30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today (Update: KJVO Posters Only)

[pescador]

No, it's because;
a) your posts are way too long.
b) you can't answer the simple questions or dispute the facts that have been put to you time and time again.

The bottom line is that you compare all modern versions with the KJV, and if they differ; in your eyes that is proof that they are corrupt, because the KJV is perfect. You've staked your life on the fact that the KJV is perfect, yet you refuse a direct comparison with the Greek/Hebrew which would prove it one way or the other.



I have a Greek interlinear NT and can SEE whether a verse is there or not.
If it was shown to be there in the Greek, and the KJV, but missing in the NIV, then of course, that means that on that occasion the KJV is more accurate than the NIV - no question.
But you will not consider such a comparison - my feeling is because you are afraid that the KJV may sometimes be found wanting, and we would all be able to SEE for ourselves that it was not a perfect translation.
If I'm wrong; prove it.



You haven't preached the word at all. You've preached the gospel according to Bible Highlighter, which is "the KJV is perfect". Comfort zone? You've staked your life on it, and you're not budging; whatever the evidence shows.

While I basically agree with you, your statement that "If it was shown to be there in the Greek, and the KJV, but missing in the NIV, then of course, that means that on that occasion the KJV is more accurate than the NIV - no question."

The NIV contains the undisputed Word of God. If some verses are present in the KJV but not in the NIV (and other modern translations), that means that there is no valid evidence to include them in the Bible. Examples of this are the story of the woman caught in adultery and the "long ending of Mark".

The KJV version has many flaws since it's based on a limited amount of texts. Modern Bibles are much more accurate because of the thousands of text fragments from the time the autographs were written.

It would help immeasurably if people read the explanatory footnotes in most Bibles. King James ordered all explanatory references removed so that people would not be able to read and interpret the Bible on their own.

KJVO are deluded. I have never been able to understand why these latter-day Pharisees insist on saying, in essence, "my way or the highway". I pity them!

 

[robycop3]

Translating Beowulf is not going to effect a person's status with God. Messing with God's Word can effect a person's status with God (See: Revelation 22:18-19). Many think this warning only applies to the book of Revelation. Certain men who have made Modern Translations have received the frog in your throat plague (Which is a plague from another part of the Bible). Multiple coincidences? Remember that whole Muslim thing that you believed was a coincidence? There has to be a point where these coincidences are no longer coincidences. Besides, Modern Translations have changed the words in the book of Revelation, too.

I know. You don't see what Westcott and Hort as a change to the Bible. But it was. They departed from the Received Text and this can be easily seen by the watering down of major doctrines, change of certain doctrines, change of some of God's commands, etc.; This is the proof (even if you refuse to see it). Modern Translations making Jesus appear to sin, and the adding of the devil's name where it does not belong should make this obvious to a person.

So you can shout “KJVO-myth” and “KJV gets easter wrong,” until your ears bleed, but it will not change the truth of what I have already shown that you cannot adequately account for with a rational explanation.

In any event, we should agree to disagree in love and respect.
I don't believe we are going to see eye to eye on this issue.
The line in the sand has been drawn, and we are each standing on two opposing sides.
One is the Alexandrian Westcott and Hort side, and the other is the Received Text side.
Just know we would not even be having this argument if we lived before Westcott and Hort's discovery of the Alexandrian texts. I look in history and there is nothing that I admire about their discovery and their thinking and the way that translation came about (unlike with the KJV).

You have to ask yourself the real reason why you hate the KJVO belief.
What is the real reason?

I can tell you with confidence that if what you said was true, I would most likely no longer be a believer.
Is that what you want? Do you want me to abandon my faith in God's Word?
It does not make sense that God failed to keep His promise on preserving His Word (Psalms 12:7).
I know. You think Psalms 12:7 says something different than what is rendered in the KJV.
But... if you lived before Westcott and Hort's discovery, you would not know any better. You would have then no choice but to believe Psalms 12:7 in the KJV. What if you died before Westcott and Hort's discovery? Would you have been believing a lie? Surely not.
Faithful fruit came about from men of God believing the KJV. John Wesley and his followers proves that good fruit can come out of such a beloved Bible. But go ahead, and shout “KJVO myth” and see where that gets you in your Christian walk with God. I don't believe shouting such words will lead to good fruit, brother. I believe God's Word. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). It's not, “faith comes by hearing and hearing the scholar.”

Yes, we disagree because you're so WRONG on so many things, & it appears it's because you believe the writings of the quacks & mountebanks who publish pro-KJVO garbage, which is full of errors & DELIBERATE FALSEHOODS. for example, the "frog in your throat" incident to which you are doubtlessly referring occurred on the John Ankerberg TV show, where an anti-KJVO speaker suddenly developed severe temporary hoarseness. Some KJVO quax published a video of this, cutting off the show immediately after the hoarseness developed. Had you seen the whole show, you woulda seen that this man drank some water, washing down his hoarseness, & went on with his presentation without incident. Same thing coulda happened to anyone under the hot TV lights.

You cannot account for the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. They're not in any known ms. of Rev. And another correction in Rev that MVs make is to "book" of life to "tree" of life, as the vast majority of Greek mss. read.

The "Received Text" is inferior in quite a few places to older Greek mss. which were not available to the AV makers.

Why do I hate the KJVO myth ? Because it's PATENYLY-FALSE, being completely man-made, & nothing but a BIG FAT LIE !

What you call "watering-down", a phrase often used by KJVO quacks, is usually BETTER TRANSLATING, in OUR English.

I have POSTED THE PROOF from the AV 1611 itself that shows Ps. 12:7 is about PEOPLE, & the AV makers themselves believed thusly.

Yes, faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the WOG - when it's CORRECTLY translated, in the language of the reader/audience. And KJVO IS a myth because it's man-made & therefore FALSE. ONLY GOD can make a TRUE doctrine of faith/worship.

You really need to STUDY the KJVO myth before you make another post supporting it ! You've been shown **PROOF** it's a lie, but you're still tryingt to hawk it here. And, even though you didn't originate it, if you tell something you know is a lie, that makes YOU a LIAR, same as if you made it up yourself ! And you know what GOD said would become of all liars !

If you personally wishta use onlY the KJV, no prob, but know ye that speaking in favor of the KJVO myth is TELLING A LIE !

But I disagree with you in love & Christian brotherhood because I know YOU'VE BEEN DECEIVED & LIED TO by the KJVO advocates who aren't interested in anything but $$$, the truth be dipped !

 

[pescador]

Please try back-translating the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5.

The NET Bible, an excellent translation, and every other modern translation (NRSV, NIV, HCSB, ASV, CEB, and others) has this for Rev. 16:5: "Now I heard the angel of the waters saying:
“You are just—the one who is and who was,
the Holy One—because you have passed these judgments"

Even the 1599 Geneva Bible, preceding the KJV by 12 years, has this: "And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast" => There is no "shalt be" <=

The KJV has this: " And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus." The "shalt be" is either a translation mistake or it was added to the translation.

Of course the KJVOs will cling to their errors, but their minds are closed.

 

[pescador]

Yes, we disagree because you're so WRONG on so many things, & it appears it's because you believe the writings of the quacks & mountebanks who publish pro-KJVO garbage, which is full of errors & DELIBERATE FALSEHOODS. for example, the "frog in your throat" incident to which you are doubtlessly referring occurred on the John Ankerberg TV show, where an anti-KJVO speaker suddenly developed severe temporary hoarseness. Some KJVO quax published a video of this, cutting off the show immediately after the hoarseness developed. Had you seen the whole show, you woulda seen that this man drank some water, washing down his hoarseness, & went on with his presentation without incident. Same thing coulda happened to anyone under the hot TV lights.

You cannot account for the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. They're not in any known ms. of Rev. And another correction in Rev that MVs make is to "book" of life to "tree" of life, as the vast majority of Greek mss. read.

The "Received Text" is inferior in quite a few places to older Greek mss. which were not available to the AV makers.

Why do I hate the KJVO myth ? Because it's PATENYLY-FALSE, being completely man-made, & nothing but a BIG FAT LIE !

What you call "watering-down", a phrase often used by KJVO quacks, is usually BETTER TRANSLATING, in OUR English.

I have POSTED THE PROOF from the AV 1611 itself that shows Ps. 12:7 is about PEOPLE, & the AV makers themselves believed thusly.

Yes, faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the WOG - when it's CORRECTLY translated, in the language of the reader/audience. And KJVO IS a myth because it's man-made & therefore FALSE. ONLY GOD can make a TRUE doctrine of faith/worship.

You really need to STUDY the KJVO myth before you make another post supporting it ! You've been shown **PROOF** it's a lie, but you're still tryingt to hawk it here. And, even though you didn't originate it, if you tell something you know is a lie, that makes YOU a LIAR, same as if you made it up yourself ! And you know what GOD said would become of all liars !

If you personally wishta use onlY the KJV, no prob, but know ye that speaking in favor of the KJVO myth is TELLING A LIE !

But I disagree with you in love & Christian brotherhood because I know YOU'VE BEEN DECEIVED & LIED TO by the KJVO advocates who aren't interested in anything but $$$, the truth be dipped !

A true and excellent post!!

 

[JulieB67]

Please try back-translating the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5.

I'm not sure if you're wanting me to literally translate back.

Revelation 16:5 "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus."


and would be Greek 2532 -kai, and, also, even, so then, too etc.

shalt is the same word for shall Greek 217 -esomai: should be, shall come to pass, may have

be - Greek 1510 eimi- I exist, am, have been.
But there are other words to refer to in the Greek.

Words in the Appendix of the Strong's Exhaustive.

I don't think any of those words change the overall meaning in that instance of the verse as my example of the word "taken". That was my point.

Although you probably meant something different in your question, not sure.

 

[robycop3]

I'm not sure if you're wanting me to literally translate back.

Revelation 16:5 "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus."


and would be Greek 2532 -kai, and, also, even, so then, too etc.

shalt is the same word for shall Greek 217 -esomai: should be, shall come to pass, may have

be - Greek 1510 eimi- I exist, am, have been.
But there are other words to refer to in the Greek.

Words in the Appendix of the Strong's Exhaustive.

I don't think any of those words change the overall meaning in that instance of the verse as my example of the word "taken". That was my point.

Although you probably meant something different in your question, not sure.

yes, I meant, "FIND THOSE WORDS IN ANY ANCIENT GREEK MANUSCRIPT OF REVELATION."

 

[robycop3]

The NET Bible, an excellent translation, and every other modern translation (NRSV, NIV, HCSB, ASV, CEB, and others) has this for Rev. 16:5: "Now I heard the angel of the waters saying:
“You are just—the one who is and who was,
the Holy One—because you have passed these judgments"

Even the 1599 Geneva Bible, preceding the KJV by 12 years, has this: "And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast" => There is no "shalt be" <=

The KJV has this: " And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus." The "shalt be" is either a translation mistake or it was added to the translation.

Of course the KJVOs will cling to their errors, but their minds are closed.

Yes, it's more proof the KJV isn't perfect, & has ADDED to God's word !

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

The name Yehovah derives from the three-letter root HYH which means "to be". We know this from Ex 3:14 in which the Almighty explains his name as "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh". The word Ehyeh is an "imperfect" verb from the root HYH meaning "to be". In later Hebrew, the "imperfect" form took on the meaning of "future", but in Biblical Hebrew it primarily expresses a repetitive action. In plain English, Ehyeh means "I am now and I will continue to be in the future". This is why Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh can be translated as "I am that which I am", but also as "I will be that which I will be". Both of these translations are correct, even if they are a bit inaccurate. An accurate translation would be: "I am now, and will continue to be in the future, that which I am now, and will be continue to be in the future". That's quite a mouthful, and you can see why most translations prefer to dumb it down.

The word eHYeH has all three letters of the root HYH, which may lead you to conclude that HYH is a "whole" root. However, in other forms of the verb, the second and third letter drop, which means it is a "hollow" root. For example, HaYiti (spelled HYYty) "I was", is missing the third letter of the root H, and in its place, has a Yod. On the other hand, the masculine singular imperative Heveh (pronounced Heh Vay) "be!", is missing the second letter of the root, and in its place, has a Vav. This last piece of information is crucial, because it means in certain forms, the root looks like HVH, even though in fact it is HYH. This can be confusing because there is an unrelated root which really is HVH, which has an entirely different meaning from HYH.

Yehovah comes from the same root as Ehyeh: the hollow root HYH. Yehovah is actually a combination of three verb-forms: Hayah "he was", Hoveh "he is", and Yih'yeh "he is now and will continue to be in the future". Together Hayah, Hoveh, and Yih'yeh combine into the name Yehovah.

A Disastrous Misunderstanding of the Name Yehovah - NehemiasWall.com

 

[JSRG]

Did you accidentally post in the wrong topic?

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

No I just think it’s relevant that the line being disputed directly relates to what basically every Jew says the name YHVH means.

 

[JulieB67]

yes, I meant, "FIND THOSE WORDS IN ANY ANCIENT GREEK MANUSCRIPT OF REVELATION."

I didn't say the KJV was without mistakes.

Here's another word added,

Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The word blood as used there is not in any of the original the manuscripts as well and I think this is a huge mistake in the KJV.

But for me, I still like to use the KJV with the Strong's when I study. I feel like I lose something with some modern versions. But to each his own.

We're all sailing our own ships on this journey..

 

[robycop3]

I didn't say the KJV was without mistakes.

Here's another word added,

Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The word blood as used there is not in any of the original the manuscripts as well and I think this is a huge mistake in the KJV.

But for me, I still like to use the KJV with the Strong's when I study. I feel like I lose something with some modern versions. But to each his own.

We're all sailing our own ships on this journey..

As I said to others, if YOU wish to use only the KJV, fine, but there IS a prob with telling others that the KJV is perfect, or that it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there. Both are LIES.

I prefer MVs because they're more-accurate than older versions, & are in OUR language style.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, we disagree because you're so WRONG on so many things, & it appears it's because you believe the writings of the quacks & mountebanks who publish pro-KJVO garbage, which is full of errors & DELIBERATE FALSEHOODS. for example, the "frog in your throat" incident to which you are doubtlessly referring occurred on the John Ankerberg TV show, where an anti-KJVO speaker suddenly developed severe temporary hoarseness. Some KJVO quax published a video of this, cutting off the show immediately after the hoarseness developed. Had you seen the whole show, you woulda seen that this man drank some water, washing down his hoarseness, & went on with his presentation without incident. Same thing coulda happened to anyone under the hot TV lights.

You cannot account for the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. They're not in any known ms. of Rev. And another correction in Rev that MVs make is to "book" of life to "tree" of life, as the vast majority of Greek mss. read.

The "Received Text" is inferior in quite a few places to older Greek mss. which were not available to the AV makers.

Why do I hate the KJVO myth ? Because it's PATENYLY-FALSE, being completely man-made, & nothing but a BIG FAT LIE !

What you call "watering-down", a phrase often used by KJVO quacks, is usually BETTER TRANSLATING, in OUR English.

I have POSTED THE PROOF from the AV 1611 itself that shows Ps. 12:7 is about PEOPLE, & the AV makers themselves believed thusly.

Yes, faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the WOG - when it's CORRECTLY translated, in the language of the reader/audience. And KJVO IS a myth because it's man-made & therefore FALSE. ONLY GOD can make a TRUE doctrine of faith/worship.

You really need to STUDY the KJVO myth before you make another post supporting it ! You've been shown **PROOF** it's a lie, but you're still tryingt to hawk it here. And, even though you didn't originate it, if you tell something you know is a lie, that makes YOU a LIAR, same as if you made it up yourself ! And you know what GOD said would become of all liars !

If you personally wishta use onlY the KJV, no prob, but know ye that speaking in favor of the KJVO myth is TELLING A LIE !

But I disagree with you in love & Christian brotherhood because I know YOU'VE BEEN DECEIVED & LIED TO by the KJVO advocates who aren't interested in anything but $$$, the truth be dipped !

He lost his voice.

“As the TV cameras captured the moment, Dr. Wilkins opened his mouth to answer� and nothing came out! No sound! Wilkins kept trying to clear his throat, but he couldn't respond. Ankerberg and the other new version scholars were visibly startled. Finally, an embarrassed and frightened Wilkins was able to screech out in a cracking, almost inaudible manner, "I... I've... lost... my voice!"

A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up, whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James only advocate, politely protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here," Chambers insisted.”​

Whether his voice came back later is irrelevant. He lost his voice and he was in shock about it, and it did not seem like it was a glass of water incident like you are making it out to be.

God ‘cut off’ modern scribes power to speak. These include:

(1) KENNETH TAYLOR: The Living Bible

‘Mysteriously half way through the paraphrase Taylor lost his voice and still speaks in a hoarse whisper. A psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the Word of God.’ Time Magazine, July 1972.

- Even the Introduction to the Catholic edition warns in Words About the Word, p 89: ‘This translation cannot be used as a basis for doctrinal or traditional disputes. . . People from various doctrinal traditions may . . . be chagrined at the particular translations found within this volume’.

- Even ‘new Bible’ supporter D.A.Carson says: ‘I distrust its looseness and dislike its theological slanting of the evidence.’ (KJV Debate, p.84)

(2) PHILIP SCHAFF: American Standard Version and NASV.

Schaff’s son writes: ‘Even as early as 1854, his voice was so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard.’ By 1892, ‘the power of articulated speech had gone.’ (The Life of Philip Schaff, David Schaff, 1897, pp 171, 446).

This loss of speech followed his work with Westcott and Hort on the Revised Version Committee and ASV. In 1893 (39 yr later), he was still ‘deprived of thepower of speech’.

(3) TREGELLES: New Greek Text (1857-72 edition).

This preceded and strongly influenced the Westcott and Hort revision. David Schaff writes of Tregelles: ‘He was scarcely able to speak audibly’. (p.246)

(4) WESTCOTT: New Greek Text gave rise to RV, RSV, NIV, NASB, GNB, LB . . ..

Westcott’s biographer cites that in 1858 “he was quite inaudible” and by 1870 “His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer.” Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p 198,272

(5) J.B.PHILLIPS: New Testament in Modern English.

Zacharias lost his power of speech, because ‘thou believest not my words.’ Luke 1:20.

J B Phillips tells in his own autobiography, ‘I was still doing a fair measure of speaking in schools and churches until the late summer of 1961. And then quite suddenly my speaking, writing and communication powers stopped. I was not in panic but I was certainly alarmed, and when a few weeks rest brought no improvement I cancelled all speaking engagements for the rest of the year (age 55). ’ (The Price of Success, p163-196).
​

So this is not just once incident we are talking about here, this is a series of incidents. Also, if God's Word is true in Revelation 22:18-19, then who has this happened to in history? I will tell you. The account is right above that you prefer not to see.

Source:
Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show
And a Google search.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I didn't say the KJV was without mistakes.

Here's another word added,

Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The word blood as used there is not in any of the original the manuscripts as well and I think this is a huge mistake in the KJV.

But for me, I still like to use the KJV with the Strong's when I study. I feel like I lose something with some modern versions. But to each his own.

We're all sailing our own ships on this journey..

Problem is that you are going off of what you believe are the manuscripts in your available view or at hand by way of the internet. You have no way of knowing all of the manuscripts that the translators on the KJV had in their possession at that time. Again, it comes down to believing Psalms 12:7 in the KJV which is altered in Modern Translations (Which is suspicious).

Also, who gets to decide what words are the Word of God and what words are not the Word of God? You? Joe the scholar? Men's minds are limited and where they see error it is only based on their own limited understanding sometimes. It requires faith to believe God's Word in the first place. Faith is one of the fruits of the Spirit. Doubting God's Word is not a fruit of the Spirit. But the choice is yours to doubt that no perfect Word exists today. I believe God's Word. I believe His promises are true. Others may scoff, but my trust is in His Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

These are biased sources. This is the reason I have dismissed this point.

Got some that aren't as I asked?

There is more credibility when the source isn't biased.

See my post here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Folks are not thinking from our enemy's perspective here in how he desires to change God's Word. Surely the devil does not want us to trust or believe God's Word.

The devil does not want you to believe Psalms 12:7 that says that His Word is preserved for all generations. So he changed it.

God's Word existed before Westcott and Hort's discovery on two Alexandrian documents found via by Catholic sources. These manuscripts they based their supposedly superior text upon has watered down doctrine, changed doctrine, and changed God's commands, and has made Jesus appear to sin, etc.

From my perspective: It's ridiculous that one cannot see that the enemy seeks to corrupt God's Word. We see this in the Garden of Eden with Eve. The serpent sought to change what God's Word said. Folks are acting like there is no attack, but there is one. Of course those who do not want to see this attack will of course doubt. What the end game in this deception by the enemy with altering God's Word, only time will tell. Again, this is not to say that a person cannot be saved by a Modern Translation or that I cannot fellowship with brothers and sisters who do not agree with me on this point (if they are not strongly against my belief in that the KJV is the perfect Word of God). But there is a deception going on. I don't know where that will lead a believer who trusts in Modern Translations and the original languages. All I know is that I will pray for my fellow brethren to see. It's scary that they cannot see such a thing. It greatly disturbs me. I suppose this is what pushes us to pray out of love for the brethren.

 

[Isilwen]

See my post here.

Texe Marrs was a quack and you are still using a biased source for the KJVO position.

I have asked you now several times for non-biased information. You have failed to provide it which leads me to conclude you don't have any.

Do you have no biased sources or not?

 

[Strong in Him]

He lost his voice.

“As the TV cameras captured the moment, Dr. Wilkins opened his mouth to answer� and nothing came out! No sound! Wilkins kept trying to clear his throat, but he couldn't respond. Ankerberg and the other new version scholars were visibly startled. Finally, an embarrassed and frightened Wilkins was able to screech out in a cracking, almost inaudible manner, "I... I've... lost... my voice!"

A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up, whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James only advocate, politely protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here," Chambers insisted.”​

Whether his voice came back later is irrelevant. He lost his voice and he was in shock about it, and it did not seem like it was a glass of water incident like you are making it out to be.

Oh, well that's absolutely proof positive then!
Never mind the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures, or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - a couple of people lost their voice while trying to debate/speak up for modern versions of the Bible, so that must prove that they're all wrong.

Proves nothing.

God ‘cut off’ modern scribes power to speak. These include:

(1) KENNETH TAYLOR: The Living Bible

‘Mysteriously half way through the paraphrase Taylor lost his voice and still speaks in a hoarse whisper. A psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the Word of God.’ Time Magazine, July 1972.​

Nonsense.​

- Even the Introduction to the Catholic edition warns in Words About the Word, p 89: ‘This translation cannot be used as a basis for doctrinal or traditional disputes. . . People from various doctrinal traditions may . . . be chagrined at the particular translations found within this volume’.​

​

That just means that it may not be good to use that particular translation of the Bible for study - not that it's so unreliable that you can't trust it at all.

If you want a translation of the Bible that's written in the language of the people - the way we speak today, which is how it was written - it is not good to use the KJV.

(2) PHILIP SCHAFF: American Standard Version and NASV.

Schaff’s son writes: ‘Even as early as 1854, his voice was so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard.’ By 1892, ‘the power of articulated speech had gone.’ (The Life of Philip Schaff, David Schaff, 1897, pp 171, 446).

This loss of speech followed his work with Westcott and Hort on the Revised Version Committee and ASV. In 1893 (39 yr later), he was still ‘deprived of thepower of speech’.​

​

Proves nothing.

As I said, it's very simple: take all those verses which you have quoted to prove that the NIV, and other modern versions, are false, and put them alongside the Greek/Hebrew.
What was written in the original language? Has the NIV left words out? Has the KJV added them?
You don't want to do this.
Either you don't have access to Bibles in the original languages, and don't want the hassle of looking up the verses in those languages, or you are afraid in case the KJV is shown to be defective in some way.
I would have thought that if someone was saying "show us the Greek and we'll believe you", the best way to get them off your back was to show them the Greek and prove your point - have it in black and white so it could not be refuted.
Maybe it can be refuted, though.

(5) J.B.PHILLIPS: New Testament in Modern English.

Zacharias lost his power of speech, because ‘thou believest not my words.’ Luke 1:20.​

​

Not the same thing at all.
If you ever lost your voice, would you say that that proved the KJV was wrong? Of course not - you've already staked your life on it being right.

So this is not just once incident we are talking about here, this is a series of incidents.

Proves nothing.
IF it was a spiritual attack it's most likely to have been from the devil, who doesn't like anyone reading God's word. Then he will also create superstition and fear in people so that they are scared.

 

[Broken Fence]

While I basically agree with you, your statement that "If it was shown to be there in the Greek, and the KJV, but missing in the NIV, then of course, that means that on that occasion the KJV is more accurate than the NIV - no question."

The NIV contains the undisputed Word of God. If some verses are present in the KJV but not in the NIV (and other modern translations), that means that there is no valid evidence to include them in the Bible. Examples of this are the story of the woman caught in adultery and the "long ending of Mark".

The KJV version has many flaws since it's based on a limited amount of texts. Modern Bibles are much more accurate because of the thousands of text fragments from the time the autographs were written.

It would help immeasurably if people read the explanatory footnotes in most Bibles. King James ordered all explanatory references removed so that people would not be able to read and interpret the Bible on their own.

KJVO are deluded. I have never been able to understand why these latter-day Pharisees insist on saying, in essence, "my way or the highway". I pity them!

The problem I have with newer translations is they use vatican scrolls I prefer the Byzantine texts. I do not trust the vatican.

 

[Isilwen]

But there is a deception going on.

You are correct and you have bought into it hook line and sinker.

The deception is that the KJVO is the only version of the Bible that people should read. That is how the devil is attacking God's word. This is why I have said and I'm not the only one in this thread to say it, the KJVO position is from the pits of hell.