Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate

[Strong in Him]

but has modern bibles kept the truth in His words ?

Yes, of course.
Are you suggesting that modern translators have deliberately been untruthful?

Try not to resort to the 1611 version when it comes to the KJV

I don't "resort" to any version with the KJV; I don't read it.
My point was, if it's supposed to be the "perfect" word of God, why are there so many editions of it? Did God not get it right first time?

You will note that it is not exactly like the 1611 KJV as per archaic words and misspelling

So the "perfect" word of God was not that great to begin with?

 

[The Liturgist]

Authorized by the King to insure that his version of Protestantism was the "official" one. The Puritans who came to the US came in large part for religious freedom: obeying Christ not the secular king. It was a blatant attempt to change Christianity into what he wanted it to be instead of what it truly was -- and is -- God's word to His people in their own language. Since the Englyshe of the early 1600s is long dead -- it's not used anywhere on earth outside of fundamentalist sects -- nobody should claim it is still valid. Especially by people who lack a good understanding of their current, modern language.

Take a look at the postings by KJVOs and see how many of them have vocabulary and grammar errors. These same people claim to understand 1611 Englyshe perfectly yet communicate imprefectly in modern English.

The Puritans and dissenters were a minority, however. The Church of England became prevalent as a broad church due to the Elizabethan settlement, appealing to people of Catholic, moderate Calvinist and Lutheran/Evangelical sentiment, and over time, Anglicanism became better and better at this.

 

[The Liturgist]

The thing is that there can only be one Word of God and not many. God is not the author of confusion. Also if someone claims that the originals were perfect, that does not make any sense because we don’t have them. So is there no perfect Bible in existence today? So if there is no perfect Bible in existence, who gets to determine what is true or false in the Bible they prefer? Does one have a truth detector machine?

John 1:1-18 says the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Holy Scriptures, which are human authored but divinely inspired, are an icon which reveal him to us.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not adhere to Belief Alone-ism and nor do I agree with Luther.

Nor do I.

I believe faith has two sides to it.

So do I.

As for the Law: Well, the Old Testament Law (the 613 Laws of Moses given to Israel and not the Gentiles) has ended with Christ’s death. Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. Certain OT laws (like ceremonial laws like circumcision, Sabbaths, holy days, dietary laws, etc.) are no longer binding or in effect for New Covenant believers. While certain moral laws from the Old Law have been carried over or remained the same (like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, etc.) there are actually new moral laws given to us by Jesus and His followers. For Jesus even said He gave us a new commandment. “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” To believe in the name of Jesus is even a commandment (See: 1 John 3:23).

The problem is that no one can be saved except through Christ because of original sin. To say that anyone could be saved only by following the Torah is Pelagianism, and it is Pelagian to say that one could even keep the Torah without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which only became possible on Pentecost in 33 AD, at which time the 613 laws of the Torah no longer had any effect. Also, note that in the Old Testament, God does not promise everlasting life for those who keep the Torah. The Torah is rather His covenant with Israel, but there is no Gospel of the Torah. The Gospel comes with the New Covenant, and the Good News of the New Covenant is that we can now inherit eternal life (and those who died under the Old Covenant were also given a way out of Hades by our Lord, according to the early Church).

 

[The Liturgist]

Duplicate

 

[The Liturgist]

Side Note:

As for your mention of the word “liturgical” (i.e. liturgy): This is a word associated commonly with the Orthodox Church of which certain practices I do not find to be biblical. I just strive to follow only what is written in God’s Holy Word.

Then your support for the King James Version of the Bible, with all due respect, makes no sense at all, because the KJV was specifically produced as an improvement on the Bishop’s Bible, intended to have easier comprehensibility like the Geneva Bible used by the Church of Scotland, without the Calvinist doctrinal comments, which contradicted Anglican doctrine, and it was produced for liturgical use in the Church of England. The Liturgy of the Church of England is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and the BCP and KJV are like the twin pillars of traditional Anglican Christianity. If you open a 1662 BCP, or a 1928 American BCP, or a 1929 Scottish BCP, or look them up online, will find the church services are constructed on a scriptural basis, and for Holy Communion, the two scripture lessons, the second one always being from the four Gospels, are quoted from the KJV.

Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, also known as Mattins and Evensong, also have two scripture lessons each, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, and these are to be read from the King James Version.

Additionally, Morning and Evening Prayer feature two or three canticles,
At Morning Prayer:
Venite (Psalm 95)
Te Deum or Benedicite (Daniel 3:57–88 in the Apocrypha)
Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79) or Jubilate Deo (Psalm 100)
At Evening Prayer:
Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) or Cantate Domino (Psalm 98)
Nunc dimittis (Luke 2:29–32) or Deus misereatur (Psalm 67

Aside from the hymn Te Deum, and the Psalms, which in the Anglican tradition are sung from the Coverdale Psalter as it turns our to be easier to sing than the KJV Psalter, these canticles are sung from the text in the KJV.

The KJV was eventually introduced into the Church of Scotland, along with the BCP and Episcopal governance, by King Charles, in 1637, but this ultimately led to the English Civil War and the Cromwellian tyranny. Even today Calvinists often prefer the Geneva Bible because of the liturgical nature of the KJV and its Anglican heritage (just as Roman Catholics who like a traditional English Bible tend to like the Challoner Douai-Rheims). After King James II was deposed by King William and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was restored, the KJV was dominant but not well liked, and Geneva Bibles remained highly prized.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church: the Anglican Communiom has historically always been on good terms with them, with the English and especially the Scottish and American editions of the Book of Common Prayer incorporating substantial Eastern Orthodox influence, this being one of the main respects it differed from the early Lutheran liturgies, which tended to be vernacular simplifications of the Roman Mass.

And the KJV is the preferred English language New Testament text in the Orthodox Church. The Epistles and Gospels are read from the KJV. And both Anglicans and Orthodox use beautiful ornate Gospel books which are carried in procession during the liturgy:

In the top picture, you see a Gospel Procession at an Anglican Christmas Eve Liturgy, and in the bottom, an Orthodox Paschal Divine Liturgy at midnight on Easter Sunday. If English is the language being used at the Orthodox liturgy, then both are likely KJV Gospel Books.

So considering the KJV is very much liturgical, and at least as far as the New Testament is concerned, very much a part of Orthodox Christianity in English speaking churches, well, are you sure this is the right Bible to assert as inspired? I would think the Geneva Bible, which was used by aliturgical Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans, and has no connections to Eastern Orthodoxy, would be the one people would think was divinely inspired.

 

[Hark]

Sorry Hark.

Wilber does not explain how a Y as in Yehovah was changed into a J as in Jehovah.

It's the spelling of YHWH not the pronunciation. Hebrew was a dead language for 1400 years before the translators began the KJV.

I need to know why anyone would add vowels when there is no pronunciation anyway. They not only misspelt the name of God, they changed His name by adding those vowels.

I read some where that Jehovah is the Latin form of YHWH.

How did the translators get a Latin form of YHWH?

Since you do not seem to see the answer that the Jews as well as believers filled in the gap in making up His name in scripture, I cannot help you.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Perhaps you can answer a question I have.

In the Old Testament in Exodus, the name of God is YHWH. Yet, in the KJV the translators opted for Jehovah.

Why translate the 'Y' as a 'J'?

Why did they add the vowels, e, o, a.

I do not understand what they were thinking?

Jehovah is not a literal translation of YHWH.

Sounds in one language may not carry over into another. So for example, "B" in Greek is pronounced "V" so "basil" is pronounced "vasil". English drops the "P" as in pneumatic yet in Greek the P is voiced. Hebrew has a guttural "H" which doesnt exist in English or Greek as in Hanukkah. As for the "J", you move from an "yah" to "yeh" to "J" in German.
As for Jehovah, I vaguely recall it comes from using the Tetragammon YHWH and using the vowels from "adonai", to get Y "a" H "o" W "ai", throw some German sounds and you get Jehovah.

 

[pescador]

Then your support for the King James Version of the Bible, with all due respect, makes no sense at all, because the KJV was specifically produced as an improvement on the Bishop’s Bible, intended to have easier comprehensibility like the Geneva Bible used by the Church of Scotland, without the Calvinist doctrinal comments, which contradicted Anglican doctrine, and it was produced for liturgical use in the Church of England. The Liturgy of the Church of England is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and the BCP and KJV are like the twin pillars of traditional Anglican Christianity. If you open a 1662 BCP, or a 1928 American BCP, or a 1929 Scottish BCP, or look them up online, will find the church services are constructed on a scriptural basis, and for Holy Communion, the two scripture lessons, the second one always being from the four Gospels, are quoted from the KJV.

Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, also known as Mattins and Evensong, also have two scripture lessons each, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, and these are to be read from the King James Version.

Additionally, Morning and Evening Prayer feature two or three canticles,
At Morning Prayer:
Venite (Psalm 95)
Te Deum or Benedicite (Daniel 3:57–88 in the Apocrypha)
Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79) or Jubilate Deo (Psalm 100)
At Evening Prayer:
Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) or Cantate Domino (Psalm 98)
Nunc dimittis (Luke 2:29–32) or Deus misereatur (Psalm 67

Aside from the hymn Te Deum, and the Psalms, which in the Anglican tradition are sung from the Coverdale Psalter as it turns our to be easier to sing than the KJV Psalter, these canticles are sung from the text in the KJV.

The KJV was eventually introduced into the Church of Scotland, along with the BCP and Episcopal governance, by King Charles, in 1637, but this ultimately led to the English Civil War and the Cromwellian tyranny. Even today Calvinists often prefer the Geneva Bible because of the liturgical nature of the KJV and its Anglican heritage (just as Roman Catholics who like a traditional English Bible tend to like the Challoner Douai-Rheims). After King James II was deposed by King William and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was restored, the KJV was dominant but not well liked, and Geneva Bibles remained highly prized.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church: the Anglican Communiom has historically always been on good terms with them, with the English and especially the Scottish and American editions of the Book of Common Prayer incorporating substantial Eastern Orthodox influence, this being one of the main respects it differed from the early Lutheran liturgies, which tended to be vernacular simplifications of the Roman Mass.

And the KJV is the preferred English language New Testament text in the Orthodox Church. The Epistles and Gospels are read from the KJV. And both Anglicans and Orthodox use beautiful ornate Gospel books which are carried in procession during the liturgy:

View attachment 309902
View attachment 309903

In the top picture, you see a Gospel Procession at an Anglican Christmas Eve Liturgy, and in the bottom, an Orthodox Paschal Divine Liturgy at midnight on Easter Sunday. If English is the language being used at the Orthodox liturgy, then both are likely KJV Gospel Books.

So considering the KJV is very much liturgical, and at least as far as the New Testament is concerned, very much a part of Orthodox Christianity in English speaking churches, well, are you sure this is the right Bible to assert as inspired? I would think the Geneva Bible, which was used by aliturgical Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans, and has no connections to Eastern Orthodoxy, would be the one people would think was divinely inspired.

Thanks for this informative post!!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is true, but Nebuchadnezzar was describing what he saw in the furnace. The king was not a Jew. The king did not believe in one God as the Jews did.

Of course. he would say a son of the Gods.

Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39).

So you hold to the Modern Bible that takes the power out in not glorifying Jesus Christ.
You may believe Jesus was in the fire with Daniels three friends, but your Bible does not glorify Him as being Jesus Christ (i.e. the Son of God).

This is what you don’t seem to be getting in the fact that this yet another attack by Satan trying to make Himself like Jesus Christ.

For a simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions.

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

A Modern Bible renders Revelation 13:1 as saying the following:

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.”
​

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

"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").

In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations 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 CF thread link below, 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).

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).

​

So we see a pattern of the devil trying to be like Jesus in other places in the Bible besides just Daniel 3:25. This is where you cannot see the forest for the trees, my friend.

Besides, many classic commentators comment on Daniel 3:25 with the Son of God viewpoint. Even the so called pre-Christian LXX, and the Douay-Rheims Bible adds in this rendering. You can check that out at Biblehub here:

Daniel 3:25 - Biblehub.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then your support for the King James Version of the Bible, with all due respect, makes no sense at all, because the KJV was specifically produced as an improvement on the Bishop’s Bible, intended to have easier comprehensibility like the Geneva Bible used by the Church of Scotland, without the Calvinist doctrinal comments, which contradicted Anglican doctrine, and it was produced for liturgical use in the Church of England. The Liturgy of the Church of England is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and the BCP and KJV are like the twin pillars of traditional Anglican Christianity. If you open a 1662 BCP, or a 1928 American BCP, or a 1929 Scottish BCP, or look them up online, will find the church services are constructed on a scriptural basis, and for Holy Communion, the two scripture lessons, the second one always being from the four Gospels, are quoted from the KJV.

Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, also known as Mattins and Evensong, also have two scripture lessons each, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, and these are to be read from the King James Version.

Additionally, Morning and Evening Prayer feature two or three canticles,
At Morning Prayer:
Venite (Psalm 95)
Te Deum or Benedicite (Daniel 3:57–88 in the Apocrypha)
Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79) or Jubilate Deo (Psalm 100)
At Evening Prayer:
Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) or Cantate Domino (Psalm 98)
Nunc dimittis (Luke 2:29–32) or Deus misereatur (Psalm 67

Aside from the hymn Te Deum, and the Psalms, which in the Anglican tradition are sung from the Coverdale Psalter as it turns our to be easier to sing than the KJV Psalter, these canticles are sung from the text in the KJV.

The KJV was eventually introduced into the Church of Scotland, along with the BCP and Episcopal governance, by King Charles, in 1637, but this ultimately led to the English Civil War and the Cromwellian tyranny. Even today Calvinists often prefer the Geneva Bible because of the liturgical nature of the KJV and its Anglican heritage (just as Roman Catholics who like a traditional English Bible tend to like the Challoner Douai-Rheims). After King James II was deposed by King William and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was restored, the KJV was dominant but not well liked, and Geneva Bibles remained highly prized.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church: the Anglican Communiom has historically always been on good terms with them, with the English and especially the Scottish and American editions of the Book of Common Prayer incorporating substantial Eastern Orthodox influence, this being one of the main respects it differed from the early Lutheran liturgies, which tended to be vernacular simplifications of the Roman Mass.

And the KJV is the preferred English language New Testament text in the Orthodox Church. The Epistles and Gospels are read from the KJV. And both Anglicans and Orthodox use beautiful ornate Gospel books which are carried in procession during the liturgy:

View attachment 309902
View attachment 309903

In the top picture, you see a Gospel Procession at an Anglican Christmas Eve Liturgy, and in the bottom, an Orthodox Paschal Divine Liturgy at midnight on Easter Sunday. If English is the language being used at the Orthodox liturgy, then both are likely KJV Gospel Books.

So considering the KJV is very much liturgical, and at least as far as the New Testament is concerned, very much a part of Orthodox Christianity in English speaking churches, well, are you sure this is the right Bible to assert as inspired? I would think the Geneva Bible, which was used by aliturgical Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans, and has no connections to Eastern Orthodoxy, would be the one people would think was divinely inspired.

What I see in these pictures are men in long flowing robes. Jesus said, “Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;” (Luke 20:46).

What I also see in these pictures is iconography. No offense, but I believe this to be idolatry (although I am sure you disagree).

So I find such pictures to be offensive spiritually because we do not clearly see these things in the Holy Bible. They are traditions added to God’s Word; And we are told to not add or take away from His Word (See: Revelation 22:18-19).

Is religious iconography considered idolatry? What is an icon? | GotQuestions.org
(Note: I agree with this article by Gotquestions; But this does not mean I agree with everything they say, teach, or believe).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do not adhere to Belief Alone-ism and nor do I agree with Luther.

Nor do I.

I believe faith has two sides to it.

So do I.

I am glad we appear to generally agree on this point but when it comes to specifics or details involving the faith (like with the extra unbiblical practices or traditions in the Orthodox Church) is where we disagree significantly.

The problem is that no one can be saved except through Christ because of original sin. To say that anyone could be saved only by following the Torah is Pelagianism, and it is Pelagian to say that one could even keep the Torah without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which only became possible on Pentecost in 33 AD, at which time the 613 laws of the Torah no longer had any effect. Also, note that in the Old Testament, God does not promise everlasting life for those who keep the Torah. The Torah is rather His covenant with Israel, but there is no Gospel of the Torah. The Gospel comes with the New Covenant, and the Good News of the New Covenant is that we can now inherit eternal life (and those who died under the Old Covenant were also given a way out of Hades by our Lord, according to the early Church).

Yes, I agree that if Jesus Christ did not die for our sins, we would all be doomed including babies. But Jesus Christ reversed the curse with His death, burial, and resurrection. So today if a baby dies, they will be saved by Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection.

As for your reference of the Torah: While there are beneficial things in the Torah to guide us (i.e. the law is good if one uses it lawfully - 1 Timothy 1:8), Christians or New Covenant believers are simply not under the Law (Romans 6:14), but they are under the Law of Christ (or Laws of Christ). For Paul says, “To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21).

So the point here is that Christians are under God’s laws (the Laws of Christ & His followers in the New Testament, and not the 613 Laws of Moses), and they must obey them as a part of God’s plan of salvation but a believer in God’s Holy Word can only obey God AFTER they are first saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ and or believing the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that says, “…Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” For a person first coming to God must be saved by His grace and mercy. They would call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and seek forgiveness of their sinful state with Him as the entrance gate and as the foundation of their faith (Romans 10:13) (Hebrews 4:16) (1 John 2:1) (1 John 1:9) (Luke 18:9-14). No man can save themselves by their Works alone without God’s grace.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

There are…

Four Major Positions on God’s Word:
(Or: 4 Major Views on God’s Word):

1. KJB only position (We have a perfect bible today).
   
   
2. Only the originals were inspired.
   
   
3. God’s Word exists amongst the thousands of remaining manuscripts (including their many variants) (Note: James White, etc. holds to this view).
   
   
4. All bibles are inspired.

4 Popular Unbiblical Approaches or Views on God’s Word:

#1. Roman Catholic Church View on God’s Word.

They believe the holy mother church and tradition define what is in the Scripture.​

#2. Liberal View:​

The Bible is full of myths, and legends.​

#3. Neo-Orthodox View​

The real issue is what the Bible teaches, not it’s historical accuracy.​

#4. Fundamentalist View:​

The Faith is established in the Bible despite its many mistakes and errors.​

Out of the second list (or last list) of viewpoints provided above:
All these views have one thing in common.
You don’t actually have the Word of God in your hands.
The Bible merely contains the Word of God.

On the other hand, contrary to these other viewpoints,
you have the Bible believer view:
This is us King James Bible believers believing we have the inspired words of God in our hands.

But those who deny there is any perfect Bible they can hold in their hands today will look to the wise scribe or scholar of our day to understand His Word.

However, there is a huge difference between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of men.

Isaiah 55:8 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.”

1 Corinthians 1:19-20 says, “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

Please take note that the scribe are those who TRAN-scribe the Scriptures. They were the ones who copied the Scriptures or translated it. The Scribes would be the scholars of our day. So when you read 1 Corinthians 1:19-20, read it as referring to scholars. Granted, this is not to say that scholars cannot glean many truths from the Scriptures accurately. The point here is the Scribes or scholars approach to God’s Word overall in that it will lead them to believe we have no perfect Bible today that we can perfectly trust as God’s 100% inerrant words that we can hold in our hands now.

The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible used to contain 1 John 5:7 but it later removed it. All the 17 verses that are omitted used to be in their older Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. So their Bibles changed in these modern times just like other Modern Bibles. In fact, all Modern Bibles are based on an inter confessional text by the United Bible Societies that was under the direct supervision of the Vatican (Nestle and Aland’s NT Greek Text).

Many today believe in a Bible that does not exist because they say that the Bible was only perfect in the originals of which they do not have.

Yet, the Bible says,

“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:16).

In other words, believe the words of God’s Holy Word above.
Truly grab ahold of them and do not try to explain them away.


Some informational points used for this post:
Will Kinney YouTube Video - Did God Preserve His Word? Of course not!

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks for this informative post!!

You’re welcome. I hope also it provides some insight into why I myself like some of the traditional language translations, that being verbal beauty.

But you are right, in that there is a need for modernization. I want the basic style of the KJV and traditional liturgical service books like the 1662 English, 1929 Scottish, or 1928 and 1979 Rite I American BCP editions. But if you look at my own Congregational tradition, we had a minister who produced a service book called Devotional Services, Rev. John Hunter, which while less comprehensive than the Book of Common Prayer, is still in a traditional style, but more modern; the prose is Edwardian, which means most people can still basically understand it, and it has the Second Personal Pronoun. I think it is imperative these be retained because Thou is semantically different from You. In the Quran, God normally speaks in the third person whereas in the Bible, the reverse is the case (except in a few pericopes, such as Genesis 1).

But I recently realized your point, in part at least, when it dawned on me that of the traditional language bibles only the RSV has our Lord explain to the apostles they must be servants; minister, which the others use, formally means servant, but increasingly it formerly means servant, especially in countries where you have a Prime Minister, or Ministers, instead of Secretaries or Administrators or Commissioners (the US is unique in that few countries use the title minister less for executive branch political positions, but conversely, so many Americans call pastors, presbyters, and other clergy ministers, that it creates confusion in the ecclesiastical context).


So that word, to make sense to people today, must be translated as servant, to the extent that I am reprinting the relevant lesson from Matthew to make that change and placing it in my decorated evangelion (I purchased some book binders from a jeweler as part of a research project the non profit group of liturgical scholars I belong to is working on, and I use two that we rejected for my gospel books for own ministry, as they look nice enough; I use a consecrated iPad for all other service texts except nighttime services, so I have a candlelight service tomorrow at 9 and I dont want to be backlit, my other service at 4 is on the iPad.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Watch the entirety of this video:

 

[timothyu]

Anything man touches is prone to be tainted by the self serving ways of man, including scriptures sanctioned as complementary to serve a particular institution seeking to self justify its existence.

 

[pescador]

Anything man touches is prone to be tainted by the self serving ways of man, including scriptures sanctioned as complementary to serve a particular institution seeking to self justify its existence.

What about woman?

 

[BNR32FAN]

What did God say about changing his words?
Be careful now i tell thee, most modern versions of the bible are from hell itself, if your truly Born again, pray that the Holy spirit guide you in all truth.
Changing 1 word and could mean many things.

John 1:1-3 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. "Jesus is the word of God"
John 1:14 KJV
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 10:30 KJV I and my Father are one.

Revelation 22:17-19 KJV
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. [18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy
God shall take away his part out of the book of life"

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

John 16:13-14 KJV
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. [14] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate
King James Bible is inspired Authorized Version of 1611 infallible Word of God.
this is a long read, but you will understand the truth, All Glory to Jesus Christ Almighty God.

Thank you for your patience.

just 1 Example of other Hellish bibles translations against the King james 1611 inspired Word of God.
Daniel 3:25 CHANGE "the Son of God" TO "a son of the gods" ("He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC "Thats Blasphemy"

Galatians 4:16 KJV
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

please click this blue link, more will be revealed and explained Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate

It’s the KJV that has the incorrect translation because the Hebrew Bible doesn’t say the Son of God it says the son of the gods. Your Bible has the translator’s interpretation added into it which is why the translation is incorrect.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sounds in one language may not carry over into another. So for example, "B" in Greek is pronounced "V" so "basil" is pronounced "vasil". English drops the "P" as in pneumatic yet in Greek the P is voiced. Hebrew has a guttural "H" which doesnt exist in English or Greek as in Hanukkah. As for the "J", you move from an "yah" to "yeh" to "J" in German.
As for Jehovah, I vaguely recall it comes from using the Tetragammon YHWH and using the vowels from "adonai", to get Y "a" H "o" W "ai", throw some German sounds and you get Jehovah.

The general progression went like this:

The Tetragrammaton, consisting of the four letters of Yod Hah Vav and Hah (יהוה‎) roughly correspond to the modern Latin letters Y H V and H.

The letter Vav can also be a Waw. Latin didn't have a corresponding 'W' sound, but the Latin V could both be a /v/ and a /u/ (there was no distinction between V and U until a few hundred years ago).

Also, the Yod sound can be replicated with the use of a "Consonantal I", essentially making the same sound as the modern letter Y in English.

As for the vowels, you're correct, the vowels are taken from the Hebrew Adonai. Since the Hebrew writing system is, like many other Semitic writing systems, an Abjad rather than an Alphabet, it lacks ordinary vowel symbols. For native Hebrew speakers this wasn't a problem, learning the language and learning to read and write in Hebrew meant recognizing the word and thus knowing how to pronounce it.

The Masoretes, the Jewish scribes responsible for the Masoretic Text, in trying to bring back Hebrew as a known and living language among the Jewish Diaspora created a system of vowel markers known as Niqqud to aid the reader with proper pronunciation. These same scribes, when it came to the Tetragrammaton, used the Niqqud for Adonai for the Tetragrammaton--the purpose of which was to remind the reader to say "Adonai" here. Since the Tetragrammaton itself wasn't supposed to be pronounced, and instead substitution terms were to be used, such as Adonai, meaning "lord".

This meant that the Masoretic Text contained the Tetragrammaton, but with the vowel marks for Adonai. A casual reader would then roughly see this as YaHoVaH or YeHoVaH. If one were to then render this in the Latin script it would come out as Iehovah.

The Consonontal I evolved into its own distinct letter in the Latin alphabet, by the addition of a tail or hook, giving us 'J'. And so Iehovah became Jehovah.

So somewhat simply:
YHVH (or YHWH) --> YeHoVaH --> Iehovah --> Jehovah.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GreekOrthodox]

So somewhat simply:
YHVH (or YHWH) --> YeHoVaH --> Iehovah --> Jehovah.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks, I knew someone would have a more complete answer than me.