Another King James Bible Believer

What about that "archaic" wore TO LET?

What about that “archaic” word “TO LET”?

Those who don't believe any Bible, and more particularly the KJB, is the inspired word of God, frequently criticize the KJB for using words like "to let, prevent, suffer, and conversation". 

This is a bait and switch tactic, a smokescreen, and a poor excuse to get us to switch to a modern bible version which differs from the KJB both in text and meaning in hundreds of verses.  

And it is supremely important to point out the FACT that NO non-King James Bible only Christian really believes there IS or ever WAS such a thing as a complete and inerrant, 100% true words of God Bible in ANY language - including “the” Greek and “the” Hebrew.

If you don’t believe this, then just ask them to show you a copy of this inerrant and complete Bible they supposedly believe in.  They will never do it.

If they tell you that “only the originals are/were inspired”, then they have a faith in a Phantom “bible” that not only they have never seen, probably couldn’t read if they had it, but (more importantly) that THEY KNOW DOES NOT EXIST.

And the originals never did make up an entire Bible - not even close to it.  Always keep these facts firmly in mind when dealing with the King James Bible critics.


The verb "to let" is used in three ways in the King James Bible (and many others, as well).

 "Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind." "planted a vineyard. . .and let it out to husbandmen." 

The third example is the archaic use of to “let”, which means  to withhold or to hinder.

There are still traces of this meaning today. Webster’s defines the noun "a let" as an obstacle, a hindrance, or a delay. In tennis if a ball hits the net, it is called a let ball.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now LETTETH, will LET, until he be taken out of the way."

Romans 1:13 - “Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was LET hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.”

The term “without LET or hindrance” is used in the passport notes of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Thus people who work with immigration, such as border guards, lawyers, policy makers, and many educated people are familiar with the term “without let or hindrance.”

This makes "let" a bit of specialized vocabulary rather than an archaism. 

Also, anybody who plays or watches tennis will know that a “let” is called when a stroke does not count and hinders the gameplay (including when it hits/is hindered by the net and lands in the correct service box). Thus a word such as “let” may be infrequently used today, but it is not entirely obsolete." 

Not only does the KJB use the word "let" in the sense of to hinder or withhold in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, but so also do Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 "shall let till he be taken out of the way.", the Beza N.T. 1599 - "shall LET till he be taken out of the way", the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's N.T. 1745 - "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will do it, until he be taken out of the way.", The Revised Geneva Bible 2005 - “shall LET till he be taken out of the way”, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “only he who now LETS [will let], until he be taken out of the way.” and The Bond Slave Version 2012 - “For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who  NOW LETS WILL LET, until he be taken out of the way.” 

Romans 1:13 "but was LET hitherto"

Romans 1:13 - “oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was LET hitherto,)”.  So too read Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza New Testament 1599, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, God’s First Truth Translation 1999 - “but have been LET hitherto”, The Tomson New Testament 2002, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, and The Mebust Bible 2007 - “but have been LET hitherto”


Isaiah 43:13 "Yea, before the day was, I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall LET it?"  

Again we see this "archaic" use of the word "let" meaning to hinder or restrain.  


Not only does the KJB use the the word in the question "And who shall LET it?" but so too do the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599 - "I will doe it, and who shall let it?", the Bill Bible 1671, the Revised Version of 1885 - "I will work, and who shall let it?", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "I will work, and who shall LET it?", The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012  and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "I will work, and who shall LET it?"

Jewish Virtual Library The Tanakh [Full Text] 1998

“I will work, and who shall LET it?”

Bait and Switch

What I mean by bait and switch is the new versions say in effect "Let us clear up the confusion of the KJB and give you a modern rendering." 

But look at the NKJV and NASB. They have updated the word "let" but have introduced a private interpretation into the passage by capitalizing certain words and not others (NKJV and NASB - compare verses 6-8 and the "he"s and the "His")

The NKJV says, "And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." 

Do you see how they have capitalized some of the "He"s and not others? They are forcing you to look at the passage in a certain way to understand its meaning. Yet there is a totally different way of looking at the passage, which is obscured by these new versions.

If you really believe that God worked in a special way to bring forth the King James Bible and that it is The Standard by which all other translations are to be measured, and it IS the complete and inerrant words of God, then when it comes down to a choice between a slightly “archaic” but INERRANT Bible, versus a more Modern Speech, Easier to Understand version that is NOT the inerrant words of God, but are mixed with errors, both textual and theological, then for me and many other Christians the choice is both simple and clear.

Give us the inerrant words of God as found in the English text of the King James Bible, and accept no inferior substitutes.

May God grant you the understanding, the faith and the courage to do the same.


For examples dealing with words like "prevent", "conversation", "to suffer", "pitiful" See


"Some Thoughts on the "archaic" Language of the King James Bible"

ALL of grace, believing the Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible,

Will Kinney 

Return to Articles

Some Thoughts on the “archaic” Language of the King James Bible.