The WallBuilders Show
The WallBuilders Show is a daily journey to examine today's issues from a Biblical, Historical and Constitutional perspective. Featured guests include elected officials, experts, activists, authors, and commentators.
The WallBuilders Show
Pilgrims, Kings, And Aiken Bibles
What if the Founders didn’t reject the King James Bible at all—but rejected the politics that tried to own it? We open the archive and walk through the real story: why early American leaders printed Bibles in King James language while stripping the king’s name from the title page, how the Aitken Bible won congressional endorsement during the Revolution, and why Noah Webster’s 1833 update aimed to make Scripture plain for everyday readers. Along the way, we spotlight the Geneva Bible’s enduring appeal—not just for its translation, but for the reformers’ commentary that empowered laypeople to measure rulers by the Word, not the other way around.
From Pilgrims packing both Geneva and King James aboard the Mayflower to Witherspoon and Isaiah Thomas selecting KJV language for major printings, the thread is consistent: clarity, access, and self-government in the church. That posture shaped a culture where Scripture informed civic life without bowing to royal branding. Then we pivot to another contested narrative: slavery’s end in Britain and the United States. We read the secession documents that placed slavery at the center of the split, track Lincoln’s move from preserving the Union to emancipation, and explain why America required both war and constitutional amendments to finish the work.
This conversation doesn’t dodge the cost. We weigh Lincoln’s sobering reflection that national bloodshed might match the blood drawn by the lash, and we situate America’s abolition within a global timeline—acknowledging that slavery still persists in various forms today. If you’re ready to trade myths for evidence—from rare Revolutionary Bibles to primary-source secession texts—this episode brings receipts and context in equal measure.
If this resonated, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves history, and leave a review telling us which source or takeaway sparked new insight.
Rick Green [00:00:07] Welcome to the WallBuilders Show, the intersection of faith and culture. Thanks for joining us on this Thursday. It's a Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Of course, all issues, we approach them from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective, but especially on Thursdays, you get to decide what that topic will be, and then we'll approach it from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton. Guys, we've got a lot of great questions. We'll see how many we can get to. The first one is from James Moore. And he said, Because King James I wasn't a favorite among our founding fathers, they preferred using the Geneva Bible. Since both the Geneva Bible and King James Bible were used by troops during the Civil War, in what years did the King James Bible begin to be more prominent among the people of the United States? All right, good Bible history question here, guys.
Tim Barton [00:00:51] Well, yeah, it is a great question. And you know, guys, certainly as we can dive into some of the thoughts of the transitions of translations. There's some really fun examples, like Noah Webster, who came up with the first modern translation of a Bible in the English language. As Webster was doing his dictionary, one of the things that came out shortly after was his English translation of the Bible. And in the front, he pointed out that part of his research he had done with like the dictionary, for example, there was a lot of words that in tracking some of the roots and origins, he realized that some of the words that were used in the Bible are not the words in common vernacular anymore. And he wanted to make sure that people understood what some of these words were. And so, as a word expert, he actually does a modern translation of the Bible and but specifically identifies he says, Hey, from the King James, I took this word and I made it of this word, so there's no confusion at all from that Bible thought.
David Barton [00:01:46] And by the way Tim, you said that was the first modern translation. We're talking eighteen thirty-three. So that's kind of different modern from what most people think, but that is the first modern translation in the United States was eighteen thirty-three.
Tim Barton [00:01:58] And the idea that today people look at the King James and they're like, you know, some of these words are hard to understand. And you're talking back in the eighteen thirties when people were much closer to that kind of English. But let me back up and start with maybe a little bit of a misconception of even the founding fathers, the idea that they really didn't like the King James, they liked the Geneva. More specifically, they did not like the politics behind the King James Bible, and they liked the politics behind the Geneva, but that didn't have as much to do with the translation. The founding fathers, I really haven't found much evidence with them being critical at all of the King James translation. And actually we can go further. One of the reasons we actually can probably know this is that so many of the founding fathers that became part of Bible societies, when they printed Bibles in America, they were actually using the King James language and much of those Bibles. They just on some occasions, like when John Witherspoon was helping get a Bible done in New Jersey, they just removed King James from the title of the Bible. So, it's still the same translation as the King James translation, just doesn't have the title, King James. And one of the things that you kind of can point back to the founding fathers, that they believed, as did many of the early kind of reformers might not be the right word, although kind of that the Puritans, the pilgrims, many of the early Christians and believers, especially the ones that were separatists that were dissenters, that came to America. They pointed out that it was King James and his pride and arrogance that put his name on the Bible. That was never right what should have happened. Those weren't King James's words. Those were God's words. And it was only in his pride and arrogance that he'd put his name there. And I say that out in context because the founding fathers largely embraced much of that view. So, when they started printing Bibles, they said, We're not putting a King's name on our Bible. And in fact, for John Witherspoon, he said, no man's name should ever be associated with the holy word of God. That's God's word. That's not somebody else's word. Now, all of this, I know that's a lot, but to kind of connect some dots and finish unpacking this bag all the way. The founding fathers were not opposed to the translation that King James did by and large. They were opposed to the politics that was behind it that was arguing for the divine right of kings, etc. And they were much more on the side of some of the early reformers who pointed out we should just go back and do what the Bible says, not what some religious leader tells us. And the reformers were really making the concerted effort to help people go back and read the Bible for themselves, understand it for themselves. Now, with all that being said, we could track some transitions of the King James. We can go through different influences in the Bible, civil war, even up to modern time. There's been a lot of influence, but. And Dad, Rick, you guys obviously jump in with your thoughts and opinions. I don't think it's correct to say the Founding Fathers were anti the King James translation. I think it was much more the politics behind it, not the way it was translated. What do you guys think?
David Barton [00:05:01] Yeah, and Tim building on what you just said, I mean when you look literally at the Bibles the Founding Fathers produced in America, the first one we point to is seventeen eighty-one, eighty-two, the Bible of the revolution. It's a King James language Bible. We'd go to seventeen ninety-one, the one you mentioned, Witherspoon.
Tim Barton [00:05:17] Hey, by the way, Dad, what the one you're referring to, that's the Aiken Bible. This is a big deal for people listening. That is the Bible, then also known as the Bible of the Revolution. That's the Bible that actually in the front of the Bible, there was an endorsement from Congress, which actually there was the authorization, then the approval and the endorsement from Congress in the front of that Bible. And it's one of many, many really fun things you can point to when someone says, Yeah, the founding fathers weren't religious, or there's a separation of church and state. You can go, wait, nope. Go to the Bible that the founding fathers and Congress not only approved and authorized; they endorsed it that every American should read it. But to your point, that one that came out in 1782, the Aiken Bible or the Bible of the Revolution, that is one using King James language.
Rick Green [00:06:08] Now you guys gotta tell everybody you have one of those. There's only like what twenty-eight or thirty or something like that. You have two of those that are still in existence in the collection.
Tim Barton [00:06:17] We have two of those. We actually helped our friend Glenn Beck get one. And there might have been another one up at auction. And I don't want to tell like, no, you know what? Hey, here's what happened, guys. Auction's already over. So don't go find it and bid on it. And I'm saying that, please don't go bid on it. Don't challenge us. We're trying to help somebody else acquire one right now. But I mean, Dad, in your 30 or 40 years of collecting, we've only seen these four become available from collectors or from institutions that were selling them. And by the grace of God, we've largely been able to acquire these, and they are that significant, consider one of the rarest Bibles in the world, certainly one of the most significant Bibles ever done in America. And yes, by the grace of God, we actually own two of those. Super, super cool Bibles.
David Barton [00:07:06] Yeah. So that one is that's as you point out, Congress, the Founding Fathers, they chose King James for their language on that. You mentioned the one from John Witherspoon, chose language of King James. There was another large Bible done that same year, 1791, a family Bible printed by Isaiah Thomas, chose King James language. If you go to 1812, Founding Father Benjamin Rush signed the declaration, ratified the Constitution, starts the first Bible Society in America, the Bible they produced, King James language. If you go to eighteen sixteen, when the founding fathers started the first National Bible Society, American Bible Society, their first Bible came out in eighteen seventeen, King James language. I don't know of any Bible that the Founding Fathers produced or that's associated with them that is Geneva in it's now I have no doubt Geneva was studied at Harvard, at Yale at all the colleges, because that's part of the literary history, that's part of the classical history they would study. They knew that, and we know that there's some quotes from Founding Fathers that has Geneva kind of language in it. But what we see from them is they continually repeatedly chose that King James language. Now Tam, as you pointed out, they didn't like King James because as you mentioned with Witherspoon, isn't it's not King James's Bible, it's God's Bible. So, no man's Bible should be associated with it. And you mentioned the politics as well. They just didn't like the fact that King James is telling you what Bible is authorized and what Bible is you're going to use and what Bible is our Bible. Now the founding fathers chose it 'cause they like the language and translation, etcetera, but they're just not gonna have the king cram it down their throats it's the official Bible o of the British Empire.
Rick Green [00:08:46] I was wondering too, guys, if the perception of the founders being anti King James and only Geneva or whatever, which you made it clear that's not the case, is that maybe carrying over a hundred and fifty years before where the pilgrims were we we view them as being so pro Geneva Bible? Like I thought that was what their main source was.
David Barton [00:09:05] Well, I think it's not kind of anti-King James. I think it's kind of anti-King James, anti-Qeen Elizabeth, anti-King Charles, anti-King Queen, anybody. You know, they were in that they were what what's called low church, and that they believe the congregation is where the power is, not the leader over the congregation. And so in that low church, which you can kind of call it a Republican or maybe even a democratic church church body, where that the people were in charge rather than a single leader telling you what your theology is going to be. And you know, they did bring the King James over with them on the Mayflower and on the Speedwheels they started. They didn't finish the Speedwheel. It turned back because of leaks, but they brought the King James with them. And I think what really made the Geneva so significant was it had the commentaries of the reformers who had been challenging the tyranny of the state church over the previous several centuries, literally. So, you're going back and you're picking up that there were essentially seven different nations, about twenty-three, twenty-four major reformers, they were criticizing, saying, guys, what the state church is doing is not what the Bible says. And so, I think those commentaries is really what was significant to them out of the Geneva, not necessarily that translation per se, because they did have the King James, but it it's really more of the tone and politics of the time.
Tim Barton [00:10:25] And I think too, for the pilgrims, what was so valuable as for many people in the Reformation was having a Bible they could read and understand.
Rick Green [00:10:32] Yeah.
Tim Barton [00:10:32] Because you know, one of the things we talk about with Governor Bradford is late in life, one of his ambitions was to learn Hebrew so he could read the Bible in its original language, or at least read the Bible and understand maybe some of the way that God spoke or what it sounded like at the beginning. And why that matters is because by and large, they weren't a highly educated group of people. So, they didn't know Latin. And so, the value for them was not the Geneva Bible in exclusivity, but rather it was a Bible in words that they could read and comprehend to some extent. And that's why they weren't anti-the King James translation, just like the founding fathers. They were anti-the politics behind it, but not the words used in it, because they didn't know the Greek or the Hebrew or the Aramaic. They couldn't go back and compare and say, well, this one's a good translation, this one's not. They didn't have that ability, capability, knowledge, etc. They were just so grateful to have a Bible in words they could understand, read and apply to their daily living, which is what they did. But Dad, to your point, that's also why the Geneva was so helpful for them, because it had commentary that was explaining to them what some of these books or passages were about that they had no context, no background understanding on. And that's why the Geneva was so valuable for them. But as they're gaining more insight, as they're spending more and more time reading, we know again to reiterate, they had King James and Geneva Bibles with them on the Mayflower. And it for them it was much more valuable that they had the Bible in a language they could understand. It's just that the Geneva Bible was the one that had broken through, the first one largely available to man and quote unquote the common language of man. And so the Geneva Bible really is the winner in many respects for them, but they had King James Bibles too.
David Barton [00:12:17] And by the way, this is another kind of fun thing, because Tim, you mentioned earlier about the Noah Webster Bible from eighteen thirty-three and it was the first modern translation, but we are talking eighteen thirty-three and calling that modern, which it was for then. And even when you're talking about the pilgrims and hadn't they preferred the Geneva Bible commentaries, they could read it for themselves. And as you pointed out, they weren't really scholars, and they weren't. But I would take the pilgrims and put them up against any professor I know today, and I think that those farmers from back then could whip just about anybody in Bible knowledge, and they weren't the scholars of that day, but that's how well the average individual citizen knew the Bible, particularly if you came out of that separatist movement with the pilgrims and puritans and those guys.
Rick Green [00:13:02] I can see it now. I can see some Puritans in their Puritan outfits walking into a junior Bible quiz competition and just decimating all those kids of today. It'd be great. We should do a, you know, our own version of the WallBuilders Saturday Night Live, you know, skits and it would be hilarious. All right guys, quick break. We've got some more questions coming from the audience in just a second. Stay with us folks. You're listening to Foundations of Freedom on the WallBuilders Show.
Rick Green [00:14:33] Welcome back to the WallBuilders Show. Thanks for staying with us. It's Foundations of Freedom Thursday. And you can send your questions into radio at WallBuilders.com, radio at WallBuilders.com. Dennis is up next. He said, I heard a preacher say this of late. We settled our slavery issue through the Civil War, but England did not. Can you offer some insight and commentary? I'm thinking he's asking why did England not have to have a Civil War to settle their issue? I think that's what he's asking, but maybe not. How do you guys interpret that question?
Tim Barton [00:14:59] Well, Rick, I think maybe the way that I would even interpret this is what is the story behind it? And actually, I feel like this is safe if we just tell the story. Then whatever they were asking with the question, hopefully we've answered it in the story. And I do think it's significant. One of the things that we would point out is when you look at the nations that have ended slavery, and of course, we have spent time over the years talking and trying to explain this to people when even now in in the world position today. There was a study that came out, I think it was 2021 by the UN or at the UN, and it was a research report that identified that that of the 193 nations that are part of the UN, 94 of them had still not passed laws to criminalize slavery in those nations. And the reason I say this is one of the things that is unique about America is we are one of the only nations where we fought a war, white people fought against other white people, and at the end of the war they freed all the black people who were slaves. That that is a significant thing. England definitely did work to end slavery. And this is where you have guys like William Wilberforce and just great stories surrounding him, the way that God used him in incredible ways. We could also talk about maybe some of the connection Wilberforce and even the abolition movement in England, some of the connection with America, because even over in England, one of the things they were arguing is that all men are created equal. Well, like, guess where some of that verbiage came from? Right. This is the literal verbiage of the declaration used by abolitionists in America. And not surprising, there's a lot of people in America that are connected with people in England, right? A lot of family and friends and ancestors, right? Connection between America and England. And so, there's it's not surprising, there's overlap. Now, with that being said, if you back up and look at some of the big picture story in America, when you look at the fact that there was a civil war in America, the reason there was a civil war, and dad, sometimes you like to call this the war of rebellion, and depending on what state you're in, and we're gonna try to be careful telling the truth, but knowing that some states still are like, this wasn't a civil war, it was a war of northern aggression. And if you're in a northern state, you're like, no, this was the war of rebellion by the South. One of the things that I think is so lost in the conversation is a lot of narratives have been formed when people have not done very much history research. And if you look at the 11 states that seceded leaving the Union to form the Confederate States of America, they actually, five of them released a declaration of causes, which was their own version of the declaration of independence. So, like for example, when South Carolina when Abraham Lincoln wins his election, now he's not even inaugurated yet. He wins his election in November. In December, South Carolina releases their ordinance of secession, which is their official statement saying we're leaving, and then they release a declaration of causes. Where they give an explanation. And again, this is like their declaration of independence. They give the explanation for why they are leaving the union. And what they say is, we know we can't stay in a place that's ultimately gonna make us end slavery and free all our slaves. So, we're going to form a new place where we can keep slaves. And anybody that wants to come join us in keeping slavery alive, come join us. Now, obviously, I'm giving a very rough synopsis, but I would encourage somebody, go look up and see what they said. Because what I'm telling you is actually a pretty accurate synopsis of what they said. Slavery was not the only reason South Carolina wanted to leave, but it was the number one reason. And they reiterated it over and over and over. And this is part of what leads ultimately when Lincoln says initially, we got to do whatever we can to keep the Union together. That is the most important thing because nobody wants to be the president that the nation falls apart under, right? Like you don't want to be that guy. Well, that's where Lincoln starts saying we just got to keep this together. But once he realizes that this war, like it's happening, right? You're not stopping this thing. Eventually he comes aside and says, Well, if we're already at war, then we might as well just accomplish what we want to accomplish, no matter how much it makes the other side angry because we're already at war. So let's do this emancipation proclamation, right? Let's start this process to end slavery in the South. And ultimately, this leads to the 13th Amendment. Which is done in December of 1865. Now that's I think it's when it's ratified. It goes to the House and the Senate earlier in the year. And this is part of that process where when we look at America and England and where we are different and why we are different. America, we had colonies in America as soon as we signed the declaration that started passing laws to abolish the slave trade and abolish slavery, and we did that way before England did. Now we didn't do it as a nation way before England did, but all of the northern colonies had passed laws for the abolition of slavery by 1804. England didn't abolish slavery till 1833. So, you're talking nearly 30 years before England, every single northern colony had passed laws for the abolition of slavery, and some of that was gradual, some of it was immediate. Like there was obviously there was a little distinction and nuance in some of those laws, but every single northern state was taking steps against slavery. And again, I say that big picture when people look at England and America, these are two of the very first nations anywhere in the world taking these kind of steps. Well, slavery is officially banned in England in 1833, and then you have Denmark and then France, and then America's 1865. So we are the fourth major nation of the world that banned slavery, even though we started before England, all of the northern colonies had had taken those steps before England, but England did it ultimately as a nation as a country in 1833, and then in America. It wasn't it wasn't officially ended until the end of the Civil War when at this point you're talking over 600,000 people had died. And guys, help me on this. My recollection is it was Lincoln who said he did not think the war would be over until enough blood had been spilled from the soldiers to match every drop of blood that had been spilled from the slaves, because he thought this was God's judgment on America for the evil of slavery, is my recollection. Am I remembering that quote right?
David Barton [00:21:27] You are remembering that right. That was that was what he talked about that he thought, you know, there is a just God and he's not going to allow this evil to go unpunished. And so that is what he talked about. He thought that there would be that much shedding of blood until it matched the shedding of blood. And when you're looking at the you know, more than a million that that died over in transit in the African slave trade coming toward the various nations in the West, including America, that's a lot of blood.
Tim Barton [00:21:56] Yeah, and that's not including the people that had come to America that actually had suffered abuse in America, right? Because some of the conditions of slavery in different places, like it was ghastly how bad it was in some places. Obviously, right, there could be some nuance, and there might be people that would want to be apologists and say, well, slavery wasn't always bad all the time. Well, okay, like granted, not everybody was beaten to death. Yes, that is correct, but there were some people beaten to death. Like that, this is a real thing on the scale of how slaves were treated. Yeah, it's a scale, and not everyone was treated as awful as everybody else. But this is like to Lincoln's point, and Dad, let me back up to your point of the slave trade. I think it's estimated there's about 12.7 million slaves that were taken off the continent of Africa over the nearly 400 years of the North Atlantic slave trade, and about 10 and a half million made it to the destination, which means over 2 million of those 12.7 million died in transit on the awful conditions on those slave trade ships. And then again, not to mention that depending on where they went, if they were arrived in South America, in Cuba, Jamaica, some of these places where the average lifespan was one, two, three years for the slaves once they arrived, because of how brutal the conditions were. It was awful. But I do think Lincoln's statement about the bloodshed for the slave matching that of the soldier, I do think he was probably talking about America and the history of slavery in America over those several hundred years. And Not to get into the nuance of slavery in America in great detail, other than that it again, why America was unique and different is in a world that even today, slavery still exists in many places of the world. Slavery is legal and and nations of the world, they have slave trading blocks. You actually can buy and sell slaves. As awful and evil as it is, human trafficking right now is out of control in so many places. In fact, in America, with the open southern border we had for so long, there's been an awful, again, evil surge of human trafficking in America. And as we're looking at all this evil that's been going on, it back up historically. This is legal around the world today. But historically, America, not only were we the fourth major nation in the world to end slavery, and it's estimated there's about 128 nations in the world at the time when we in slavery. So, we came in fourth place of all those nations as a nation as a whole, but we were the only nation where we fought a war that white people fought against other white people, and at the end they freed all the black people. That is a very significant thing. And I'm saying this again, this is a little bit of apologetic thought. That today people look and go, well, America is the worst because we had slavery. Slavery still exists all over the world. And this is not a justification for America. This is adding context to the conversation that I don't disagree was evil. But we should celebrate the fact that we fought a war and ended that evil. And there's a lot of nations that have not gone that far yet, that it's still legal, it's still happening. We should celebrate that there were people dedicated enough, that people laid down their lives to try to bring an end to that evil institution in America. That is worth celebrating.
David Barton [00:25:05] And I'd add a couple other points to that. Yeah, we we ended ours with because of war in Great Britain didn't have a war. But you know, that's a difference in government too. That's because in Great Britain, when the king says you do something, you do something. And you don't say, wait a minute, I object to that. It's not like you have an individual will in that same way. We're over here. We were independent enough. We were self-governed enough that people said, no, I I'm not doing that. That that leader doesn't represent my views. We still have that kind of stuff going on today. And I would argue that in America, we actually did end it with legislation, the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment, and we had a civil war along the way to make sure that we got it ended. But it took legislation on our part. It wasn't just the war. Because we won the war isn't what ends slavery. We won the war and then we had legislatures ratified, including Southern legislatures, ratified the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment. But again, it's a difference in American attitudes versus Great Britain's attitudes where when the king says you do it, you do it, and you don't question that and you don't have a revolution. Over here, we're still a little more independent minded.
Rick Green [00:26:09] Yeah, and I had a student ask me this recently as, you know, there have been scholars, quote unquote, that have that have said, you know, we didn't have to fight the war. We would have ended slavery in another couple of decades. And I said, you know, the founders thought it would end in a couple of decades. And then that next generation thought it would end in a couple of decades. And the racist Democrats in the South were not going to let go. It we I just don't see a scenario where it would have ended any time soon for sure. So great question. And other questions we didn't get to today. We'll try to get to those next week on Thursday, but you can send yours in to radio@wallbuilders.com. Thanks so much for listening. Don't miss Good News Friday tomorrow. You've been listening to the WallBuilders Show.
