Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

Jason0047 said:

No. It shows an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't - unless you choose to see it like that.
I, for one, understand who is referred to in these verses; it's obvious.

Jason0047 said:

But believe whatever you like.

Click to expand...

That applies to you too.

Jason0047 said:

There are more attacks that I am sure you will not like to see. But I will keep posting them for you and others.

Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter to me whether you do or not.
The title of the thread is "this is why I believe ...". You have shared those reasons and are entitled to your belief; I do not share it.

If I could be bothered I might carry on debating with you; but there is no point. Firstly because you have made up your mind, stated your position and argue with, and flat out contradict, anyone who says otherwise, b) because you either can't understand, or refuse to see, the fact that you are comparing the KJV with other versions instead of with the original and c) because even if you had a million verses which you say show that the KJV is perfect, your belief makes no difference at all to my faith and Christian walk.
I do not read the KJV and have no intention of starting - yet I am still saved, born again, Spirit filled and a child of God who reads his word and serves him. Other Christians can say the same. You have said yourself that this is not a matter for salvation - and it isn't. I would rather spend my time and energy in promoting God's word than arguing about whether or not it is a perfect translation.

Jason0047 said:

The enemy wants to sow confusion (Even in your marriage).

Click to expand...

The enemy wants us to concentrate on unessential details, so that we spend so much time arguing that we neglect to preach God's word to those who are lost.
What fun he must be having - enticing Christians to engage in a war of words on our computers, while there is work to be done in the real world. I think that's called straining gnats while swallowing camels.

Jason0047 said:

Click to expand...

This is a complete non argument!

The figure referred to in Daniel 10:13 seems to be the Lord himself - compare Daniel 10:6 and Revelation 1:13-15. But even if it were another angel, the archangel Michael is helping this being - it is not the Lord helping him.

Are they so keen to discredit the NIV and promote their cherished version as being the only one to use (I smell $ signs) that they quote out of context and don't read what they have written??

"which Bible would Jesus use?"

Rather annoyingly for them - and maybe for you - the King James Bible hadn't even been thought of when THE Word of God, who spoke only the words the Father gave him, was on earth.

Jason0047 said:

You have no idea of the attack that has happened against the KJV by way of the Modern Translations. Doctrines that have been watered down include the deity of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, the Trinity, holiness, salvation, hell, proper prayer and fasting, etc.

Here are some examples with the NIV.

Click to expand...

Still awaiting proof that these were removed by some versions as opposed to added by the KJV.

Since I read Koine Greek, do I need to translate the KJV into Koine Greek rather than reading the original Greek?

Nicolaus Mourer said:

Quotations of scripture that are found in the KJV and not other bibles based upon the minority text are found in the writings of the early church fathers, dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. They quoted scriptures that are omitted in the Alexandrian text types, proving that the majority text was around earlier and far more in use than the other minority texts.

Click to expand...

So I can respond accurately, which specific quotations of the fathers are you referring to?

Nicolaus Mourer said:

The reason why the old minority texts are still in decent shape to be read is because no one used them: they were understood to be corruptions of God’s Word. The majority of manuscripts that were used were worn out and copied over and over again because they were being used and the other manuscripts were not.

Click to expand...

That is one theory. But it doesn't stack up... Is there any historical evidence that early Christians rejected the Alexandrian texts as being corrupt? And if the Byzantine texts were so popular from the earliest of times, why are there no early copies at all, even in poor condition?

afishamongmany said:

No, there is no logical necessity for an older copy to be more accurate than a more recent one, it may be, it may not be. Error and falsification can "get into" a text at any time, from the very first copying to the thousandth. The copying and transmission of biblical manuscripts was not some simple, chinese whispers, linear process.

Click to expand...

I never said that earlier ages of manuscripts were a guarantee of accuracy, I said that it makes it more likely. Of course a rogue copyist can alter the text on the very first copy. But all probabilities being equal, logic dictates that if a text has been copied 10 times then it is more likely to become corrupted than a text that has only been copied once. There are 9 more potential points of failure.

afishamongmany said:

More important than the age of the 'hard copy' are such things as who did the copying,

Click to expand...

If only such information were available. Most ancient manuscripts don't come with the scribes name attached, let alone a history of previous copyists.

afishamongmany said:

was the copy accepted and widely used by churches and Christians,

Click to expand...

The number of copies in circulation is not a good test of its accuracy. Imagine there are 2 versions of a text, one with an error and one without, and the good one spawned 100 copies and the bad one spawned 200 copies. Your rule would favour the bad text.

afishamongmany said:

was it consistent with body of scripture already circulating and recognized?

Click to expand...

And what if the accepted body of text already in circulation was itself corrupt? You would end up rejecting a good document.

Jason0047 said:

Click to expand...

The word "God" does not exist in the earliest manuscripts. It appears to be a later "improvement" by an enthusiastic scribe trying to be helpful by making it clear who was manifest in the flesh. It may have been done with the of best intentions, but it is still a corruption of scripture, and was wrong to do so.

Jason0047 said:

You have no idea of the attack that has happened against the KJV by way of the Modern Translations. Doctrines that have been watered down include the deity of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, the Trinity, holiness, salvation, hell, proper prayer and fasting, etc.

Here are some examples with the NIV.

Click to expand...

You will notice that all the examples in your graphic claim that modern translations have removed words from scripture. But that is not the case. If the words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable greek manuscripts in the first place then there has been no skullduggery on the part of the translators.

Only in the later Greek manuscripts do those additional words appear - manuscripts which have been hand copied numerous times over many centuries. Isn't a more likely explanation that a scribe somewhere along the line has decided to add those words in a misguided attempt to clarify the meaning of scripture.

In fact the KJV itself is also guilty of this crime. There are hundreds of words in italics which signify that they do not appear in the Greek, not even the Textus Receptus. They were added by the KJV translators in an attempt to clarify the meaning of those verses.

Jason0047 said:

Click to expand...

“Thou shalt keep them" is referring to the people in verse 5 - the poor and the needy who were suffering from the wrongs inflicted on them. We can tell this because the word "keep" is in the masculine gender. If it was referring to the "words of the Lord" it would be in the feminine gender. This is another KJV translation error.

Jason0047 said:

You have no idea of the attack that has happened against the KJV by way of the Modern Translations. Doctrines that have been watered down include the deity of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, the Trinity, holiness, salvation, hell, proper prayer and fasting, etc.

Here are some examples with the NIV.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 5:15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.

Mark 7:16 MSS (Omitted)

Mark 9:44 (Omitted) MSS

Mark 11:26 MSS “Omitted”

Mark 15:28 •Omitted MSS


Luke 17:36 Vulg. Syr. support Luke 17:36 here in Luke 17. But ABQ, and most Uncial MSS. and Memph. Version, omit it.—E. and T.
The whole verse is left out in the Ethiopic version, and in some Greek copies; though it is in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, and in the Complutensian edition, and in some ancient copies, as Beza observes.

Luke 23:17 The better MSS. are singularly divided as to this verse. Most omit it altogether. One, followed by some of the versions, has it after Luke 23:19.

It would seem probable from these facts that the narrative was originally written without it, that it was then felt that the release of Barabbas required an explanation, and that a note was first added in the margin, either by a transcriber or by the writer himself in a duplicate copy, and then found its way into the text.

John 5:4 In regard to this passage, it should be remarked that the account of the angel in John 5:4 is wanting in many manuscripts, and has been by many supposed to be spurious, The want of John 5:4 and part of John 5:3 in some good manuscripts, and the use of some unusual words in the passage, are more easily accounted for than the evidence in their favor if they were not originally in the text. Indeed John 5:7 is unintelligible without John 5:4.

Acts of the Apostles 8:37 It existed in the time of Irenæus, who quotes it (3:12), but is wanting in all the best MSS., including the Sinaitic, and many versions.

Acts of the Apostles 15:34 This verse is omitted in many ancient MSS., and in others the Greek words vary.
It may very well be a marginal note placed to explain Acts 15:40, where Paul, who did not leave Antioch, is said to have chosen Silas for his companion in his next journey.
Silas therefore must have remained in Antioch after Judas was gone, and such an explanation some reader put on the margin of his copy. But the best Memph. MSS. omit the verse.—E. and T.

Acts of the Apostles 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias] If this verse be an interpolation, it differs from others in the Acts very greatly. In other parts of the book such insertions have merely been made to bring the whole of a narrative under view at once, and there has been no variation of an account previously given elsewhere. But here we have a passage not representing the facts as stated before.

Acts of the Apostles 28:29 And when, &c.] This verse is omitted in the oldest MSS. and in R.V. And when he had said these words . . .—The whole verse is wanting in many of the earliest MSS. and versions.

It may have been inserted, either by a transcriber, or by the historian himself in a revised copy in order to avoid the apparent abruptness of the transition from Acts 28:28-30.

Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.—This verse is wanting in the oldest group of MSS., and is found chiefly in Græco-Latin Codices and in Antiochene authorities of the fourth and fifth centuries, whose leaning is towards the later text. Ἡ χάρις—ἡμῶν)
The Alexandrians were without this reading.[173]—ἈΜΉΝ, we have lately spoken of this particle. ABC Vulg. (Amiat. MS.) Memph. Versions omit it, whom Lachm. follows.

1 John 5:7 Mill in his long note at the end of John’s first epistle, where he observes that this verse is wanting in all the ancient Greek MSS. of the New Testament which have come down to us, except a few, which shall be mentioned immediately.

It is wanting likewise in the first Syriac, and other ancient versions, particularly the Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in many of the present Latin MSS. With respect to quotations from the fathers, Mill acknowledges that few of the Greek writers, who lived before the council of Nice, have cited this verse.

The same he observes concerning those who, after that council, wrote in defence of the Trinity against the Arians, and other heretics; which, he thinks, shows that this verse was not in their copies.” It likewise wants the last clause of 1 John 5:8, namely, and these three are one.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the congregation of God which being at Corinth, to them that are set apart in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of Jesus Christ, in every location, our Lord and theirs.
Christ, in every location, our Lord and theirs

Jason0047 said:

You have no idea of the attack that has happened against the KJV by way of the Modern Translations. Doctrines that have been watered down include the deity of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, the Trinity, holiness, salvation, hell, proper prayer and fasting, etc.

Here are some examples with the NIV.

Click to expand...

Jason0047 said:

Click to expand...

The word ἐπιλαμβάνεται, which appears in both the TR and the early manuscripts can mean "to help" as the modern translations render it. So it is a legitimate translation.


The KJV has decided it is the other meaning, "to take hold of". But that doesn't make sense on it's own, so the KJV translators have added extra words, those shown in italics, which are not in the Greek. They have added their own words to scripture to try and make sense of the verse.

There is no contradiction with Daniel 10:13 because that is not a case of the Lord helping an angel, but a case of an angel helping the Lord. The person speaking was undoubtedly the same person who appeared to Daniel in verses 5-9. The description there is remarkably similar to the description of Christ in Rev 1:1.

Jason0047 said:

The enemy wants to sow confusion (Even in your marriage).

Click to expand...

Virtually all modern translations agree with the KJV on this verse, so this is hardly a point of contention in the KJV Only debate. Only the ESV has this controversial translation. And it seems they have come under considerable flak for doing so from all quarters, not just the KJVO brigade.

ESV Bible Translation Revisions 'Potentially Dangerous,' Biblical Scholar Warns

Jason0047 said:

The resurrection of Christ is attacked.

Click to expand...

The modern translations are correct. The word ἐγερθέντι, in the TR even, is in the passive voice (the action is done to the subject). So being raised is something that happened to Jesus, not something he actively did himself.

2 Corinthians 5:15 Greek Text Analysis

Of course we know that it is God who raised Jesus from the dead, as even the KJV confirms:


and numerous other examples.

Strong in Him said:

Still awaiting proof that these were removed by some versions as opposed to added by the KJV.

Click to expand...

Hi Strong in Him - The arguments (proofs?) are there and available to you. It all comes back to which greek texts are you going to 'trust' and why. The examples that Jason is putting before us do have a bearing on important theology and theology is important.
Do you have 'proof' that the disputed words in the KJV where not in the original greek text?
Go well
><>

GreekOrthodox said:

Since I read Koine Greek, do I need to translate the KJV into Koine Greek rather than reading the original Greek?

Click to expand...

Hello GO - No but it might be an interesting and useful thing to do?
Let's remember that we are having this discussion because we don't have the original greek manuscripts.
So again, it comes back to, which greek texts are you going to trust and why?
Go well
><>

swordsman1 said:

The word ἐπιλαμβάνεται, which appears in both the TR and the early manuscripts can mean "to help" as the modern translations render it. So it is a legitimate translation.

Click to expand...

I wasn't casting doubt on the translation.

swordsman1 said:

There is no contradiction with Daniel 10:13 because that is not a case of the Lord helping an angel, but a case of an angel helping the Lord.

Click to expand...

That was my point.
It was claimed "The NIV says that the Lord doesn't help angels. The NIV contradicts itself". Then a verse was quoted as if to say see, here is the contradiction - except that that verse showed an angel helping the Lord.