To answer this question requires the consideration of other underlying questions. The first one is, What necessitated the development of the King James Bible? Contrary to what some may think, it was not the lack of an English Bible but due to the fact that there were several English versions in use. In England, the Church of England was the established state church, and the king was its head, even as he is today. 

Among the versions being used was the Tyndale New Testament, translated in A.D. 1525. Unfortunately, William Tyndale was put to death in A.D. 1536. At the time of his death, he had only translated fifteen of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, and it had to be finished by others. 

Tyndale's translation was included in the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew's Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop's Bible (1568). Using these various versions in the Church of England became an issue because of the lack of uniformity in the various congregations throughout the realm. Therefore, King James I was approached about having an "Authorized Version" to provide uniformity. At the front of many older Bibles is a copy of the authorization to show that they were an "authorized version." Certainly, there is much more detail, but these were the predominant facts. 

The scholars commissioned to translate by King James I produced what we term as the King James Version. They relied greatly on the Tyndale Version. Tyndale used both the ancient copies and the Vulgate Version. The King James translators also utilized the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible, which were popular at that time. Thus, the King James translators used a combination of these various renderings. 

I believe the Lord inspired the production of this version and that it is the best English version. It has proven itself to be effective over the centuries in producing the saving of multiplied thousands of souls and in bringing a people to "the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

I believe the King James Version should be our mainstay, or standard. The Apostle Paul penned in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and that is so. However, the Scriptures were not originally written in English. Many words (especially Greek words) have several definitions. Unfortunately, the translators did not always translate every word correctly. Thus, it behooves us to "study" (2 Timothy 2:15) so "the Spirit of truth" (John 16:13) can enable us to be "rightly dividing the word of truth." 

The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance assigns a number to the Hebrew and Greek words. Then defined therein are the accurate words from the Greek and Hebrew. These may have originally been translated from the Bishop's or Geneva Bibles (or others), and then placed in the King James Version. It picks up, as the origin, those Greek and Hebrew words. I feel the numbers assigned and the definitions are accurate and dependable

We must first consider the context in which this verse is housed. Beginning in Hebrews 9:18, the sacred writer spoke of "the first testament," and he wrote, "Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood." Then, he continued to speak of the institution of the old covenant in the succeeding verses. 

In verse 20, he penned, "Saying, This is the blood of the testament [quoting Exodus 24:8]." Verse 22 tells us, "Almost all things are by THE LAW purged with blood; [the semicolon indicates a continuation] and without shedding of blood is no remission." This is clearly talking about the position of "blood" under "the law." 

Verse 22 alludes to the words of the Law recorded in Leviticus 17:11. Under the old covenant, there was the "shedding of blood." Hebrews 9:7 explains on that Day of Atonement, "Into the second [room of the Old Testament Tabernacle] went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood." This "blood" came from "the sin offering" (Exodus 30:10), which required an animal's blood to be shed. 
Contextually, Hebrews 9:22 is speaking of what occurred under "the law." It is not speaking of "the blood of Christ," spoken of earlier (Hebrews 9:14). Just as those under the old economy looked forward each year to the Day of Atonement, in like manner, those who embraced John's message looked forward in faith. They were instructed "that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus" (Acts 19:4). 

When they did that, they became "just men" (Hebrews 12:23). The adherents of John's message were justified by their faith. They were looking forward to that new day of atonement. Their "remission" was based on the blood to be shed and offered as an atonement. The distinction was the superiority of "the blood of Christ" (Hebrews 9:14), the atonement He provided, and the redemptive plan He instituted by the shedding of that "blood." This is another element of transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. (See the Q&A section of the February 2026 issue for more detail concerning the transition time.) They looked forward to the redemptive work, and we look back to it. 

When Christ shed His blood, it was first applied "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament" (Hebrews 9:15). That included those who were baptized under John's ministry. (The February 2026 issue provides more detail and insight concerning the work and position of John the Baptist, or Baptizer.) When they believed, there was justification, but the "remission" did not truly occur until Christ shed His blood on the Cross and the New Testament atonement plan was implemented. 

Earl R. Borders