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

[BeingThere]

Say what??

It's true, all the churches that teach doctrine are merely interpreting scripture and telling others to obey. It may bring people closer to God, or it may teach faith in human institution. Either way, the good news is as simple as it sounds, though it takes work.

My hunch is that anyone moderately intelligent would place faith where it belongs, in god and not the church, lest any man may boast. For the rest, the church may fill other social needs, which are definitely served by Christian doctrine and behavior.

The Catholic Church, to me, may have served to get the gospel into as many homes as possible, where the true work would begin.

 

[BeingThere]

Authorized by King James so that all Protestant beliefs would be what he decided they should be. That's the main reason the Puritans fled England. Although they missed Florida! They would have had an easier time of it.

By the way: The Unvarnished New Testament translated by Andy Gaus is one that aims to read as the Greek does, without the color of Catholic doctrine and verbage. Has no verse forms and is single column like the letters were originally.

 

[pescador]

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

I am going to try to say this gently... Judging from your post you don't have a great command of the English language. You wrote, "if your truly Born again, pray that the Holy spirit guide you in all truth. Changing 1 word and could mean many things."

A better, more correct way of writing this in English: "If you're truly born again, pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. Changing one word could mean many things."

With your knowledge of English, how can you understand the archaic, often confusing, text of the King James Bible?

 

[pescador]

It's true, all the churches that teach doctrine are merely interpreting scripture and telling others to obey. It may bring people closer to God, or it may teach faith in human institution. Either way, the good news is as simple as it sounds, though it takes work.

My hunch is that anyone moderately intelligent would place faith where it belongs, in god and not the church, lest any man may boast. For the rest, the church may fill other social needs, which are definitely served by Christian doctrine and behavior.

The Catholic Church, to me, may have served to get the gospel into as many homes as possible, where the true work would begin.

No, The Catholic Church did not serve to get the gospel into as many homes as possible. They opposed individual interpretation of Scripture, as people may have come to different conclusions about what the Bible said than what the RCC told them. If it wasn't for Luther and the printing press they might have succeeded. Unfortunately, they're still trying. 8^(

 

[GodLovesCats]

By the way: The Unvarnished New Testament translated by Andy Gaus is one that aims to read as the Greek does, without the color of Catholic doctrine and verbage. Has no verse forms and is single column like the letters were originally.

Why should anyone care about single columns? Ancient Hebrew had no vowels, punctuation, numbers like 0-9, or capital/lowercase letters. All of that stuff had to be added for translations to other languages.

 

[BeingThere]

Why should anyone care about single columns? Ancient Hebrew had no vowels, punctuation, numbers like 0-9, or capital/lowercase letters. All of that stuff had to be added for translations to other languages.

I was talking about the Greek, as this is a Greek New Testament translation. The original manuscripts were not organized in double column, verse form, to my knowledge.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe the King James 1900 Cambridge Edition is the pure Word of God.

I encourage all here to get yourself one and compare it with an unbiased view with Modern Bibles. Take notes and be open to the truth. What do you have to lose?

 

[BeingThere]

No, The Catholic Church did not serve to get the gospel into as many homes as possible. They opposed individual interpretation of Scripture, as people may have come to different conclusions about what the Bible said than what the RCC told them. If it wasn't for Luther and the printing press they might have succeeded. Unfortunately, they're still trying. 8^(

I have a couple points.

1) So few people read in those days that even if a Bible were in every home, it would serve more of a purpose as firestarter.
2) By "getting the gospel into as many homes as possible" I mean the gospel, not the bible. Of course the Catholics preached their interpretation because they held the keys to power, and with it literacy--no illiterate can interpret a book he can't read.
3) To an earlier point, all churches teach a different, albeit slightly, doctrine. I don't say the Catholic doctrine is, or that any human doctrine can be, perfect and good, (as only God is good), but that the Catholic Church a century or so after Christs death "weaponized" the gospel, putting it in the ears (and minds) of many.

The Catholic Church organized the modern Bible, weaponized the story, and is responsible significantly for it's propogation.

 

[BeingThere]

I believe the King James 1900 Cambridge Edition is the pure Word of God.

I encourage all here to get yourself one and compare it with an unbiased view with Modern Bibles. Take notes and be open to the truth. What do you have to lose?

We all have one! What do we lose by not reading a Bible in our own tongue? Potentially understanding the fullness of the gospel

 

[GodLovesCats]

I believe the King James 1900 Cambridge Edition is the pure Word of God.

I encourage all here to get yourself one and compare it with an unbiased view with modern Bibles. Take notes and be open to the truth. What do you have to lose?

You keep saying every modern Bible is corrupt and biased, but only cite a new paraphrase Bible to support your claim, not one that was written in the 1960s just to translate ancient English to modern English.

If you cannot prove the whole purpose of writing the NIV was, and still is, to corrupt God's Word, you have already been proven wrong many times.

What I have to lose by reading the King James Version is faith in God because it is too hard for me to read and understand. Growing in my faith requires not having any problems with Scripture readability.

 

[timothyu]

And those with limited understanding of other languages usually only know the swear words anyway.

 

[Valletta]

No, The Catholic Church did not serve to get the gospel into as many homes as possible. They opposed individual interpretation of Scripture, as people may have come to different conclusions about what the Bible said than what the RCC told them. If it wasn't for Luther and the printing press they might have succeeded. Unfortunately, they're still trying. 8^(

False. After the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible and gave the world the Bible in the late 300s they spread the Gospel around the world. Now most of the Christian world was illiterate, and Bibles were quite expense to make and most did not survive the test of time, lost whether to natural causes or anti-Catholic attacks. Monasteries were formed, a monastery might have one or maybe two Bibles, so priests would have to memorize significant portions of the Bible before going out in order to spread the Gospel. Numerous translations of Biblical text into common languages were made. As to a Catholiic named Gutenberg and the printing press, the first book he printed was the Holy Bible. We owe Catholics in those centuries a great debt, there would have been no Bible without the Catholic Church, monks meticulously copied Bibles, translating and preserving Biblical text over all of those centuries. Now in order to be a Catholic we are required to believe our Creed, we call it the Apostle's Creed. So in interpreting the Bible must be within the confines of the Creed and the Church. We could not say, for example, that God is four persons. Were such a thing taught by a Catholic who refused to teach otherwise that person could no longer remain a Catholic.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You keep saying every modern Bible is corrupt and biased, but only cite a new paraphrase Bible to support your claim, not one that was written in the 1960s just to translate ancient English to modern English.

If you cannot prove the whole purpose of writing the NIV was, and still is, to corrupt God's Word, you have already been proven wrong many times.

I already proven it by showing you verses that are already altered between the KJB vs. the NIV. Somehow it just did not register with you in being a problem. There are more verses that are altered at the following link:

https://www.biblebc.com/Christian_Helps/BibleVersions/NIV versus KJV.pdf

For example: One verse in the NIV that is a corruption is Matthew 9:13. Jesus is saying in the NIV that He calls sinners (period). This effects doctrine and I know it does because I talk with believers all the time who erroneously think they can sin and still be saved by just having a belief alone in Jesus and they quote me verses like this from the NIV. But in the KJB, it correctly says that Jesus is calls sinners to repentance in Matthew 9:13. These kinds of things are just the tip of the iceberg of the problems in your NIV. The NIV is actually regarded as one of the worst Bibles even by Modern Translation Proponents. It’s one of the most neutered bibles out there. 64,000 verses are missing. That’s a lot. But if you like a butchered bible, then by all means.

What I have to lose by reading the King James Version is faith in God because it is too hard for me to read and understand. Growing in my faith requires not having any problems with Scripture readability.

God tells you to study to show yourself approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15). But you would not know that because you don’t read the King James Bible. For this command is changed in Modern Bibles. Anyways, you want to be spoon fed everything, but God does not cater to our laziness or own way of doing things. The reason why God desires us to study is because we will not appreciate truth that is just handed out to us all the time. But if you work hard by studying God’s Word (like looking up archaic words in an old English dictionary or a Bible dictionary) you will learn to appreciate the meaning behind those archaic words that is veiled from this world and it’s modern ways.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I already proven it by showing you verses that are already altered between the KJB vs. the NIV. Somehow it just did not register with you in being a problem. There are more verses that are altered at the following link:

You did not prove replacing "God" with "He" several times was a deliberate attack on the Trinity at all. The H was capitalized, proving the pronoun must be God. Whenever I ask for proof, I want to know what many theologians were doing when they created the long-overdue New International Version.

 

[Strong in Him]

There is an attack upon God’s Word by Satan.
Some are subtle attacks whereby you would not notice them, and there are blatant attacks.

Here are some puke worthy Modern Bibles.

https://www.amazon.com/LOLcat-Bible-beginnin-Ceiling-stuffs/dp/1569757348/

Clearly this is not a Bible.
I've noticed that people often use the word "Bible" to refer to a definitive guide to something or the ultimate "How to" book - e.g "Gardener's Bible", "Cake maker's Bible".

https://www.amazon.com/Word-Street-Rob-Lacey/dp/0310932254/

The word on the street is at least written in the language of the man on the street - just as the NT was. The language of the KJV was no doubt what people were speaking at the time - but we're not now. It's so archaic that even you have to resort to "corrupt" Bibles to help you to understand it.

Don’t settle for anything less than a perfect Bible.

There is NO perfect Bible - and you'll discover that one day.
If we believe in and receive Jesus, we have THE Word, the perfect word, in our hearts. I've noticed you don't address that, or speak much about God at all; all your energy goes into defending a book.

 

[Strong in Him]

God tells you to study to show yourself approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15). But you would not know that because you don’t read the King James Bible.

I don't read the KJV either but I know it.
How?
Because the verse is in the NIV, and when I am studying I look at other translations and sometimes at commentaries, in order TO learn. That's what "study" means.

Anyways, you want to be spoon fed everything, but God does not cater to our laziness or own way of doing things.

I don't think that someone who relies on YouTube, Wikipedia and the same, biased, websites for his arguments can talk to us about being "spoon fed".

If you were truly interested in studying to learn the truth, you would want to compare the KJV with the Greek/Hebrew texts, read interlinear translations or maybe even try to learn the languages so that you can better understand what was originally written.
That seems to present a threat to you - because you might discover that the KJV was not perfect. As you have publicly staked your faith, and life, on its perfection, you clearly cannot consider that it might not be.

Take the advice of your own Bible and study.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Kind of like the pamphlet handed out to prospective employees of a human organization rather than representing the Kingdom of God. Tells what the institution expects of you rather than what God expects. The equivalent of Eve eating the apple. More misdirection back into the world and away from the Kingdom.

They are writings inspired by God

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You can’t tell me that the epistles in the New Testament do not fall into this category.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's true, all the churches that teach doctrine are merely interpreting scripture and telling others to obey. It may bring people closer to God, or it may teach faith in human institution. Either way, the good news is as simple as it sounds, though it takes work.

My hunch is that anyone moderately intelligent would place faith where it belongs, in god and not the church, lest any man may boast. For the rest, the church may fill other social needs, which are definitely served by Christian doctrine and behavior.

The Catholic Church, to me, may have served to get the gospel into as many homes as possible, where the true work would begin.

Timothy’s point in that post is that the epistles in the New Testament are not scripture, instead they are more like an instruction pamphlet. We arrived at this point in the discussion because I said the church came before the scriptures, he disagreed, I pointed out that the epistles being the first New Testament scriptures written were written to the church and he is going to great lengths to keep from admitting his mistake even going so far as to claim that the epistles are not scripture.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's true, all the churches that teach doctrine are merely interpreting scripture and telling others to obey. It may bring people closer to God, or it may teach faith in human institution. Either way, the good news is as simple as it sounds, though it takes work.

My hunch is that anyone moderately intelligent would place faith where it belongs, in god and not the church, lest any man may boast. For the rest, the church may fill other social needs, which are definitely served by Christian doctrine and behavior.

The Catholic Church, to me, may have served to get the gospel into as many homes as possible, where the true work would begin.

The whole problem occurred when I said that God gave us the scriptures thru the church and because the Church of God adopted the name Catholic in the early 2cd century people want to reject this truth because they reject anything that is related to the Roman Catholic Church. What they fail to understand is that Roman Catholicism as it exists today didn’t exist back then. Rome was an apostolic church in full communion with all the other churches established by the apostles when the name Catholic was adopted by the church. Rome didn’t fall out of communion with the rest of the church until 1054AD. People who don’t know their church history get all riled up when they hear the word Catholic Church because they automatically associate it with Roman Catholicism and are quick to reject anything attributed to the Catholic Church. Now if I had said the Church of God I’m sure no one would’ve objected but the truth is the Church of God adopted the name Catholic (universal) some time between 107AD-170AD. We know this by two early writings. One is Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans written in 107AD that describes the church as being Catholic in nature the other is Iranaeus’ writing Adversus Haereses written in 170AD in which he calls the church by name the Catholic Church. So that’s how far back the name Catholic goes, long before Rome fell away from the apostolic teachings.

 

[timothyu]

They are writings inspired by God

There are writings within yes, particularly those spoken by Jesus. But to say the whole book is inspired is false other than the words of Jesus. All else is building upon what he taught. Interestingly the focus became on the institution rather than the Kingdom. Typical Adversarial move to draw attention away from jesus' Gospel. I mean if someone came and told man and the Adversary that their time was up and they would no longer have any place of authority in the new world, well ask yourself 'what would man and the Adversary do' ?

My point is that this particular gentile church with a Roman influence, chose books which suited their agenda, so in that respect, I agree church came before it's relevant scriptures, Gentile church overtaking the original Way, hence heavy on Paul and using his epistles for building an institution, but ignoring any books he may have had on the Gospel of the Kingdom which was Jesus' gospel.

As I said, the focus became on the institution rather than the Kingdom.