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

[BeingThere]

I have spent a great deal of time and word count (222,197 words to be exact) on this blog explaining the methods and theology of the Modern Textual Critics and advocates. I have pointed out, using the words of the textual scholars, that there is no Modern Critical Text, there is no end in sight to the current effort, and adopting the Modern Critical Text means also to reject providential preservation. In all these words, I have yet to describe the approach of the Modern Textual Critic and advocate.

Let me define the approach of the modern translation advocate: communicate the words of the Bible to those who want to hear. Give water to the thirsty; clean, clear water, untainted by archaic language systems and obscure vocabulary.

People attack banks because there is something of value within them.
It’s the same with the Word of God.

For I did not just randomly select the King James Bible as being the Word of God. It is the most attacked Bible. It is attacked by Modern Bibles, and real human beings.

The King James Bible is one of many translations which were "attacked," as you say. This is actually a poor choice of words. Rather, the words of the Bible are being refined, like the silver purified seven times, in order to be pure to our ears, because even precious metals garner a sheen which obscures their brightness when exposed to air and time--the same is true of the old translations. The Bible can only ever be as pure as refined silver, but God's Word is beyond human comparison.

 

[Strong in Him]

People attack banks because there is something of value within them.
It’s the same with the Word of God.

No one is attacking the word of God; that is what you don't understand.
We are opposing your insistence that the KJV is perfect and that it, ALONE, is the word of God and has the truth.
The NIV is the word of God.
The NASB is the word of God.
The RSV is the word of God.
Etc.
Deal with it.

For I did not just randomly select the King James Bible as being the Word of God. It is the most attacked Bible.

I think it likely that if it is attacked it is because a few of its readers insist on its perfection - to the point of almost deifying it.

Another thing you don't seem to understand; we are happy for you to read, and prefer, the KJV.
We are not happy that you say that we read tainted, corrupt Bibles. For one thing, it's not true, and for another, it has to at least imply that we are uneducated Christians, not possessing the truth and not realising that we don't possess it.

There is also the number 1611 found when you add up the three verse numbers that talk about how God’s words are like bread.

Which means zilch.
And the 1611 KJV isn't even perfect and the final "true" word.

It is the Bible that has stood for hundreds of years long before the Critical Text and Modern Textual Criticism came along

Bibles, and God's words, existed for hundreds of years before the KJV came along.

For it’s not a coincidence that those Christians who went to Bible college and fell away from the faith is tied to Modern Scholarship that makes them to doubt God’s words.

What evidence do you have for that - or are you just jumping to conclusions again?

“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;” (1 Corinthians 1:27).

That verse is in my Bible too.
It's talking about the cross; not the KJV.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Modern Scholarship is a great error.

One example is that some “Modern Scholarship Followers” will claim that all English Modern bibles are the Word of God. However, they clearly are not all the Word of God. The Word of God is without error. God does not speak different things amongst a sea of babble bibles that make God out to be the author of confusion.

My Bible has 1 John 5:7 in it and yet Modern Bibles removes this verse (Which is an attack on the Trinity). Modern Bibles remove the blood in Colossians 1:14. Modern Bibles chop in half Romans 8:1. Modern Bibles omit Matthew 17:21. Modern Bibles muddy the waters of understanding on 2 Timothy 2:15. The KJB basically says to study to show yourself approved unto God. But Modern Bibles don’t want you to study to show yourself approved unto God. However, God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. “Modern Scholarship Followers” just blindly follow what the scholar says as if it was the very words of God. The devil’s name is placed in Modern Bibles, and some of them also make Jesus appear to sin, as well. This is just wrong.

Get back to the King James Bible.

 

[Strong in Him]

One example is that some “Modern Scholarship Followers” will claim that all English Modern bibles are the Word of God.

Yep.
God is the same, the Bible stories are the same. Jesus is the same, the way of salvation is the same.

My Bible has 1 John 5:7 in it and yet Modern Bibles removes this verse (Which is an attack on the Trinity).

No, it isn't.
I believe the Trinity and I do not read the KJV.

“Modern Scholarship Followers” just blindly follow what the scholar says as if it was the very words of God.

Whereas some people get their theology off YouTube and Wikipedia, and then speak to the rest of us about being spoon fed.

Get back to the King James Bible.

No chance.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's obvious that you don't understand the principle of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. In other words, it's not the post-Biblical teaching and doctrine of men that is correct, but the Bible alone.

It doesn't matter if there are different translations of a single verse such as 2 Samuel 21:19 (In my preferred translation, the NET v 2.1, it says, "Yet another battle occurred with the Philistines in Gob. On that occasion Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.") It doesn't matter one iota that the KJV says one thing and other translations say another, especially if it's one word. => There are no original sources. Translators do the best they can to translate the most reliable documents into the destination language, since a "word-for-word" translation is impossible. (There are too many differences between the source languages and the destination language.)

Do you actually think that if the KJV is worded one way and other translations are worded differently -- in your example, a single word -- that God's message to humanity is altered? Again, a "literal", "word-for-word" translation is impossible. God uses what and whom He wishes to get His message across.

Yes the message is altered if one word is changed. Every manuscript before the KJV said that Elhanan killed Goliath, obviously to say that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother is talking about a completely different person. So yes if that one word that is added makes the statement pertain to a completely different person then the message has been altered. In this case the scriptures were overruled by the translator’s interpretation hence sola scriptura was set aside to make room for the translator’s interpretation of the verse instead of allowing the scriptures to say what they say. The story of David and Goliath is one of the most well known Bible stories known to both the Jews and Christians and for 1600 years the manuscripts say that Elhanan killed Goliath and killed Goliath’s brother. Don’t you think people noticed 2 Samuel 21:19? And yet it remained unchanged both in Christian and Jewish manuscripts. This is not a matter of translation this is a matter of altering the message because of interpretation. There’s no question on how it was supposed to be translated because there’s no word in that verse that could possibly be mistaken for the word “brother” and it’s written the same in both the Hebrew Tenakh and the Greek Septuagint both of which predate Christianity and Jesus’ ministry. There’s no way that if this was an error that it wouldn’t have been spotted and corrected before the KJB was translated. This is just one example where words were completely changed because of the translator’s interpretation of the verse. 1 John 5:7 is another clear example of the very same problem taking place.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The bold portion is not written in the Textus Receptus or in any other manuscripts, it was added commentary from the translators.

“For there are three that testify:”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This is what was written in the actual scriptures. So the KJB does not give us scripture alone it gives us scripture plus someone’s commentary and as a result we have people that think this was written in the original scriptures. For some people, like myself, we want to read what the authors wrote not what someone thinks they meant by what they wrote. If I wanted someone’s interpretation I can sit in a pew on Sunday and get that all day long, but I don’t want someone to tell me what the authors were trying to say I want to read what they wrote so I can determine that for myself. How can I determine what is scripture alone if my Bible contains added commentary?

 

[pescador]

Yes the message is altered if one word is changed. Every manuscript before the KJV said that Elhanan killed Goliath, obviously to say that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother is talking about a completely different person. So yes if that one word that is added makes the statement pertain to a completely different person then the message has been altered. In this case the scriptures were overruled by the translator’s interpretation hence sola scriptura was set aside to make room for the translator’s interpretation of the verse instead of allowing the scriptures to say what they say. The story of David and Goliath is one of the most well known Bible stories known to both the Jews and Christians and for 1600 years the manuscripts say that Elhanan killed Goliath and killed Goliath’s brother. Don’t you think people noticed 2 Samuel 21:19? And yet it remained unchanged both in Christian and Jewish manuscripts. This is not a matter of translation this is a matter of altering the message because of interpretation. There’s no question on how it was supposed to be translated because there’s no word in that verse that could possibly be mistaken for the word “brother” and it’s written the same in both the Hebrew Tenakh and the Greek Septuagint both of which predate Christianity and Jesus’ ministry. There’s no way that if this was an error that it wouldn’t have been spotted and corrected before the KJB was translated. This is just one example where words were completely changed because of the translator’s interpretation of the verse. 1 John 5:7 is another clear example of the very same problem taking place.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The bold portion is not written in the Textus Receptus or in any other manuscripts, it was added commentary from the translators.

“For there are three that testify:”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This is what was written in the actual scriptures. So the KJB does not give us scripture alone it gives us scripture plus someone’s commentary and as a result we have people that think this was written in the original scriptures. For some people, like myself, we want to read what the authors wrote not what someone thinks they meant by what they wrote. If I wanted someone’s interpretation I can sit in a pew on Sunday and get that all day long, but I don’t want someone to tell me what the authors were trying to say I want to read what they wrote so I can determine that for myself. How can I determine what is scripture alone if my Bible contains added commentary?

So I assume that 1) you have a collection of the original Bible "books" in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek and 2) you have the ability to perfectly translate those "books" into modern English.

No? Nobody has "the actual scriptures"; they don't exist. All that exist are copies, created by imperfect men. Many people have dedicated their lives to producing the best translations of the earliest Bible sources in the language that we most clearly understand.

So you want to read what the authors wrote not what someone thinks they meant by what they wrote? Then use a translation that resonates with you, realizing that it is a translation into English from the best available (incomplete) sources. That is the best that we have!

 

[BNR32FAN]

So I assume that 1) you have a collection of the original Bible "books" in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek and 2) you have the ability to perfectly translate those "books" into modern English.

No? Nobody has "the actual scriptures"; they don't exist. All that exist are copies, created by imperfect men. Many people have dedicated their lives to producing the best translations of the earliest Bible sources in the language that we most clearly understand.

So you want to read what the authors wrote not what someone thinks they meant by what they wrote? Then use a translation that resonates with you, realizing that it is a translation into English from the best available (incomplete) sources. That is the best that we have!

The point is that the KJB added words that were NOT IN ANY MANUSCRIPTS. The examples I provided prove that.

 

[BeingThere]

So you want to read what the authors wrote not what someone thinks they meant by what they wrote? Then use a translation that resonates with you, realizing that it is a translation into English from the best available (incomplete) sources. That is the best that we have!

Referring to Christian scriptures, that is the best we have; not to say that anything is really missing, for those who hear will hear. In a sense I agree with BibleHighlighter that an endless quest for perfect scripture is a trap, but that is a straw man argument--honest Christians don't really quest for perfect scripture, but for perfect reflection of God in his image.

And, I agree with the basic proposition of sola scriptura--the Bible communicates a complete profile of the sanctified and risen life in Christ. The essence of this risen life, however, is in the demonstration of that life in every individual. That is where sola scriptura can be a misleading precept--the scriptures are not complete in the sense that true life begins where the scriptures end. I realize, though, that I may be misrepresenting the purpose of sola scriptura, which was to divest the Church of any perceived or imposed authority over individual salvation.

The narrow way is recognizing both the fullness of scripture in its unique exposition of Christ, but also the emptiness of it, in that the demonstration of Christ ultimately lies in the living human being:

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours. — St. Teresa of Ávila

 

[Isilwen]

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?

Still going with the false equivalency angle.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

I am too busy right now working on new and exciting reasons based on Scripture and facts in defense of the King James Bible to deal with what I believe are petty and weak arguments against God’s Word (the KJB). If I feel it is worth my time in replying at a later time, I will reply. If not, I will simply move on. But for now, I am too busy to be distracted by such insignificant arguments and mere opinions.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree in love.
May the Lord’s good ways be upon you all.

 

[timothyu]

After approx. 1700 yrs of Christianity itself purposely leading us away from the gospel of the Kingdom, are a few words here and there in scripture going to make much difference? People for the most part are more interested in defending their religion than the manual.

 

[pescador]

Why can't people realize that the KJV is just a translation, one of many? It is not the Word of God (in written form; Jesus is the living Word), it is an interpretation of the source documents that were available prior to 1611.

As I have said earlier there is no such thing as a perfect, complete, accurate English Bible. Translators throughout history have interpreted the earliest and best ancient documents as best as they could to communicate what they said to us, not only in our language but also to our way of thinking.

People spoke, wrote, and thought differently in the early 17th Century than we do today. The King James meant something different to the people of that time than it does today.

The pseudo-holiness of the language doesn't mean that the translation is accurate. Very, very few of us (if any) live in the society of early 17th Century English. The KJV is foreign to those of us alive today; the language employed is dead. => More than anything else, this allows (unqualified) people to re-translate it into 21st Century English, equating their own interpretation with God's truth. <= (How modest!!)

We are blessed with a plethora of excellent modern translations, each of which is meant to communicate God's words to our minds so that they can be as clearly understood as possible, regardless of our command of the language.

The KJV is a relic!! It should be regarded as an interesting example of how people thought and communicated more than 400 years ago. It is not the pure word of God; it is just a translation. One of many.

 

[pescador]

To all:

I am too busy right now working on new and exciting reasons based on Scripture and facts in defense of the King James Bible to deal with what I believe are petty and weak arguments against God’s Word (the KJB). If I feel it is worth my time in replying at a later time, I will reply. If not, I will simply move on. But for now, I am too busy to be distracted by such insignificant arguments and mere opinions.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree in love.
May the Lord’s good ways be upon you all.

You wrote "I believe are petty and weak arguments against God’s Word (the KJB)" and "I am too busy to be distracted by such insignificant arguments and mere opinions". So your statements on the matter are quite clear". Denigrating the rest of us who disagree with you says more than you know about your approach to this discussion.

And then you write "we can agree to disagree in love"; denigrating others is not disagreeing in love.

Is this the way the KJV teaches you to behave?

 

[GodLovesCats]

While the Gospel, and our Triune God, are still the same, the KJV has a different reading than the NIV. One partial verse comes to mind: Romans 8:1

NIV: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"
KJV: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

The KJV translators included this addition, which is not found in the earliest scrolls. There are also other places where the KJV translation is unreliable, but this one came to mind first.

This is another example of the KJV being hard to read: "walk not." Only "do not walk" is easy to read and understand. What the KJV editors did was make a simple sentence very confusing.

 

[timothyu]

It is not the Word of God (in written form; Jesus is the living Word)

And sadly Christianity has taken to following the word of the institutional churches or their gentile architect hero Paul instead of Jesus the Jew anyway.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And sadly Christianity has taken to following the word of the institutional churches or their gentile architect hero Paul instead of Jesus the Jew anyway.

Paul and Jesus do not contradict one another.

 

[pescador]

This is another example of the KJV being hard to read: "walk not." Only "do not walk" is easy to read and understand. What the KJV editors did was make a simple sentence very confusing.

They also added the second part of the verse. Even if they wrote "do not walk" they still would be adding to the Biblical text.

 

[GodLovesCats]

They also added the second part of the verse. Even if they wrote "do not walk" they still would be adding to the Biblical text.

And KJV-only people criticize modern English versions for missing text that was not written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. Why can't they accept the fact that verses and parts of verses were added to their Bibles?

 

[timothyu]

Paul and Jesus do not contradict one another.

No but Christianity hs made it appear they do, one used to set up kingdoms among man while the other focuses on the Kingdom of God, but as you say both Paul and Jesus were united in focusing on the Kingdom of God and not the institutional church. Church was and is not an institution but a way of life built on truth from God, not from man.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No but Christianity hs made it appear they do, one used to set up kingdoms among man while the other focuses on the Kingdom of God, but as you say both Paul and Jesus were united in focusing on the Kingdom of God and not the institutional church. Church was and is not an institution but a way of life built on truth from God, not from man.

That’s a huge stereotype. I would agree some Christians may have done this but I wouldn’t say that Christianity as a whole is guilty of it.