse system of Robert Stephanus from the Middle Ages (e.g. the KJV), or only half-heartedly attempted to group the text, but with continued reliance upon the overall organization structure of the Stephanus Chapters and Verses. The reality is that you cannot go half-way with organizing the Bible correctly: it must be 100% Golden Ratio format or not at all. And if you attempted to use the Golden Ratio format without explaining why you were using a Division, Volume, Book, Part, Chapter, Section, and Paragraph format, it would make no sense at all. The headings and the UCCOO indicators are absolutely essential to providing the answer to the "Why do it this way?" question.

"Jehovah" is literally translated everywhere in the Bible

 The Kingdom Bible translation is one of the very few in the world today, at least in English, to correctly translate the true Name of God in all places, which is Jehovah. But the KBV goes beyond even those few others, in that citations of Hebrew text in the Greek documents that contain the Name of Jehovah show [Jehovah] in place of "the LORD" where this occurs. For example, the citation of Psalm 110:1 "Jehovah said to my Lord, 'Sit on my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool'" in Matthew 22:44, is shown as "[Jehovah] said to my Lord,...", rather than "The LORD said to my Lord..." as in every other Bible version that I can find. Putting "Jehovah" in brackets indicates that it is the original Hebrew word that is being referred to. The English phrase "the LORD" (used in the KJV) is a "translation of a translation", which is something that hinders correct understanding by putting even more distance between the reader and the actual Bible word, which is Jehovah.

Kingdom Bible Version

1611 King James Version

The practice of using a pseudonym "the LORD" instead of a literal translation of "Jehovah" is an old one, and is based on a Jewish tradition that saying the Name of God is somehow irreverent and/or blasphemous. But is this practice based on sound Biblical thinking? I do not believe so. See these quotes from the Law and the Prophets, who all directly address God by Name, and do not seem bothered by any guilt associated with doing so.

Kingdom Bible Version

1611 King James Version

There are literally thousands of examples that could be cited from the Hebrew text of the Bible. The true God is addressed directly by Name as "Jehovah"; He is also addressed as "Adonai" or "Lord" (same word), along with a variety of other Names, such as El-Shaddai, etc. But his Name is Jehovah. It is a holy Name; it is a beautiful Name. We should use it often, with reverence and godly fear; but it is no sin to speak it or to write it, if we use due reverence.

What about the Name of Jesus? Isn't Jesus the most important Name for Christians? Yes, that is true, but we should never forget that Jesus IS Jehovah!! The Name of Jesus literally translated from the Greek, means "Jehovah Saves"!!

This brings up another discussion about the Trinity, which I believe in wholeheartedly. Suffice it to say in this discussion that Jesus is Jehovah walking in a Temple of flesh (now resurrected); the Holy Spirit is also Jehovah; God the Father is also Jehovah! All three Persons of the Godhead have distinct roles in the Plan of Salvation, and speak as individual Persons in the Scriptures, yet there is only one God. The Trinity is impossible for mankind to understand fully. These concepts are all clearly taught in Scripture, and therefore should be accepted as Divine Truth without question. I do not need to understand the Bible fully to believe what it says; and neither do you. God is always right.

The important thing that I see in this discussion for Christians today, is that we need to have Bible versions that do not lamely attempt to hide the true Name of God from us with the unbiblical excuse that it is a Tradition. Jesus blasted the Pharisees for doing the very same thing:

Quotations of previous statements, including citations of prophetic statements, statements of God, and even previous statements of Jesus Christ, are bold/semibold.

I don't know of any other Bible version that does this, although there may be some. Changing the text font excessively makes the Bible look rather odd, unless there is a very good reason for doing so. Some Bible versions go to extremes in using odd fonts to show "emphasis" on things they want the reader to notice, but the Kingdom Bible only bolds/semibolds quotations, and leaves interpretation to the headings in these situations. I have deliberately tried to keep the text as normal as possible, so as not to distract the reader from the content.


All capitalizations follow conventional modern English grammatical rules, with the following exceptions:

In general, you will never find capitalizations such as "My", "His", "Me", "Yours", etc, unless it occurs at the start of a sentence. The "New KJV", along with other modern versions, is notorious for this abuse of the English language. When reading a Bible version with such odd capitalizations, I feel like I'm driving on a rocky dirt road, hitting all kinds of "bumps" that shouldn't be there.

Capitalizing adjectives that refer to God is a popular practice among Christians when quoting a Bible verse in personal correspondence. I have no objection to seeing it in an email or a letter, as long as it isn't a long quote. But I feel strongly that the Bible itself should use the highest quality of grammar possible, and any deviation from normal rules of grammar needs to be strongly justified. The only words in the Kingdom Bible version that I have capitalized "out of the ordinary" are nouns that directly refer to God, his Temple, or his Word, the Bible. In the KJV, most or all of the words I referenced above are not capitalized at all, due to the different rules of grammar in use in the 17th century. If the only changes in the KJV text were these words, it would be a great improvement all by itself.

Interestingly, I did a quick check of the most popular modern versions on Biblegateway.com and found that not a single one capitalizes the words that I have referenced above. I did not do an exhaustive check, but it seems clear that the Kingdom Bible version is unique in how it capitalizes these words. My question would be "Why wouldn't words that directly reference the Word of God, the House of God, or the Name of God be capitalized?" Could it be that the translators of these versions did not hold a high view of Scripture? The KJV can be excused for not capitalizing these words, since their rules of grammar were much simpler, but modern versions of the Bible are without excuse. I do not believe that they showed proper reverence for God or his Word with their neglect of this important area.

ALL of the directly spoken words of God, including quotations of Jesus Christ, direct quotations of Jehovah in the Hebrew text, and direct quotations of the Holy Spirit, are bold or semibold.

I do not know of any Bible version in existence that follows this pattern other than the Kingdom Bible Version. It occurred to me while updating the KJV text to modern grammatical standards of English, that it made no sense to make only the words of Jesus bold/semi-bold, as most Bible versions that have colored text do. Is Jesus more important or greater than his Father in Heaven or even the Holy Spirit? The answer is clearly NO: all three Persons are co-equal members of the Triune Godhead; yet that is exactly what showing only the words of Jesus in red implies.

I have no doubt that those Bible publishers who implemented this practice in their translations did not intend to imply this perverse idea, but this simply proves that they were sloppy and untrained in their theological thinking. In fact, sloppy theological thinking is the root of the great majority of theological error being propagated in churches today.  The point here is that showing all of the words of God in bold/semibold type, no matter which Person of the Trinity is speaking, promotes theological accuracy and Biblical truth. Jesus is certainly central to the life of the Believer in every way, but we must not go so far that theological balance is lost. Those among God's servants who are privileged to handle the Word of God, whether in the pulpit, the lecturn, or on the printed page, must be extremely careful that we speak and write only balanced Biblical Truth in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20); and therefore we are representatives of the King of kings and Lord of lords. If we speak falsehood in His great Name, we are bringing reproach upon Him, and will give an account to Him at the Bema Seat of Christ; something that should put fear in our hearts (2 Corinthians 5:8-11); and an unbalanced theology is really the root of all heresy.

"Assembly" is used in place of "church" in the entire Bible for the Kingdom Bible Version.

Kingdom Bible Version

1611 King James Version



I made this change for several reasons:

Loyalty to the same basic underlying Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Version

The reference Greek text is "The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages", published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. This Book contains the 1894 Scrivener Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Bomberg text. In these days of widespread apostasy and rebellion against God, most Bible versions now use Greek texts which are derived from the Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) Greek texts as their main supporting translation text, instead of the Textus Receptus group of texts (Beza, Scrivener, etc), as all the very old Bible versions used to do.

All Bible versions published by JHS Publishing use only the Scrivener and Massoretic texts as their underlying texual translation basis. No reference to the corrupted Aleph and B texts are made in any marginal reference, nor as a basis for translation. See this page for detailed reasons as to why Aleph and B are unreliable and should never be trusted by any Christian.

No references to corrupted texts such as the Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) texts are used in the Kingdom Bible

The reasoning for that is this: Does the average Christian who has not been trained in the Word of God have the necessary understanding to be able to discern that a statement such as "Not found in most ancient mss." is misleading? The answer is clearly "No".

All that a statement like that does is add more confusion to the mind of an average Believer, who might come to the wrong conclusion that "Hey, if it's not in the oldest texts, then maybe it isn't real Scripture!" And now, given the clear evidence shown by the Golden Ratio format of the Bible, there is no doubt that some "editor" or "editors" with an unfriendly attitude toward the Word of God were the reason why the Critical texts are missing about 5% of the Greek text by comparison with the Received Text. Therefore, any references to the "most ancient mss." should be avoided, and not included in any Bible version.

I do not accept the popular reasoning that "the oldest Greek texts must be the best and most accurate texts", for a number of reasons, which I must keep short here because of the need for brevity: