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

[BeingThere]

If Revelation 13:1 was the only concern you might be right. But there are other verses that the devil tries to place his name where it does not belong.

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).

Then there is Daniel 3:25 of which I already discussed already in this thread.

Just to show what different translations are saying--

From Young's Literal Translation:

How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations. (Isaiah 14:12)

From the Living Bible:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Revised Standard:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!

Amplified Bible:

How you have fallen from heaven, O *star of the morning [light-bringer], son of the dawn!

* An commentary from Bible scholars, which explains the translation of Lucifer and its context:

Just because you think (I imagine you were indoctrinated into this position) that the devil is working through modern Bible translators, doesn't make it so. Read it in context.

Anyway, reading into the Bible is what people who are concerned with the letter of the law do:

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
(Romans 7:6)

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(II Corinthians 3:6)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just to show what different translations are saying--

From Young's Literal Translation:

How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations. (Isaiah 14:12)

From the Living Bible:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Revised Standard:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!

Amplified Bible:

How you have fallen from heaven, O *star of the morning [light-bringer], son of the dawn!

* An commentary from Bible scholars, which explains the translation of Lucifer and its context:
View attachment 310284

Just because you think (I imagine you were indoctrinated into this position) that the devil is working through modern Bible translators, doesn't make it so. Read it in context, and don't connect Lucifer with Jesus, the modern translators never meant it, and anyways Lucifer does not apparently even refer to Satan. Satan himself was not explicitly referred to in the Bible.

Again, this is simply not wanting to see it. I already pointed out the connection and this would be the third one I made in this thread. If you don’t want to see it, that is fine. But I am not so easily convinced by your defense of the Westcott and Hort Critical Text Modern Scholarship view. You have to keep ignoring all the problems like Jesus lying in Modern Bibles, to the doctrine on fasting to cast out persistent demons. The list goes on and on, and on. I am sure you can keep up in ignoring off of these things but I am not like you. I am here to honor God’s Word and to follow what He says. I am not out to do my own thing by God’s Word in making it say what I want it to say.

 

[BeingThere]

It is highly instructive that we are going this deep into the rabbit hole of critical textualism. Yet, though neither of us is qualified to critically analyze entire texts, we can both be certain that Lucifer, son of the morning, does not refer to Jesus. Obviously, this does nothing to prove the devil is placing his name where it does not belong. That is preposterous, as no one would read it that way anyway. Besides the story conveys the same message no matter the translation.

 

[BeingThere]

Again, this is simply not wanting to see it. I already pointed out the connection and this would be the third one I made in this thread. If you don’t want to see it, that is fine. But I am not so easily convinced by your defense of the Westcott and Hort Critical Text Modern Scholarship view. You have to keep ignoring all the problems like Jesus lying in Modern Bibles, to the doctrine on fasting to cast out persistent demons. The list goes on and on, and on. I am sure you can keep up in ignoring off of these things but I am not like you. I am here to honor God’s Word and to follow what He says. I am not out to do my own thing by God’s Word in making it say what I want it to say.

I am out to defend the need for modern translations. That is the only way to reach more people who need to hear what the Bible says.

I don't defend the Critical Text, the burden is on you to prove that modern translations based on it are doing the work of Satan, as you imply. So far, you haven't convinced me, and that is because of your extreme stance which you were persuaded to take.

The King James speaks the Good Word, but so do other Bibles, and more lucidly and fluently for today's readership.

So, Revelation 13:1, Isaiah 14:12, down. Any more?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am out to defend the need for modern translations. That is the only way to reach more people who need to hear what the Bible says.

I don't defend the Critical Text, the burden is on you to prove that modern translations based on it are doing the work of Satan, as you imply. So far, you haven't convinced me, and that is because of your extreme stance which you were persuaded to take.

The King James speaks the Good Word, but so do other Bibles, and more lucidly and fluently for today's readership.

So, Revelation 13:1, Isaiah 14:12, down. Any more?

I believe a person can be saved with a Modern Translation, but when it comes to spiritual growth and or when it comes to trusting God’s Word by faith with a more sure solid foundation, they don’t have that. I believe a person is more likely to fall away from the faith if they do not have a sure foundation like the KJB. It does not mean they will fall away, it just means the chances are greater because they have an ever shifting faith. Modern Translations can be helpful and even use them to help update the 1600’s English in the King James Bible. The issue is of one of final authority. Not all bibles say the same thing, and God is not the author of confusion. Not all NASBs or NIV’s have said the same thing throughout the years and there are offensive things in certain Modern Bibles over the years. There is even the Queen James Bible. So obviously not all bibles are the same or trustworthy. There can be only one Word of God (or one Bible). God is not going to send us conflicting messages from a sea of babble bibles. Watch the documentary Bridge to Babylon. Educate yourself on what the men behind the manuscripts who influenced Modern Bibles today say. For you cannot say there influence did not effect Modern Bibles because they were the fathers of the Critical Text that is used in Modern Bibles by the Nestle and Aland Critical Text today.

 

[BeingThere]

You can explain it away all you like… but we see a pattern of this kind of junk going on so you cannot simply write it off. Plus… there is Westcott and Hort. The founders of the Critical Text upon which Nestle and Aland used to create their version of the Critical Text under the supervision of the Vatican. These two men were straight out heretics in regards to the Christian faith (by just looking at their own words). In fact, they hid their beliefs while they were alive in fear that people might reject the Critical Text. You can check that out in the documentary called Bridge to Babylon at Amazon Prime Video. Currently the documentary is free to watch with ads.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B01MSE0F7Q/

I will watch the documentary, thank you. Because I did not know who Westcott and Hort were, I looked them up on gotquestions.org. This is what seems to be the fact behind their involvement with modern bibles:

Not all textual critics use the same methods or give the same weight to certain manuscript families. The specific methods used by Westcott and Hort are no longer held as ideal by Bible scholars. Modern research considers their approach overly reliant on two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as well as the principle of “shorter is earlier.” For these reasons, though the effective differences are minimal, The New Testament in the Original Greek is not the basis for any modern translation of the Bible. Rather, the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland critical texts are typically sourced for English translations today.

Unfortunately, Westcott and Hort are still infamous names with respect to the Bible, despite their text not being the basis of any major modern translations. Most mentions of the pair today are from detractors of their work, particularly those supporting the King James Only movement (KJVO). Such critics tend to focus entirely on Westcott’s and Hort’s non-orthodox spiritual beliefs. In truth, both men held to several ideas that modern conservative Christianity would consider heretical. Then again, the same can be said for church fathers such as Origen, Jerome, and Augustine. And, it’s worth noting that the King James translators themselves were, variously, supporters of Anglicanism, infant baptism, and so forth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It is highly instructive that we are going this deep into the rabbit hole of critical textualism. Yet, though neither of us is qualified to critically analyze entire texts, we can both be certain that Lucifer, son of the morning, does not refer to Jesus. Obviously, this does nothing to prove the devil is placing his name where it does not belong. That is preposterous, as no one would read it that way anyway. Besides the story conveys the same message no matter the translation.

Again, this is simply you not you wanting to see it. Peter talks about the Day star arising in our hearts. If we are to trust Modern Bibles, this would mean that the Day Star is Lucifer or Satan. Such a thing is horrifying.

 

[BeingThere]

Again, this is simply you not you wanting to see it. Peter talks about the Day star arising in our hearts. If we are to trust Modern Bibles, this would mean that the Day Star is Lucifer or Satan. Such a thing is horrifying.

Such a thing would be horrifying, if anyone were to believe that. Here's some scholarly commentary again:

Another thing you may be missing is that the author of 2 Peter used the word phosphoros, not realizing, or more likely not worrying about, the similarity to the Latin Lucifer. Perhaps you are under-studied in the nuances of translation and textual criticism, as I surely am. But I am not the one reading into the Bible as if Satan were in its pages.

 

[BeingThere]

I believe a person can be saved with a Modern Translation, but when it comes to spiritual growth and or when it comes to trusting God’s Word by faith with a more sure solid foundation, they don’t have that. I believe a person is more likely to fall away from the faith if they do not have a sure foundation like the KJB. It does not mean they will fall away, it just means the chances are greater because they have an ever shifting faith. Modern Translations can be helpful and even use them to help update the 1600’s English in the King James Bible. The issue is of one of final authority. Not all bibles say the same thing, and God is not the author of confusion. Not all NASBs or NIV’s have said the same thing throughout the years and there are offensive things in certain Modern Bibles over the years. There is even the Queen James Bible. So obviously not all bibles are the same or trustworthy. There can be only one Word of God (or one Bible). God is not going to send us conflicting messages from a sea of babble bibles. Watch the documentary Bridge to Babylon. Educate yourself on what the men behind the manuscripts who influenced Modern Bibles today say. For you cannot say there influence did not effect Modern Bibles because they were the fathers of the Critical Text that is used in Modern Bibles by the Nestle and Aland Critical Text today.

I don't think you have established that modern Bibles (and I mean the popular ones, not the Word on the Street) do not convey the truth that the original authors wanted us to hear.

The chances that people will fall away from Christianity is much higher if people do not hear the Good Word in language they understand. Modern Bibles are not the cause for "ever-shifting faith." It is sinfulness ("missing the mark") that is the cause of it, and pointed, relevant language can help.

The 10 translations of the New Testament and the 6 translations of the Old Testament all say the same thing. Words here and there are different, but, and this is very important and has been said endlessly, meaning is far more nuanced than a sum of words.

Taking the missing text of Mathew 17:21, of which some translations omit: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

There is one explanation, which you seem to prefer, that this omission is part of Satan's plan to render modern Bibles impotent. That is one--childish, in my opinion--view.

Then there is another explanation, which requires some objective observation. Most modern Bibles include a footnote rendering the missing text. So, it is not missing from the text altogether, but is not included because of translator's prerogative. This does not, even in your imaginary system of demonic influence over modern translations, take away from the context. The main point was Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove: nothing shall be impossible unto you. Obviously, prayer is a part of any Christian's toolkit, so is fasting. Though I am also a completist in some things, in this case you are fretting over details, details which most modern translations do not hide, but place in footnotes for valid reasons. The teaching of Christ, the Truth of the whole Gospel, is not the sum of words. It is the whole Gospel.

I understand that you use the NIV at times. I am not trying to convince you to put away the KJB. Don't give the instruction to others that any Bible but the KJV contains less than the truth. It is harmful, and incorrect.

 

[BeingThere]

I wanted to share some different translations of Isaiah 14:12 and II Peter 1:19

So, factually speaking, the King James uses daystar in place of Peter's words for Jesus. Modern translators (some, not all) use morning star, or son of the morning, in place of Isaiah's description of the King of Babylon.

For anyone interested in reading for themselves, the two books, which were written centuries apart, are telling different stories. Just because there is similarity between the way the King of Babylon is described in Isaiah (or Satan as some people wrongly suggest) and Jesus is described in II Peter does not contribute to the false teaching that modern translators are compromised, and the translations any less relevant to today's Christians.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Such a thing would be horrifying, if anyone were to believe that. Here's some scholarly commentary again:

View attachment 310287

Another thing you may be missing is that the author of 2 Peter used the word phosphoros, not realizing, or more likely not worrying about, the similarity to the Latin Lucifer. Perhaps you are under-studied in the nuances of translation and textual criticism, as I surely am. But I am not the one reading into the Bible as if Satan were in its pages.

Read this article here on the word Lucifer.

Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I wanted to share some different translations of Isaiah 14:12 and II Peter 1:19

View attachment 310291

View attachment 310292

So, factually speaking, the King James uses daystar in place of Peter's words for Jesus. Modern translators (some, not all) use morning star, or son of the morning, in place of Isaiah's description of the King of Babylon.

For anyone interested in reading for themselves, the two books, which were written centuries apart, are telling different stories. Just because there is similarity between the way the King of Babylon is described in Isaiah (or Satan as some people wrongly suggest) and Jesus is described in II Peter does not contribute to the false teaching that modern translators are compromised, and the translations any less relevant to today's Christians.

I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the “Day Star” can have two different meanings because they are written in two different points in time? Do you think God never knew that there would be a Holy Bible one day and that God just intended words to be isolated alone for that time period? If that is what you are suggesting, I am not buying it. Again, I see a pattern of the devil trying to place his name in Modern Bibles where they do not belong. This is not the only problem in Modern Bibles. Sure, you might be able to write off some things, but you cannot keep at it over and over and over and over again on other things. It’s like a crime scene. If the evidence keeps pointing to a guy who did the crime, there has to come a point that he most likely did it. From my perspective, it just seems like you want to side with the Modern Critical Text Scholarship Viewpoint because it aligns with how you want things to be in your own mind. But God’s thoughts are not our thoughts.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't think you have established that modern Bibles (and I mean the popular ones, not the Word on the Street) do not convey the truth that the original authors wanted us to hear.

The chances that people will fall away from Christianity is much higher if people do not hear the Good Word in language they understand. Modern Bibles are not the cause for "ever-shifting faith." It is sinfulness ("missing the mark") that is the cause of it, and pointed, relevant language can help.

The 10 translations of the New Testament and the 6 translations of the Old Testament all say the same thing. Words here and there are different, but, and this is very important and has been said endlessly, meaning is far more nuanced than a sum of words.

Taking the missing text of Mathew 17:21, of which some translations omit: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

There is one explanation, which you seem to prefer, that this omission is part of Satan's plan to render modern Bibles impotent. That is one--childish, in my opinion--view.

Then there is another explanation, which requires some objective observation. Most modern Bibles include a footnote rendering the missing text. So, it is not missing from the text altogether, but is not included because of translator's prerogative. This does not, even in your imaginary system of demonic influence over modern translations, take away from the context. The main point was Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove: nothing shall be impossible unto you. Obviously, prayer is a part of any Christian's toolkit, so is fasting. Though I am also a completist in some things, in this case you are fretting over details, details which most modern translations do not hide, but place in footnotes for valid reasons. The teaching of Christ, the Truth of the whole Gospel, is not the sum of words. It is the whole Gospel.

I understand that you use the NIV at times. I am not trying to convince you to put away the KJB. Don't give the instruction to others that any Bible but the KJV contains less than the truth. It is harmful, and incorrect.

Sorry. I am not buying it. I accepted Christ in 1992. I knew early on in my faith about the translation issue and have only grown in knowledge since that time on the topic. The more I dug, the more I found that the King James Bible is superior and the Modern Bibles are corrupt.

Also, before I studied more on the translation issue, early in my faith I almost had a moment of doubt in God’s Word in that it could have destroyed my faith. A Modern Scholar made me question the Bible and I thought for a half of a second that he might be right and all the Bible may be false or corrupted to a point whereby I could not trust it anymore. But then I stopped, and confirmed my transformation by the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and I said I did not have an answer at that point in time, but I knew God would give me one in His timing. And guess what happened? God answered me many years later. For I had received a sound explained to the supposed contradiction in my Bible that made me originally doubt my Bible for a half a second from the Bible agnostic scholars.

 

[BeingThere]

I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the “Day Star” can have two different meanings because they are written in two different points in time? Do you think God never knew that there would be a Holy Bible one day and that God just intended words to be isolated alone for that time period? If that is what you are suggesting, I am not buying it. Again, I see a pattern of the devil trying to place his name in Modern Bibles where they do not belong. This is not the only problem in Modern Bibles. Sure, you might be able to write off some things, but you cannot keep at it over and over and over and over again on other things. It’s like a crime scene. If the evidence keeps pointing to a guy who did the crime, there has to come a point that he most likely did it. From my perspective, it just seems like you want to side with the Modern Critical Text Scholarship Viewpoint because it aligns with how you want things to be in your own mind. But God’s thoughts are not our thoughts.

What I am saying, is that some translations use morning star, as the NIV does, some "day star," as the Revised Standard and the King James sidebar includes. The description is not the thing. Jesus is not the Morning Star, he is Jesus. The words describe him, but ultimately it is the whole New Testament that testifies and explains who he is and what he teaches. Similarly, you cannot unilaterally declare modern translations bankrupt for using similar descriptions--"son of the dawn" (NIV), "son of the morning" (Living Bible), "day star, son of dawn" (Revised Standard), "O shining one, son of the dawn" (Young's Literal Translation)--descriptions which were written centuries prior to Jesus' coming, and connecting dots to serve your own narrative.

This illustrates my disinterest in the overly simplistic argument you present: the most literal translation available, Young's Literal Translation (try reading it, you will want to pull your hair out because of how literal it is) does not include "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12. For context, Young render II Peter 1:19 as so: as to a lamp shining in a dark place, till day may dawn, and a morning star may arise--in your hearts. Isaiah and Peter are speaking of two radically different things. So, which translation is not faithfully rendering the original texts, in your view?

 

[BeingThere]

Sorry. I am not buying it. I accepted Christ in 1992. I knew early on in my faith about the translation issue and have only grown in knowledge since that time on the topic. The more I dug, the more I found that the King James Bible is superior and the Modern Bibles are corrupt.

Also, before I studied more on the translation issue, early in my faith I almost had a moment of doubt in God’s Word in that it could have destroyed my faith. A Modern Scholar made me question the Bible and I thought for a half of a second that he might be right and all the Bible may be false or corrupted to a point whereby I could not trust it anymore. But then I stopped, and confirmed my transformation by the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and I said I did not have an answer at that point in time, but I knew God would give me one in His timing. And guess what happened? God answered me many years later. For I had received a sound explained to the supposed contradiction in my Bible that made me originally doubt my Bible for a half a second from the Bible agnostic scholars.

I am happy to hear about your renewed and long-standing faith.

When I question my faith I turn to the Bible so that it may turn me to Christ. Eventually, a reborn Christian will have the Gospel in his heart. For now and for me, however, any translation gives me what I need to hear. I don't know what particular issue you were having and with which translation, but I believe that any popular translation contains the Gospel, and that it is our faith in Christ which needs renewal, not faith in the Bible.

 

[BeingThere]

The more I dug, the more I found that the King James Bible is superior and the Modern Bibles are corrupt.

Modern translations are not corrupt, the King James Version is one of many possible translations. If it speaks to you best, then you should keep reading it. But you telling others that modern translations are corrupt is fanaticism, and unfounded at that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Modern translations are not corrupt, the King James Version is one of many possible translations. If it speaks to you best, then you should keep reading it. But you telling others that modern translations are corrupt is fanaticism, and unfounded at that.

Yes. Modern Translations are corrupted. It’s a fact. It’s so obvious it’s not even funny. Are they useful at times in helping to update the 1600’s English? Yes. But are they trustworthy entirely? No. How long have you been studying this issue? It does not seem like you are that knowledgeable about, my friend. For you are unaware of Westcott and Hort. Watch the entirety of the video I sent you. It may be a difficult to watch it all, but you should try. Modern Translations are clearly corrupt. I provided many reasons why in the link I sent you before. You can also Google the issue and research it for hours on end if you want.

Doing a Google search on the keywords “KJV vs Modern Bibles.”

You will find articles like this (to see such corruptions):

KJV Comparison Page
Omissions and contradictions in Bible translations
KJV vs Modern Bible Translations - Cornerstone Baptist Church | Bible Believing Baptist Church | Missionary supporting

If you are not convinced (after examining these difference), it’s because you don’t want there to be a perfect Bible (to be under authority to).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am happy to hear about your renewed and long-standing faith.

When I question my faith I turn to the Bible so that it may turn me to Christ. Eventually, a reborn Christian will have the Gospel in his heart. For now and for me, however, any translation gives me what I need to hear. I don't know what particular issue you were having and with which translation, but I believe that any popular translation contains the Gospel, and that it is our faith in Christ which needs renewal, not faith in the Bible.

The point is that others are not so blessed. Generally men who lose their faith in God did not have a belief in a perfect Bible. They never truly trusted in a faith that did not change or shift like sands on a beach. Most walk away because there was no solid foundation to trust to begin with.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What I am saying, is that some translations use morning star, as the NIV does, some "day star," as the Revised Standard and the King James sidebar includes. The description is not the thing. Jesus is not the Morning Star, he is Jesus. The words describe him, but ultimately it is the whole New Testament that testifies and explains who he is and what he teaches. Similarly, you cannot unilaterally declare modern translations bankrupt for using similar descriptions--"son of the dawn" (NIV), "son of the morning" (Living Bible), "day star, son of dawn" (Revised Standard), "O shining one, son of the dawn" (Young's Literal Translation)--descriptions which were written centuries prior to Jesus' coming, and connecting dots to serve your own narrative.

This illustrates my disinterest in the overly simplistic argument you present: the most literal translation available, Young's Literal Translation (try reading it, you will want to pull your hair out because of how literal it is) does not include "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12. For context, Young render II Peter 1:19 as so: as to a lamp shining in a dark place, till day may dawn, and a morning star may arise--in your hearts. Isaiah and Peter are speaking of two radically different things. So, which translation is not faithfully rendering the original texts, in your view?

You say Jesus is not the morning star.

Yet, Revelation 22:16 says He is.

Revelation 22:16
“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.”

 

[BeingThere]

You say Jesus is not the morning star.

Yet, Revelation 22:16 says He is.

Revelation 22:16
“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.”

You're not reading my posts, clearly. The word is not the thing. I can use the same language in a description of a dog as in a description of a asteroid. The two are vastly different, but you wouldn't mistake one for the other if I used a similar word here and there. The context is important.

Jesus spoke to John, saying he was "the bright and morning star." Isaiah wrote of the King of Babylon, "How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn." (Young's) Other translations render it "morning star." Son of the morning, morning star, whatever the terminology only someone who reads these passages entirely out of context would mistake a Jesus for Satan, an entity that, by the way, only existed in extra-biblical doctrine centuries after Jesus' death.

Jesus is Jesus. The King of Babylon is the King of Babylon. If they were both green that doesn't mean they're the same person.

Nearly all of the "corruptions" I have encountered from fundamentalist cranks on the internet are similar to this nonissue, or otherwise involve occurrences of superfluous language. How do you know that the source texts of the King James translators did not contain several additions/omissions/errors from the many scribes who touched the manuscripts?