Is the KJV more than a translation

[he-man]

Modern Translations are NOT more accurate. That is just non-sense. A basic side by side comparison of the KJV vs. the Modern Translations shows that the Modern Translations: 1. Place the devil's name within them. 2. Eliminate the one and only clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7). 3. Eliminate the full teaching on the "Condemnation" in Romans 8:1.
4. Eliminate "through the blood" in Colossians 1:14. 5. Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want you to know how to truly cast him out. There are tons more perversions in the Modern Translations that are too numerous to mention here. But these 5 should give you pause if you care about what God's Word says.

Sorry, but you do not know Koine Greek and hav not looked at the Siniaticus and other older manuscripts that were not avaiable to Erasumas, who ignored the actual Greek and replaced it with 1 John 5:7-8; a spurious translation which has caused many to go astray. Since there is no devil; satan; you have been led astray by tha popular mythology of anti-christianity. See the manuscript here of Matthew 21 and notice verse 17 is missing. You can also check the Vaticanus, Alexandrianus, Beza and many others.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about in (a). Perhaps you can elaborate.

#1. The devil tries to be like Jesus in Daniel 3:

In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?

Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).

"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).

This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),

"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).

Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.

The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!

Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).

#2. The devil tries to take on the name of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.

In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.

But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?

Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).

So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!

Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.

So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.

For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.

Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).

#2. The devil tries to be like God's people.

Many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

The NIV says in Revelation 13:1, "The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name."

Yet, the KJV says in Revelation 13:1, "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy."

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17 says,
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I"). These are the examples in Scripture where the devil tries to insert his name into Scripture. It's very disturbing.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry, but you do not know Koine Greek and hav not looked at the Siniaticus and other older manuscripts that were not avaiable to Erasumas, who ignored the actual Greek and replaced it with 1 John 5:7-8; a spurious translation which has caused many to go astray. Since there is no devil; satan; you have been led astray by tha popular mythology of anti-christianity. See the manuscript here of Matthew 21 and notice verse 17 is missing. You can also check the Vaticanus, Alexandrianus, Beza and many others.View attachment 213688 View attachment 213688

No devil and 1 John 5:7 was added later? Okay. If you say so. But the Bible is clear that there is a being called the devil. For who entered Judas? What type of beings did Jesus cast out into those pigs? Also, the teaching of the Trinity is true. 1 John 5:7 is the one and only verse that clearly teaches it.

See. There are two vines. The Textus Receptus vine (KJV 1769) and the Critical Text vine (Modern Translations). Doing a side by side comparison shows a clear attack on the KJV and not for the better. Doctrines on holiness and the blood atonement, etc. are all watered down your fancy new Modern Translations.

 

[he-man]

That's an excellent point that should have been made by someone or other before now. Every opponent of the KJV says, automatically, that it is not accurate. But when we look at all the modern translations, you cannot find one that is MORE accurate than the KJV, even allowing for some of the controversial areas found in the KJV!

I can leaf through most of these recent creations and, in a few seconds, find numerous errors that are NOT shared by the KJV...but they're errors worded in modern, even slang, language. Whoopee.

Sorry but you do not know Greek, The Johann comma is a spuriou translation andis not included i the earliest manuscripts which Erasumas did not have and instead he followed erronious documents due to popularity.

 

[Albion]

Sorry but you do not know Greek, The Johann comma is a spuriou translation andis not included i the earliest manuscripts which Erasumas did not have and instead he followed erronious documents due to popularity. View attachment 213689

I have a copy of the Jehovah's Witness translation here myself. A good place for promoting it is the Christianity and World Religions forum.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry but you do not know Greek, The Johann comma is a spuriou translation andis not included i the earliest manuscripts which Erasumas did not have and instead he followed erronious documents due to popularity. View attachment 213689

You do not know Bibical Greek either. You did not grow up speaking and writing Biblical Greek. It is a dead language. Come on now.

 

[he-man]

No devil and 1 John 5:7 was added later? Okay. If you say so. But the Bible is clear that there is a being called the devil. Also, the teaching of the Trinity is true. 1 John 5:7 is the one and only verse that clearly teaches it. See. There are two vines. The Textus Receptus vine (KJV 1769) and the Critical Text vine (Modern Translations). Doing a side by side comparison shows a clear attack on the KJV and not for the better. Doctrines on holiness and the blood atonement, etc. are all watered down your fancy new Modern Translations.

Doing a side by side omparison would require the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus to be included; of wich both are older 3rd century manuscripts tha and the "Textus Receptus" is a 10th century manuscript. see the attachedment for Matthew 21 verse 17: and you can see that in 1 John, verse 7-8 is also not included.The word satan; ha-satan simply means an adversary; one who is in oppositom to the plan of Gof. Peter was described as an adversay (satan) because he was against what Jesus was teaching and Christ, therefor, said to Peter: "Get back behind me Peter"

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Doing a side by side omparison would require the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus to be included; of wich both are older 3rd century manuscripts tha and the "Textus Receptus" is a 10th century manuscript. see the attachedment for Matthew 21 verse 17: and you can see that in 1 John, verse 7-8 is also not included.The word satan; ha-satan simply means an adversary; one who is in oppositom to the plan of Gof. Peter was described as an adversay (satan) because he was against what Jesus was teaching and Christ, therefor, said to Peter: "Get back behind me Peter"
View attachment 213690

You are not answering my questions. Who entered Judas? Some fictional concept? What entered those pigs? Cotton candy? Come on now. Think about it.

Side Note:

You also do not know Biblical Greek. So please stop it with the smoke and mirrors illusion like you do know it. You did not grow up speaking and writing Biblical Greek. If you cannot read Greek symbols or write them naturally you really do not know it. Even if you could do so, there is a big difference between knowing what some books says about a language (after it is gone) vs. your growing up in a culture whereby you spoke and wrote that language. Nobody today speaks or writes Biblical Hebrew or Biblcial Greek anymore. Those are languages of the past. You cannot know them with 100% certainty. So please. Just stop. Stop pretending like you know a dead language (When it is impossible to do so).

 

[JackRT]

Just because something is older does not mean it cannot be corrupted or altered.

That is certainly true. However, older does mean that there is a reduced chance of it being corrupted simply there were fewer copyists involved in passing it along. Some corruption is simply copying error --- misspelling, a word or phrase or omitted or duplicated or put in the wrong place. These are usually easy to spot. But some corruption is more subtle because it is deliberate. Almost always when these are traced to their time and place of origin they are found to be attempts to make the document correspond more accurately to the orthodoxy of that particular time and place. In some rare instances they even know the name of the copyist involved.

 

[he-man]

You are not answering my questions. Who entered Judas? Some fictional concept? What entered those pigs? Cotton candy? Come on now. Think about it. If you cannot read Greek symbols or write them naturally you really do not know it. Even if you could do so, there is a big difference between knowing what some books says about a language (after it is gone) vs. your growing up in a culture whereby you spoke and wrote that language. Nobody today speaks or writes Biblical Hebrew or Biblcial Greek anymore.

Who? entered the heart of Judas? Come on now, Judas, by his own admission says the elders, and priests bribed hom with 30 pieces of silver. Judas in his own lust took the money, not satan: James 1:14; Just as Annis lied and she and her husband conspired together.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you know why translations which are based on an eclectic text remove the items mentioned above? It's because they are poorly attributed. Our oldest and best texts do not have these phrases. So either our oldest texts are corrupt and, for some reason, dropped these phrases. Or these phrases were later added by scribes and, while they may convey true doctrine, are not original to the author.

These are not of great consequence, however, because there's nothing in what you mentioned above that cannot be found in some other place of Scripture which is more strongly attributed and not in dispute.

So you say that the above items were "removed" from the Bible. I say that they were added and appear in the KJV. Modern translations are more faithful in returning to the best and oldest documents we have.

Satan has for 6,000 years been in the business of twisting God's words. Remember how the devil added just one word to what God told Adam and thereby led to the very fall of mankind? (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:4). How about when Satan quoted Scripture when tempting Jesus and he twisted it (See Matthew 4).

Sources Used:
Bible Versions: Are There Significant Differences? Corruption Exposed!
<Bible Words Removed from New Versions>

 

[JackRT]

Modern Translations are NOT more accurate. That is just non-sense. A basic side by side comparison of the KJV vs. the Modern Translations shows that the Modern Translations:

1. Place the devil's name within them.
2. Eliminate the one and only clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7).
3. Eliminate the full teaching on the "Condemnation" in Romans 8:1.
4. Eliminate "through the blood" in Colossians 1:14.
5. Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want you to know how to truly cast him out.

There are tons more perversions in the Modern Translations that are too numerous to mention here.
But these 5 should give you pause if you care about what God's Word says.

This begs the question because you a priori accept the KJV as uncorrupted. I find it more likely that it is the KJV itself that is corrupted --- they had only 10 ancient manuscripts to examine whereas we have over 9000, many of them much more ancient, and just as important, they did not have the added value of another 400 years of Biblical scholarship.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Who? entered the heart of Judas? Come on now, Judas, by his own admission says the elders, and priests bribed hom with 30 pieces of silver. Judas in his own lust took the money, not satan: James 1:14; Just as Annis lied and she and her husband conspired together.

Again, who entered Judas?

"Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot,... (Luke 22:3).

The Bible says Satan entered Judas.

 

[Tree of Life]

Satan has for 6,000 years been in the business of twisting God's words. Remember how the devil added just one word to what God told Adam and thereby led to the very fall of mankind? (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:4). How about when Satan quoted Scripture when tempting Jesus and he twisted it (See Matthew 4).

Sources Used:
Bible Versions: Are There Significant Differences? Corruption Exposed!
<Bible Words Removed from New Versions>

Yeah that's what I'm saying. Words have been added to the TR that are not in the original manuscripts. And the KJV has these additions.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This begs the question because you a priori accept the KJV as uncorrupted. I find it more likely that it is the KJV itself that is corrupted --- they had only 10 ancient manuscripts to examine whereas we have over 9000, many of them much more ancient, and just as important, they did not have the added value of another 400 years of Biblical scholarship.

You are not thinking about this logically. Think about it from a spiritual perspective. When you compare the KJV vs. the Modern Translations, it is easy to see that the devil has most to gain by someone believing the Modern Translations because he places his name within them and he waters down and eliminates important doctrines and truths in God's Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yeah that's what I'm saying. Words have been added to the TR that are not in the original manuscripts. And the KJV has these additions.

But they are not additions. Even if they were additions (Which they are not), they actually help to promote the truth of the good things of God like clarity on the Trinity, Jesus, Christ's divinity, the Condemnation, salvation, holy living, etc. The devil's name is also placed within Modern Translations (of which I have shown you, as well).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is certainly true. However, older does mean that there is a reduced chance of it being corrupted simply there were fewer copyists involved in passing it along. Some corruption is simply copying error --- misspelling, a word or phrase or omitted or duplicated or put in the wrong place. These are usually easy to spot. But some corruption is more subtle because it is deliberate. Almost always when these are traced to their time and place of origin they are found to be attempts to make the document correspond more accurately to the orthodoxy of that particular time and place. In some rare instances they even know the name of the copyist involved.

Again, older does not mean it is better. Documents can still be corrupted no matter the time period. So your point is not relevant to the truth. Also, a side by side comparison clearly shows that more good things are eliminated from God's Word and Modern Translations say things that are absolutely crazy.

 

[he-man]

Again, who entered Judas?

"Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot,... (Luke 22:3).

The Bible says Satan entered Judas.

No, the bible says the adversay enter his heart, besides the fact that if your stan were real Judas's heart would have split open and he wold have died instantly. Can you see how rediculous your statement is? The metaphor simply means the Lust of Judas caused him to betray Christ. James 1:14

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry, but you do not know Koine Greek and hav not looked at the Siniaticus and other older manuscripts that were not avaiable to Erasumas, who ignored the actual Greek and replaced it with 1 John 5:7-8; a spurious translation which has caused many to go astray. Since there is no devil; satan; you have been led astray by tha popular mythology of anti-christianity. See the manuscript here of Matthew 21 and notice verse 17 is missing. You can also check the Vaticanus, Alexandrianus, Beza and many others.View attachment 213688 View attachment 213688

Did you grow up writing and speaking Biblical Greek alongside Paul?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, the bible says the adversay enter his heart, besides the fact that if your stan were real Judas's heart would have split open and he wold have died instantly. Can you see how rediculous your statement is? The metaphor simply means the Lust of Judas caused him to betray Christ. James 1:14

Have you never heard of demon possession before? The devil is a spirit being. That is how is able to possess Judas. So again. What entered Judas? The Bible says Satan entered Judas but you think it was something else.