30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today (Update: KJVO Posters Only)

Bible Highlighter · May 7, 2020

Explaining The Problem of the Footnotes
in Modern Translations
That Cast Doubt on the Accepting
Mark 16:9-20, &
John 7:53 through John 8:1-11
as the Word of God.

Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-John 8:1-11 include a forward footnote in certain Modern Translations and some say that it may not be in the original manuscripts. This is problematic because it casts doubt on whether God preserved His Word or not or that His Word is trustworthy.

As for Mark 16:9-20:

Well, there are two major problems with this footnote on this passage that leads to unbelief in God’s Word.

First problem: If we cast doubt on whether Jesus said for us to preach the gospel to every creature, then it no longer becomes a necessity. The devil would love nothing more than for us to not to have a desire to preach to every creature or person. This is far different than Paul saying “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Paul did not say to go out and preach the gospel to every creature. Jesus did. This is important because it is a part of our great commission. If we lose focus of that, we lose focus of spreading the love of the truth to ALL others that can save them. Jesus wanted all to be saved by the gospel by us preaching to every creature (person) the good news of salvation. This aspect of the great commission shows also the scope of our mission. Should we just preach to some or a few and that’s good? Jesus says to preach to every creature.

Second problem is that if we believe the footnote and doubt the truth of the disciples not believing the account of the women and the two men on the Road to Emmaus, then we can fall prey to thinking that we can never fall into unbelief on certain things involving what God says, too. We may think we are infallible and know it all. Therein lies the danger because they are an example to us today to always be listening closely to what God’s Word says.

As for John 7:53-John 8:1-11:

I have run into a Christian online before who believes the beginning part of John 8 is not in his Bible. No doubt this was the result of him believing either the footnotes in Modern Translations or from believing a scholar who is in the Modern Translation camp.

Is he correct? No.

For I can prove to you the beginning part of John 8 is in your Bible.

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8?

John 4:14 says,

"...the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

John 7:37-39 says,

37 "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

This relates. We can know what Jesus was writing in the ground when the Jews tested him in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery by looking at other Scripture. By Scripture, we see a reference to the LORD [Jesus], the fountain of living waters [the Holy Spirit].

Jeremiah 17:13 says,

"O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD [i.e. Jesus], the fountain of living waters [i.e. the Holy Ghost]."

Note 1: The words in brackets in light blue (above) is my commentary to the text.

Note 2: Words in bright red are references to the Holy Spirit. Words in green is in reference to the Tree of Life, the door (wood, tree), who is Jesus.

Note 3: In the words in the above verse, you will notice that they (the Jews) that were accusing Jesus in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery, their names were written down in the earth. This is what Jesus was writing in the Earth. Jesus was writing down the names of those who had forsaken the Lord. I highlighted the words in purple above in Jeremiah to show that their names written in the earth as we behold in the scene in John 8.

Note 4: We tie this together because of the words, "the LORD, the fountain of living waters" in Jeremiah 17:13 is tied to John 7:38 that says, "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Again, John 7:38 says,

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Here is the scene with Jesus writing in the ground with the Jews in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery:

John 8:4-6 says,

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. "

What is interesting is that the very previous chapter (John 7), we are told that anyone who believes in Jesus out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Yet, in Jeremiah 17:13, we learn that this fountain of living waters is what these Jews rejected and their names were written in the ground because they forsaken the Lord.

So yes. It's true. John 8:1-11 (along with John 7:53) belongs in our Bible.
The testimony of the whole of Scripture confirms this.
Therefore, in conclusion: The whole “footnotes thing casting doubt on John 8 belonging in our Bible” is erroneous. The same is true for Mark 16:9-20, as well.

Believe your King James Bible.

Sam81 · May 7, 2020

I can understand wanting to default to the KJV when there is a discrepancy between Bible translations. However, the original manuscripts are the divinely-inspired, final authority of God's word. Not the KJV. The fact of the matter is that there are many places in the KJV where something is translated incorrectly. Yet the KJV only crowd reject the more credible manuscripts in favor of the mistake!

Respected newer translations such as the ESV and the NASB are held in very high regard and are universally seen as being more accurate then the KJV Bible by virtually everyone qualified in the respective fields. The KJV only crowd contending that modern translations are inaccurate and that the Bible has been corrupted have no support whatsoever from qualified sources; it's akin to 9/11 truthers presuming to be experts when it comes to steel beams and burning fuel .There is no grand conspiracy to corrupt the Bible.

It's a big distraction that does nothing but draw people in, divide the body, create unnecessary fear and mistrust among the brethren, and destroy a believers confidence in Bibles that can more easily be read and applied to their life. I truly believe it is straight out of hell.

Bible Highlighter · May 7, 2020

The Superior Characteristics of the The Translation of the KJV Itself over Modern Translations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Accuracy:

Distinctions in Personal Pronouns:

The King James Bible is more accurate because it employs such words as “thou,” “thee,” “thy”, “thine,” “ye,” and “you” to differentiate between 1 person (or 1 group), vs. 2 or more people.

Today, various different languages in our world employ this same distinction so as to differentiate between the singular person or group, vs. two or more people. This kind of distinction is not found in most Modern Translations. Note: The ESV does add a footnote at the bottom of the page on these differences, but your average person is not going to stop every five seconds to read these notes, and these notes are not exactly clear to your average reader. For example: It does not give an example like “you-all” or “y’all” tied to a letter or number next to the words “you.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Italicized Words

The translators on the 1611 King James bible italicized words so as to show added words that did not appear in the original languages, but they were included so as to enhance our understanding of the text. This shows the honesty of their work. However, the majority of your Modern translations do not include added words in italics (Which is dishonest).

_________________________________________________________________

BackGround:

Not Influenced by Modernism

The 1611 King James was not coerced or corrupted by Modernism such as: Ecumenicalism, Liberal Theology, Textual Criticism, Darwinism, Moral Decline, and Psychology, etc. For example: The NIV was created to meet the needs of those who desired a bible that was more gender neutral. The Living Translation (TLB) had once used vulgarity in its previous versions (1967) (1971). One example can be seen in the footnotes here (Which was included once in the translation itself):

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Samuel 20:30 - Living Bible

The NEB (1970) inserts a fart joke into the text and is later removed in 1972. It is in Joshua 15:18 and in a few other verses. You can check that out here:

http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/06 joshua.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Not Influenced by Copyright Law:

Copyright Law in circular 14 states, “To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes”

Source: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Modern Translations each have to be different enough from each other in order to claim a copyright to make money. The King James was not influenced by these unnatural money grabbing constraints. A reader of a Modern Translation must ask themselves, “Is this the most accurate translation to the original languages or is this a translation that is simply being made to satisfy copyright law?”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Higher Level of Education of the KJV Translators:

The 1611 King James Bible laid the foundation upon previous English Bibles that stretch back to Tyndale, and Wycliffe (who were godly men of the faith who valued greatly God’s Word). The many translators of the “King James Bible” were experts in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Scholars of today may claim to be experts in Hebrew, and Greek, but they are not experts in Latin. The translators of the KJV studied since they were a child. This shows the superior education that the KJV translators had vs. the education of the scholar of Modern Translations in recent years.

_________________________________________________________________

Bible Highlighter · May 7, 2020

Sam81 said:
I can understand wanting to default to the KJV when there is a discrepancy between Bible translations. However, the original manuscripts are the divinely-inspired, final authority of God's word. Not the KJV. The fact of the matter is that there are many places in the KJV where something is translated incorrectly. Yet the KJV only crowd reject the more credible manuscripts in favor of the mistake!

Respected newer translations such as the ESV and the NASB are held in very high regard and are universally seen as being more accurate then the KJV Bible by virtually everyone qualified in the respective fields. The KJV only crowd contending that modern translations are inaccurate and that the Bible has been corrupted have no support whatsoever from qualified sources; it's akin to 9/11 truthers presuming to be experts when it comes to steel beams and burning fuel .There is no grand conspiracy to corrupt the Bible.

It's a big distraction that does nothing but draw people in, divide the body, create unnecessary fear and mistrust among the brethren, and destroy a believers confidence in Bibles that can more easily be read and applied to their life. I truly believe it is straight out of hell.

Proverbs 18:13 says,
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

10 "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts of the Apostles 17:10-11).

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

As for the ESV:

The King James Bible has 783,137 words.
English Standard Version (ESV) has 757,439.
Surely, they are not the same.

In fact, here is....

A List of Doctrinal Changes in God's Word:
(Between the KJV and the ESV):

#1. Doctrine of The Trinity is Effected; For the Only Verse (1 John 5:7) That Point Blank Tells Us About the Trinity is Removed:
If I was on an island, and I had no clue about Christianity, the odds of my understanding the Trinity is better if I had a King James bible vs. a Modern Translation bible that removes this valuable truth on knowing the Trinity. So this proves that Modern Translations are less helpful for me to understand the Trinity by using the Bible alone.

#2. Doctrine of The True Way To Test a Spirit of Antichrist is Removed and Altered:
Many of your Modern Translations fail this test (Including the ESV). The KJV says that any spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and it is the spirit of the Antichrist. Modern Translations do not say this and thus they fail to pass this test by not admitting this truth. Why is admitting that Jesus is come in the flesh important? Because it is about the Incarnation. Can a person deny the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and be of God? Modern Translations water down the Incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16, as well. The King James correctly says "God was manifest in the flesh," and yet the watered down version bibles say "He was manifested in the flesh." Here again, many Modern Translations fail the test of how we check to see if a spirit is of the spirit of Antichrist or not by denying how God was manifest in the flesh (i.e. a denial of the Incarnation). How does this affect us? Well, if I wanted to show forth the truth to a person who denied the Incarnation, my battle would be severely crippled if I had a Modern Translation. Also, if Rick ran into a false spirit claiming to be Jesus, then Rick could test this spirit with the proper test from 1 John 4:3 in the KJV. But if Rick was a Modern Translations fan and he hated the KJV, he could potentially be deceived because he did not have the proper test.

#3. The Doctrine of Fasting So As To Cast Out Persistent Demons is Removed:
Matthew 17:21 that tells us that casting out persistent or really strong devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, Matthew 17:21 is oddly removed in the ESV and other Modern Translations. Mark 9:29 mentions that you can pray to remove these kinds of devils, but it does not mention fasting. So the key doctrine of fasting so as to cast out really strong demons is gone. So the enemy wins if a person only adheres to the an ESV or Modern Translation and they have a hate on for the KJV. For if you ever encountered strong demonic activity like this before, you know that fasting does actually help greatly, and not just prayer alone.

#4. The Doctrine To Study God's Word To Show Yourself Approved Unto God is Removed and Altered:
2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." The ESV or Modern Translations are confusing on this point and they say "work hard to present yourself approved unto God." The context is rightly dividing the Word of truth (Scripture). Why is this important? Well, we are living in the last days where men of God are questioning the Bible, or they are looking to something extra in addition to the Bible (like visions, dreams, revelations, prophecies, other holy books, etc.). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).

#5. The Full Version of the Doctrine on Having "No Condemnation" According to Romans 8:1 is Removed:
Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The ESV or Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no Condemnation: We have to (a) Be in Christ Jesus, AND: (b) Walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a water down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that they do not need to worry about sin destroying their soul.

#6. The Doctrine of Psalms 12:7 that the Lord will Preserve His Words Forever is Removed and Altered.
Psalms 12:6 says the words of the Lord are pure words, and in Psalms 12:7, the Psalmist says that the Lord will preserve them forever. It's kind of funny or odd that those who are against a perfect Bible existing in our world language today (i.e. the KJV) just so happen to favor bibles like the ESV that remove and alter this very verse. Some do not even believe there is a perfect Bible out there. So who decides what words in the Bible are the true words of God? Do they decide? Now, some may say the perfect Word exists in the original languages. But Habakkuk 2:2 says write the words plainly so that he that reads it may run. So it's not going to be some gobbledygook language that nobody can understand (like biblical Hebrew, and biblical Greek). In fact, all we have today are copies of the original languages. This is not the case with the KJV. Meaning, His Word is preserved forever. His Word moved with the times. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. His Word does not exist perfectly in some dead language, but His Word exists in the English (Which is the world language of today).

#7. In Genesis 3:16, the ESV (Which is one of the most popular Modern Translations) doctrinally changes the nature of the truth in the KJV by saying that Eve's (the wife's) desire is contrary to her husband.

#8. 2 Corinthians 3:12 is altered by the ESV and Modern Translations so as to eliminate that God uses plainness of speech. This is important to understand because the Modern Translation folk tend to prefer to look to the original languages to understand God's Word as their one and only go to source. This is not the plainness of speech that God employs. While God can speak in metaphor, or parables, He also speaks in plainness of speech, too. This has to be applicable to our life today in some way. Surely it is not a coincidence that 2 Corinthians 3:12 are eliminated in the ESV or their favored Modern Translations (that influences their way of thinking).

With the ESV, one could misunderstand Romans 11:6, on salvation. They could think salvation can be by Works Alone Salvationism without God's grace:

The KJV correctly says:

Romans 11:6 KJV:
"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Yet the ESV removes this underlined words.

Romans 11:6 ESV:
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.'

The ESV removes part of the details within a command by Paul.

"1 Corinthians 6:20 KJV:
"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1 Corinthians 6:20 ESV:
"for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

There are Christians today who think that when they sin, it is only in the flesh, and not in the spirit. They think their spirit is forgiven of all future sins by Jesus. So to glorify God in the spirit does not make much sense to them. An ESV Bible would be fitting with their preferred wrong way of thinking to justify sin in some way.

Anyways, these are just a few of the red flags in Modern Translations. There are many more. But there are so many red flags in the ESV or Modern Translations, it would make one think they were in a Russian airport.

Sam81 · May 7, 2020

And I'm telling you that the KJV should not be our final authority. A translation is not greater than the source material. The original manuscripts are the "final authority". Period.

Bible Highlighter · May 7, 2020

Sam81 said:
And I'm telling you that the KJV should not be our final authority. A translation is not greater than the source material. The original manuscripts are the "final authority". Period.

Proverbs 18:13 says,
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

robycop3 · May 8, 2020

The KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette !

Much of the info in the OP here is wrong. For instance, there's the matter of the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". The AV 1611, the original KJV, proves this wrong. There's a footnote for the 2nd them in V7 which reads, "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.". The AV makers know that verse is about PEOPLE, & they subbed the plural 'them' for the singular 'him'.

The KJV has many goofs & booboos of mistranslations, poor translations, & material added or omitted. There's "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, the omission of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25, & the addition of "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, a reading not found in any known ancient Greek ms. of Revelation. And these are just EXAMPLES the many such goofs & booboos in the KJV.

And, the KJVO myth has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. All TRUE doctrines of faith/worship are found in Scripture, and the KJVO myth is NOT thus found. It's entirely man-made & therefore FALSE.

And the KJV isn't in OUR English. It was made for the British Anglican Church of 400 years ago. God has caused His word to be translated into OUR style of English, since then, as well as into over 2400 other languages & dialects. GOD IS NOT LIMITED to the KJV alone.

Let us abandon the doctrines of faith/worship made by MEN & stick with only those made by GOD, & drop the KJVO myth from our beliefs !

Isilwen · May 8, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Proverbs 18:13 says,
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

Your abuse of that scripture is sinful!

a-lily-of-peace · May 8, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
We really cannot know one way or the other. All of God's Word must be ultimately be taken by faith. If there was a difference in the way that it was spelled or pronounced, it would not constitute a contradiction or error, but it merely would be a different growth of God's Word for today. The meaning on some level has to be true for that word that is used today (even if it was not fully reflected in the word used in the original languages). Some semblance of truth has to be in those words. We can see that the Word of God had evolved or grown, as well. The Living Word (Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:1-3) (John 1:14).

In post #2 of this thread, I make a point that if there is a perfect Living Word (Jesus) (Which I believe is true), then logic dictates that there is a perfect communicated Word (Written Word). In that post, I provided a link to a good sized list of verses showing the connection between the "Living Word" and the "Communicated Word" (Which at one time was spoken, and today is written). You can check out that link here (if you are interested):

The Living Word & the Communicated Word.

Agreed. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." (Proverbs 25:2).

We know the Jews wanted to prevent from taking the Lord's name in vain, and perhaps God agreed with that idea. So perhaps it was concealed. If so, it is to the glory of God indeed if He did that.

My understanding of the commandment not to take the name in vain (Exodus 20:7) related to swearing an oath in the name. For example in Ruth 3:13 “as [the LORD] lives” is a binding oath. It’s something Jesus directly addressed in Matthew 5:37 in the sense that it shouldn’t take swearing in the name to bring someone to tell the truth, that you shouldn’t carelessly say yes yes, no no. It’s the constant awareness of living in truth.

The Rabbinical tradition is to read the name as Adonai (or Lord) in all contexts though, and that carries over to KJV. See Psalm 113:

Psalm 113:1 KJV “...praise the name of [the LORD]”
Psalm 113:2 KJV “Blessed be the name of [the LORD]...”
Psalm 113:3 KJV “...[the LORD’s] name is to be praised”

That’s three verses in a row where the name was used in worship and changed to Adonai. I don’t know why. I do trust God, and trust that things happen in his way, in his time, and I can be at peace behind my Father’s walls. I appreciate the Proverb you posted.

I’m not sure the name in Revelation 14:1 will say “Adonai” though.

solid_core · May 8, 2020

1. Regarding the validation of translation or textual choice, we do not consider the character or deeds of the one who did it, but the reasons for his textual choice. If you do not like the result of a mathematical operation, you do not attack the one who did it, but his steps while doing it.

To attack the past or beliefs of Nestle, Aland, Westcott etc is no more relevant than to attack the character of King James who ordered the KJV and influenced it.

-----

2. The fact that some verse sounds different than you are used to from your KJV does not mean that the whole Bible you read it in must have some agenda or to be against God etc.

-----

3. The comma johaneum you are used to from your KJV was added to the text later, its not in any old Greek text. And again, the church got the Trinity from other implicit verses. The fact that the KJV added more explicit verse does not mean its the original text.

-----

4. The knowledge grows. While Erasmus (who is behind the New Testament text the KJV uses) had only few late and low quality manuscripts, we have about 6,000 of manuscripts and papyri discovered after him so we have much wider pool for choosing the right textual variant than he did.

-----

5. The knowledge grows. While the KJV translators had only later Hebrew masoretic text of the Old Testament (from the 9th century), we now have much wider pool for the OT text - the qumran scrolls from the 1st century and ancient texts of the Septuagint, together with thousands of quotations from the OT in the works of church fathers.

-----

6. The Bible cannot be verbally inspired, because it has many minor factual inconsistencies (for example between gospels) and private notes (llike Pauls personal notes in his letters).

-----

7. The Bible is not perfectly preserved, because no two Greek manuscripts are the same.
The text of the KJV is nowhere to be found in any single Greek manuscript. If you believe that the KJV suddenly and miraculously created the perfect text not present before, then its not a preservation. If you believe that the text was perfectly preserved always, you must show its line before the KJV existed.

------

8. The KJV cannot be perfect, because it has many inconsistencies between its New Testament and its Old testament (created because the KJV translators did not have sources they needed, they used edited Jewish text with removed and changed christological prophecies and thats why its quite silly looking when you check your new testament quotations of prophets proving Christ with your Old Testament texts of those prophets that are changed to remove Christ).

-----

9. The KJV cannot be perfect, because it contains silly errors, like the Latin term "Lucifer" inserted into Isaiah or "God save the king" in Samuel, while the original text says "may the king live" (the brittish culture made its way into scriptures again).

-----

10. The KJV translators themselves were not at all such fetishists about their work like the KJV only people today, they had marginal notes in the text, they said it in the preface, they tried to do their best but were just mere men and manytimes did not know how to translate the word or which version of the verse to prefer.

Bible Highlighter · May 8, 2020

a-lily-in-the-valley said:
My understanding of the commandment not to take the name in vain (Exodus 20:7) related to swearing an oath in the name. For example in Ruth 3:13 “as [the LORD] lives” is a binding oath. It’s something Jesus directly addressed in Matthew 5:37 in the sense that it shouldn’t take swearing in the name to bring someone to tell the truth, that you shouldn’t carelessly say yes yes, no no. It’s the constant awareness of living in truth.

Taking the Lord's name in vain can bleed into the teaching of wrong oath taking, but I see them as two distinct things.

As for Matthew 5:37: Well, I believe the Jews were carelessly making oaths, and Jesus was offering a new way of teaching by saying do not make any oaths at all, but let your "yes," be "yes," and your "no," be "no." In other words, simply say "yes" to a person and then keep your word to saying "yes" (without any oath taking).

You said:
The Rabbinical tradition is to read the name as Adonai (or Lord) in all contexts though, and that carries over to KJV. See Psalm 113:

Psalm 113:1 KJV “...praise the name of [the LORD]”
Psalm 113:2 KJV “Blessed be the name of [the LORD]...”
Psalm 113:3 KJV “...[the LORD’s] name is to be praised”

That’s three verses in a row where the name was used in worship and changed to Adonai. I don’t know why. I do trust God, and trust that things happen in his way, in his time, and I can be at peace behind my Father’s walls.

It surely is a beautiful truth from our LORD (whatever the deeper meaning behind it is). Reminds me of the song by Michael Card.
It's a slow moving peaceful song with the word "Adonai" mentioned within it.

I appreciate the Proverb you posted.

You are most welcome. It was my pleasure. God's Word has a powerful way of touching our hearts for sure.

You said:
I’m not sure the name in Revelation 14:1 will say “Adonai” though.

It's quite possible that the Father's name written in their foreheads is indeed could be Adonai. For it is written:

"These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." (Revelation 14:4).

For Jesus said,
"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

It reminds me of a Christian phrase I heard before.

Anyways, I hope stay safe and strong in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ or Yahweh Mashiaẖ.

And above all, keep trusting and believing His Word until the end.

Bible Highlighter · May 8, 2020

solid_core said:
1. Regarding the validation of translation or textual choice, we do not consider the character or deeds of the one who did it, but the reasons for his textual choice. If you do not like the result of a mathematical operation, you do not attack the one who did it, but his steps while doing it.

To attack the past or beliefs of Nestle Aland, Westcott etc is no more relevant than to attack the character of King James who ordered the KJV and influenced it.

Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I also want to say thank you.
While we may not agree (or while we may not continue to agree), I want to thank you for at least addressing some of my points that I have made. You are the first person in the thread who is against the "KJV-alone as a person's final Word of authority" and yet you did not insult me, or rattle on alone for one's position without at least addressing some of my points.

So thank you.

Anyways, to get down to business,
in regards to your points about King James and Nestle, & Aland, etc.:

Well, the difference is that King James (the King) did not translate the King James Bible, but Nestle, & Aland, (still under Westcott and Hort influence to some degree) did work on translating an NT Greek text that we have today. If people have wrong beliefs, this can color their translation to cater to their wrong beliefs, my friend.

2. The fact that some verse sounds different than you are used to from your KJV does not mean that the whole Bible you read it in must have some agenda or to be against God etc.

Normally if these changes were just random errors of verses that were not the consequential to the changing of major truths in God's Word, I would agree with you. But while you may not see it now: We are talking about the major change of certain doctrines and the watering down doctrine of other doctrines. We are talking about the devil's name in replacement for our LORD's name, and for other holy things, etc.; If you were to carefully check out all the points in the beginning of the thread, and be open minded to the other side of the debate, you will see what I am talking about.

You said:
3. The comma johaneum you are used to from your KJV was added to the text later, its not in any old Greek text. And again, the church got the Trinity from other implicit verses. The fact that the KJV added more explicit verse does not mean its the original text.

Two problems here.

The first problem (in my opinion) is not recognizing the vast difference between Observational Science vs. Historical Science in building our faith.
The second problem is that you are looking in the wrong place (wrong line of manuscripts) for 1 John 5:7, and you do not realize that there is a line of manuscripts that support 1 John 5:7.

Anyways, if you are not aware of Observational Science vs. Historical Science, please check out this video by Answers in Genesis:

#1. Observational Science is more important than Historical Science.
(How does not having 1 John 5:7 benefit my faith?) (If it was better to not have 1 John 5:7 in my Bible to understand the Trinity by the Bible alone, then it should be removed. But this is simply not the case because 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that point blank tells us about the Trinity).

#2. In Historical Science (or looking to Past documents):
There are two lines of manuscripts:
(a) The Textus Receptus Line of Manuscripts
(Which is where the KJV comes from).
(b) The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus
(Which is where most of all your Modern Translations come from).
You are looking to the line of manuscripts that are corrupted as your defense for the removal of 1 John 5:7. So your looking in the wrong place. Here is...

A Trail of Evidence:

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Source:
David W. Daniels.

You said:
4. The knowledge grows. While Erasmus (who is behind the New Testament text the KJV uses) had only few late and low quality manuscripts, we have about 6,000 of manuscripts and papyri discovered after him so we have much wider pool for choosing the right textual variant than he did.

5. The knowledge grows. While the KJV translators had only later Hebrew masoretic text of the Old Testament (from the 9th century), we now have much wider pool for the OT text - the qumran scrolls from the 1st century and ancient texts of the Septuagint, together with thousands of quotations from the OT in the works of church fathers.

But we are in the Laodicean church age or the time of 2 Timothy 3:1-9. So even if men did have these texts today, they would not translate it in the same honorable way faithfully like the 47 translators did on the King James Bible with them all peer reviewing their work in groups.

You said:
6. The Bible cannot be verbally inspired, because it has many inconsistencies (for example between gospels) and private notes (llike Pauls personal notes in his letters).

Are you referring to places like 1 Corinthians 7:12?

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." (1 Corinthians 7:12).

If so, this is not proof that Paul was offering His opinion that was not words of inspired Scripture. Paul was merely referring to words spoken exclusively by Jesus (while in the flesh during His earthly ministry) vs. words that He was given by the Spirit. For Paul writes elsewhere that what he has written should be regarded as the commandments of the Lord.

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:37).

Then again, I am not surprised folks in the church today do not believe all of the Bible is not inspired or not perfect and or it has errors in it, etc.; It speaks to the Laodicean times that we are in.

You said:
7. The Bible is not perfectly preserved, because no two Greek manuscripts are the same.

God's Word disagrees with you, my friend.

6 "The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
(Psalms 12:6-7).

You said:
The text of the KJV is nowhere to be found in any single Greek manuscript. If you believe that the KJV suddenly and miraculously created the perfect text not present before, then its not a preservation. If you believe that the text was perfectly preserved always, you must show its line before the KJV existed.

My wife is Brazilian. I know certain words do not translate carry over between our different languages. Some words are simply lost in translation. This is not an error in translation but simply how translation works between different languages.

Oh, and she uses the BKJ to double check words when she reads Modern Translations. It is the King James in Portuguese.

You said:
8. The KJV cannot be perfect, because it has many inconsistencies between its New Testament and its Old testament (created because the KJV translators did not have sources they needed, they used edited Jewish text with removed and changed christological prophecies and thats why its quite silly looking when you check your new testament quotations of prophets proving Christ with your Old Testament texts of those prophets that are changed to remove Christ).

Again, your looking in the wrong place. You are looking to the clearly corrupt line of manuscripts (i.e. The Critical Text). They are corrupt because they water down key doctrines, and they eliminate other important key doctrines (that Christians today do not even know they are key doctrines). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

9. The KJV cannot be perfect, because it contains silly errors, like the Latin term "Lucifer" inserted into Isaiah

It's actually a perfect name for the enemy because it means "light bearer." In the description of the devil in Ezekiel 28, we read:

"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created." (Ezekiel 28:13).

If you ever went to a Science Museum before that displayed gemstones, you would truly appreciate how light plays a key role in gemstones. Gemstones do not put off their own light, but they do take in the light, and reflect light back out. The gemstones are like little light bearers.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).

You said:
or "God save the king" in Samuel, while its "may the king live" (the brittish culture made its way into scriptures again)

The word, “God (אלהים)” is not in the Hebrew, which says, “live (subjunctive) the king.” The subjunctive mood expresses a wish. The translators understood this passage as the invocation of the providential preservation of the life of the king. Thus “God” was added to convey the meaning of the utterance. If not to God, who else would God-fearing Hebrews address this plea to? To an impersonal "fate"? Such would be a Pagan attitude. Whereas contemporary English speakers might say, "Long live the king" without necessarily having God in mind, the preservation of life and God were intrinsically linked in the mind of a God-fearing Hebrew.

The addition of “God” in a phrase that does not have “אלהים” or “θεός” is not uncommon in the Bible. In translating “χρηματισμός (divine response)” the NIV and ESV add “God” (Romans 11:4) to convey that this divine response is from God. Also, in translating “χρηματίζω (divine admonishment)” the NASB and NKJV add “God” (Matthew 2:22) to convey that this divine admonishment is from God. Also, in translating “σέβομαι (devout)” the NASB adds “God” (Acts 13:43) to convey that these people are devout for God. Also, in translating “κορβαν (consecrated gift)” the NIV, ESV, and NASB add “God” (Mark 7:11) to convey that this gift is consecrated to God. Similarly, “God” was added in “God save the king” because it is God who allows the king to live. By adding “God,” the KJV does not do anything unusual that is unseen in other popular translations.

Source used on the point on "God save the king":
“God save the king" or “May the king live” in 1 Samuel 10:24, et al.? - King James Version Today

Even from a spiritual standpoint the phrase "God save the king" in relation to Jesus sounds better than "may the king live" because Jesus cannot die anymore. The phrase is taken from "long live the king" to suggest his temporal rule. A long period of time is not eternity. If I say, "God save the king" in relation to Jesus, this is exactly what we see happen when God the Father resurrected or risen up Jesus from the grave. God the Father did save our King Jesus. He is the King of Kings and Lord, of Lords. Without the resurrection, we would be dead in our sins according to 1 Corinthians 15.

You said:
10. The KJV translators themselves were not at all such fetishists about their work like the KJV only people today, they had marginal notes in the text, they said it in the preface, they tried to do their best but were just mere men and manytimes did not know how to translate the word or which version of the verse to prefer.

God uses imperfect people to accomplish his plans and goals to create and preserve Scripture. I highly doubt all men of God in the OT knew that their words would fulfill Messianic prophecy or continue on in a perfectly preserved New Testament form of Scripture. Just because they did not have the full scope of what was to come in revelation God's people later, did not undo what came later. In fact, NT writers quoted Hebrew Scriptures in the Greek. Many in your camp believe the NT Greek original writings were perfect. If this is the case, then God translated perfectly these writings. Hebrew was translated perfectly into Greek showing that God does translate perfectly. Why you think God has stopped translating perfectly is beyond me. But you are free to believe as you wish. I choose to believe God's Word plainly in what it says. I don't look to old documents of men as the ultimate basis for my faith. I did not need to hear that when I first heard of what Jesus did for me. I did not ask for better Greek texts before confirming whether or not I should receive Jesus as my Savior and to believe the words of life. I took it by faith. Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Sam81 · May 8, 2020

It's obvious by the insane amount postings that he gish gallops into the thread that this guy is not interested in genuine inquiry or debate...no, he has an agenda and wants to hammer it home.

And then when I refuse to use an incredible amount of my valuable time to individually refute every one of his copy pastes, he says I am a fool who won't hear the matter.

I've already heard the matter and considered the matter long before he ever showed up with his agenda. KJV onlyism is a bogus lie. There is nothing scriptural to indicate that the KJV is the only translation and there are tons and tons of manuscripts that demonstrate that the KJV is the riddled with error. To me the more relevant question is if the KJV is even a decent and worthy translation of the Bible, not if it's the inerrant word of God that takes precedence even over the original manuscripts!

I do think the KJV is also the word of God. And if you prefer it, good. There are no perfect translations. Love your KJV and be sure and do what it says. But don't come at me because I prefer the ESV or the NKJV and say that its corrupted, because that's nonsense.

Sam81 · May 8, 2020

And for the record this guy does believe KJV takes precedence over the original manuscripts. If I'm wrong let him correct me. But I would be willing to bet that he believes we should default to the KJV in the event of a discrepancy between that and the original manuscripts.

solid_core · May 8, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I also want to say thank you.
While we may not agree (or while we may not continue to agree), I want to thank you for at least addressing some of my points that I have made. You are the first person in the thread who is against the "KJV-alone as a person's final Word of authority" and yet you did not insult me, or rattle on alone for one's position without at least addressing some of my points.

So thank you.

I am not always perfect in it, but I try to discuss objectively. Not addressing the person, but the issue.

Bible Highlighter said:
Well, the difference is that King James (the King) did not translate the King James Bible, but Nestle, & Aland, (still under Westcott and Hort influence to some degree) did work on translating an NT Greek text that we have today. If people have wrong beliefs, this can color their translation to cater to their wrong beliefs, my friend.

You have an advantage to know many things about Westcott or Nestle or Aland etc, because they are more or less contemporary. While we know nothing about the details in lifes of the KJV translators, its almost an impossible task to even get their names or number right.

But thats not the point. The point is that if they chose a wrong textual version or made a wrong translation choice, thats what we must address and prove it, Discussing their personalities is not the point.

Bible Highlighter said:
Normally if these changes were just random errors...

They are not errors, they are older and more probable textual readings

Bible Highlighter said:
...of verses that were not the consequential to the changing of major truths in God's Word, I would agree with you. But while you may not see it now: We are talking about the major change of certain doctrines and the watering down doctrine of other doctrines. We are talking about the devil's name in replacement for our LORD's name, and for other holy things, etc.; If you were to carefully check out all the points in the beginning of the thread, and be open minded to the other side of the debate, you will see what I am talking about.

As one proverb says - everybody will find what he looks for. If you start with believing that the KJV is right and other translations not, then you will find here or there things you will think are wrong. But to prove they were not in the original text, thats the point of the textual criticism. Thats what you should do.

Bible Highlighter said:
Two problems here.

The first problem (in my opinion) is not recognizing the vast difference between Observational Science vs. Historical Science in building our faith.
The second problem is that you are looking in the wrong place (wrong line of manuscripts) for 1 John 5:7, and you do not realize that there is a line of manuscripts that support 1 John 5:7.

Anyways, if you are not aware of Observational Science vs. Historical Science, please check out this video by Answers in Genesis:

#1. Observational Science is more important than Historical Science.
(How does not having 1 John 5:7 benefit my faith?) (If it was better to not have 1 John 5:7 in my Bible to understand the Trinity by the Bible alone, then it should be removed. But this is simply not the case because 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that point blank tells us about the Trinity).

#2. In Historical Science (or looking to Past documents):
There are two lines of manuscripts:
(a) The Textus Receptus Line of Manuscripts
(Which is where the KJV comes from).
(b) The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus
(Which is where most of all your Modern Translations come from).
You are looking to the line of manuscripts that are corrupted as your defense for the removal of 1 John 5:7. So your looking in the wrong place. Here is...

Or we can say there is the original line of manuscripts, till the 5th century, then, after the islam took over the near and middle east, the more religious, more "combed" textual line of the Byzantine empire became dominant, so in later centuries they became the majority.

The point of the textual criticism is to restore the original text, not to choose which text is more convenient, more traditional, more explicit about Trinity etc. Thats the point of religion, not of textual criticism.

Bible Highlighter said:
A Trail of Evidence:

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Source:
David W. Daniels.

I cannot give my whole evening to go through all of it, so I checked the first one to see if the selection is credible. It is not.

Tertullian in context:
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."
-> He is not working with the comma johanneum at all. He would use it if it was in his Bible, its perfect for his point, but he did not, instead he is using other verses to prove his point. Why? Because it was not in his Bible.

Bible Highlighter said:
But we are in the Laodicean church age or the time of 2 Timothy 3:1-9. So even if men did have these texts today, they would not translate it in the same honorable way faithfully like the 47 translators did on the King James Bible with them all peer reviewing their work in groups.

I do not accept your theological view of Revelation and therefore your reasoning.

Bible Highlighter said:
Are you referring to places like 1 Corinthians 7:12?

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." (1 Corinthians 7:12).

If so, this is not proof that Paul was offering His opinion that was not words of inspired Scripture. Paul was merely referring to words spoken exclusively by Jesus (while in the flesh during His earthly ministry) vs. words that He was given by the Spirit. For Paul writes elsewhere that what he has written should be regarded as the commandments of the Lord.

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:37).

Then again, I am not surprised folks in the church today do not believe all of the Bible is not inspired or not perfect and or it has errors in it, etc.; It speaks to the Laodicean times that we are in.

No, I am talking about personal notes like:
"Bring me my cloak I left in Troada" and similar. Or doctrinal inconsistencies between gospels, Luke for example is giving different contexts and settings to some quotations of Jesus than Matthew.

Bible Highlighter said:
God's Word disagrees with you, my friend.

6 "The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
(Psalms 12:6-7).

Its a poor textual choice of the psalm.

Originally, its "You shall keep us, O Lord, you shall preserve us from this generation for ever."

Its about the people of God, not about a book.

Bible Highlighter said:
My wife is Brazilian. I know certain words do not translate carry over between our different languages. Some words are simply lost in translation. This is not an error in translation but simply how translation works between different languages.

Oh, and she uses the BKJ to double check words when she reads Modern Translations. It is the King James in Portuguese.

I do not think you addressed my point - the KJV is a new text not existent before it. Its a compilation of various texts together and creating a new one.

Lets say I have two texts.

Text A: "Tomorrow I will go shopping with you".
Text B: "Tomorrow I will go shopping clothes with Paul".

And you compile it to: "Tomorrow I will go shopping with Paul". You used previous textual variants, but created a new one. Thats how compilations (like that of Erasmus) work. And therefore the KJV is also previously nonexistent Bible. Erasmus did not just use one perfect manuscript, he used about a dozen of various manuscripts to create his compilation from all of them. He combined them together.

Bible Highlighter said:
Again, your looking in the wrong place. You are looking to the clearly corrupt line of manuscripts (i.e. The Critical Text). They are corrupt because they water down key doctrines, and they eliminate other important key doctrines (that Christians today do not even know they are key doctrines). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

You did not address my point. My point is that your KJV is inconsistend between its New Testament and Old Testament. The KJV translators used edited Jewish masoretic text for the OT (with christological prophecies altered or removed), so it does not correspond to the NT quotations of the OT (because Jews could not temper with the NT, so the NT preserves the original OT readings).

Bible Highlighter said:
The word, “God (אלהים)” is not in the Hebrew, which says, “live (subjunctive) the king.” The subjunctive mood expresses a wish. The translators understood this passage as the invocation of the providential preservation of the life of the king. Thus “God” was added to convey the meaning of the utterance. If not to God, who else would God-fearing Hebrews address this plea to? To an impersonal "fate"? Such would be a Pagan attitude. Whereas contemporary English speakers might say, "Long live the king" without necessarily having God in mind, the preservation of life and God were intrinsically linked in the mind of a God-fearing Hebrew.

The addition of “God” in a phrase that does not have “אלהים” or “θεός” is not uncommon in the Bible. In translating “χρηματισμός (divine response)” the NIV and ESV add “God” (Romans 11:4) to convey that this divine response is from God. Also, in translating “χρηματίζω (divine admonishment)” the NASB and NKJV add “God” (Matthew 2:22) to convey that this divine admonishment is from God. Also, in translating “σέβομαι (devout)” the NASB adds “God” (Acts 13:43) to convey that these people are devout for God. Also, in translating “κορβαν (consecrated gift)” the NIV, ESV, and NASB add “God” (Mark 7:11) to convey that this gift is consecrated to God. Similarly, “God” was added in “God save the king” because it is God who allows the king to live. By adding “God,” the KJV does not do anything unusual that is unseen in other popular translations.

Source used on the point on "God save the king":
“God save the king" or “May the king live” in 1 Samuel 10:24, et al.? - King James Version Today

Even from a spiritual standpoint the phrase "God save the king" in relation to Jesus sounds better than "may the king live" because Jesus cannot die anymore. The phrase is taken from "long live the king" to suggest his temporal rule. A long period of time is not eternity. If I say, "God save the king" in relation to Jesus, this is exactly what we see happen when God the Father resurrected or risen up Jesus from the grave. God the Father did save our King Jesus. He is the King of Kings and Lord, of Lords. Without the resurrection, we would be dead in our sins according to 1 Corinthians 15.

The fact that some error is repeated more times or that you like it more because you think its more spiritual is not the point of the textual criticism.

The point of textual criticism is to restore the original text and represent it as close to original as possible. The point of textual criticism is not to make it sound more spiritual or to be consistent with traditional translation errors on other places.

And the point of translation is to present the original text as closely as possible, not to take some free license to make it sound more brittish or more religious.

Therefore its still an error.

Bible Highlighter said:
God uses imperfect people to accomplish his plans and goals to create and preserve Scripture. I highly doubt all men of God in the OT knew that their words would fulfill Messianic prophecy or continue on in a perfectly preserved New Testament form of Scripture. Just because they did not have the full scope of what was to come in revelation God's people later, did not undo what came later. In fact, NT writers quoted Hebrew Scriptures in the Greek. Many in your camp believe the NT Greek original writings were perfect. If this is the case, then God translated perfectly these writings. Hebrew was translated perfectly into Greek showing that God does translate perfectly. Why you think God has stopped translating perfectly is beyond me. But you are free to believe as you wish. I choose to believe God's Word plainly in what it says. I don't look to old documents of men as the ultimate basis for my faith. I did not need to hear that when I first heard of what Jesus did for me. I did not ask for better Greek texts before confirming whether or not I should receive Jesus as my Savior and to believe the words of life. I took it by faith. Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

God uses both imperfect people and imperfect Bibles they create.

Bible Highlighter · May 8, 2020

Sam81 said:
It's obvious by the insane amount postings that he gish gallops into the thread that

First, I want to say that I am wishing nothing but good things to you from our Lord Jesus Christ. I want you to understand that while I believe the KJV is my final word of authority, I do read Modern Translations, and I do fellowship with Christians (I have close Christian friends) that are not exactly for the KJV being the perfect and pure Word of God. I value their friendship and love deeply and consider them brothers. I say what I do on this matter here on a general platform for all to hear so those who are open to truth, will seek it out and deepen their faith and trust in God's Word all the more.

Second, for transparency among our other readers (who may not be familiar with the phrase) here:

"Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments."

Well, I believe I have been doing that. But I want to thank you. After I am done fine polishing my points in the beginning of the thread and adding one more point, I will seek to:

(a) Verify the accuracy of some of my points (even more).
(b) Strength the points of some of my arguments (even more).

I have 14 points currently, and I am hoping to bring it to 15 points in God's timing and will. I will seek to also strengthen and verify the accuracy of these points, as well (in time, Lord willing).

You said:
this guy is not interested in genuine inquiry or debate...no, he has an agenda and wants to hammer it home.

This is a false accusation, my friend.
So far I have addressed a person's points in debate in a loving and respectful manner. If somebody truly does have something more meaty or better than the position that I hold to, I am open to it. But I also have debated this issue over the years several times, and I have only been more convinced of my position by discovering more biblical evidence for it. Most of the time, I get insults. That does not bode well for the other position. Please take that under consideration.

You said:
And then when I refuse to use an incredible amount of my valuable time to individually refute every one of his copy pastes,

The only copy and pasting I have done are the pictures of the charts comparing the differences between the KJV and Modern Translations.

All 14 points I have written myself. It was originally 12 points, and I fine tuned some of the points and added to them. I also added points about the change of certain doctrines and fine tuned them, as well. When I was posting to you in regards to Romans 3:25 as a change of doctrine, God talked to my heart about how that was not a strong point (When I came to reexamine the KJV vs. the Modern Translations again on that verse). So I have decided to concede that point because it was not as strong as a point than I originally thought. I have actually seen another KJV thread, and I strongly disagreed with some of his points as being good or strong points in defense for the KJV. My goal here with this thread is to only offer the best points that I feel truly strong and unique.

You said:
he says I am a fool who won't hear the matter.

Proverbs 18:13 says,

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him."

Nowhere does this verse in and of itself call a person a fool.
Yes, the early part of the chapter (Proverbs 18) talks about fools, but a person even of good character can make make mistakes or foolish decisions every now and then and still be a good and righteous man of God because they will seek forgiveness with the Lord and strive to live uprightly. Yes, the early part of the chapter talks about fools. But nowhere does verse 13 say the person is a fool. Only that if they answer a matter without listening, it is a foolish decision on their part and shame unto them.

You said:
I've already heard the matter and considered the matter long before he ever showed up with his agenda.

I am strongly against Calvinism.
But if somebody tried to offer new points for Calvinism that I never heard before, I would at least hear them out (even if I am strongly against Calvinism) before I would offer a rebuttal.

You said:
KJV onlyism is a bogus lie. There is nothing scriptural to indicate that the KJV is the only translation and there are tons and tons of manuscripts that demonstrate that the KJV is the riddled with error. To me the more relevant question is if the KJV is even a decent and worthy translation of the Bible, not if it's the inerrant word of God that takes precedence even over the original manuscripts!

This is your opinion. I have offered points in the thread that you may not have considered before. If you don't want to hear my exhaustive explanation with Scripture then that is on you (if you don't want to hear the points I brought up), my friend.

You said:
I do think the KJV is also the word of God. And if you prefer it, good. There are no perfect translations. Love your KJV and be sure and do what it says. But don't come at me because I prefer the ESV or the NKJV and say that its corrupted, because that's nonsense.

If the KJV is the Word of God, then no other Bible can be the Word of God because God is not the author of confusion. Not all Bibles say the same thing. There are 8,000 Differences Between the N.T. Greek Words of the King James Bible and the Modern Versions. Here is a book on it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K0SUOFM/

Have you truly heard the matter out on all these changes?

In any event, whether you agree or disagree, may God's love, peace, and good ways be upon you.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

~ J.

Bible Highlighter · May 8, 2020

solid_core said:
I am not always perfect in it, but I try to discuss objectively. Not addressing the person, but the issue.

You have an advantage to know many things about Westcott or Nestle or Aland etc, because they are more or less contemporary. While we know nothing about the details in lifes of the KJV translators, its almost an impossible task to even get their names or number right.

But thats not the point. The point is that if they chose a wrong textual version or made a wrong translation choice, thats what we must address and prove it, Discussing their personalities is not the point.

They are not errors, they are older and more probable textual readings

As one proverb says - everybody will find what he looks for. If you start with believing that the KJV is right and other translations not, then you will find here or there things you will think are wrong. But to prove they were not in the original text, thats the point of the textual criticism. Thats what you should do.

Or we can say there is the original line of manuscripts, till the 5th century, then, after the islam took over the near and middle east, the more religious, more "combed" textual line of the Byzantine empire became dominant, so in later centuries they became the majority.

The point of the textual criticism is to restore the original text, not to choose which text is more convenient, more traditional, more explicit about Trinity etc. Thats the point of religion, not of textual criticism.

I cannot give my whole evening to go through all of it, so I checked the first one to see if the selection is credible. It is not.

Tertullian in context:
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."
-> He is not working with the comma johanneum at all. He would use it if it was in his Bible, its perfect for his point, but he did not, instead he is using other verses to prove his point. Why? Because it was not in his Bible.

I do not accept your theological view of Revelation and therefore your reasoning.

No, I am talking about personal notes like:
"Bring me my cloak I left in Troada" and similar. Or doctrinal inconsistencies between gospels, Luke for example is giving different contexts and settings to some quotations of Jesus than Matthew.

Its a poor textual choice of the psalm.

Originally, its "You shall keep us, O Lord, you shall preserve us from this generation for ever."

Its about the people of God, not about a book.

I do not think you addressed my point - the KJV is a new text not existent before it. Its a compilation of various texts together and creating a new one.

Lets say I have two texts.

Text A: "Tomorrow I will go shopping with you".
Text B: "Tomorrow I will go shopping clothes with Paul".

And you compile it to: "Tomorrow I will go shopping with Paul". You used previous textual variants, but created a new one. Thats how compilations (like that of Erasmus) work. And therefore the KJV is also previously nonexistent Bible. Erasmus did not just use one perfect manuscript, he used about a dozen of various manuscripts to create his compilation from all of them. He combined them together.

You did not address my point. My point is that your KJV is inconsistend between its New Testament and Old Testament. The KJV translators used edited Jewish masoretic text for the OT (with christological prophecies altered or removed), so it does not correspond to the NT quotations of the OT (because Jews chould not temper with the NT, so the NT preserves the original OT readings).

The fact that some error is repeated more times or that you like it more because you think its more spiritual is not the point of the textual criticism.

The point of textual criticism is to restore the original text and represent it as close to original as possible. The point of textual criticism is not to make it sound more spiritual or to be consistent with traditional translation errors on other places.

And the point of translation is to present the original text as closely as possible, not to take some free license to make it sound more brittish or more religious.

Therefore its still an error.

God uses both imperfect people and imperfect Bibles they create.

While I read your points, I simply just disagree with them, brother. No offense, brother, but I don't think it will profit if I answer your points in return.

I know from your perspective you can say the same for me, but it just seems like your not wanting to see it (and I understand why this is). I believe there is a dividing line in the sand here with two sides vehemently against each other. It is a spiritual matter. Salvation issue? In some cases... “yes.” But not always.

Thank you for keeping the disagreement on this topic in a kind and respectful Christian manner. I think it is best that we agree to disagree unless you can offer me something more substantial to convince me using actual points in the Bible itself. Is the Modern Translation view that seeks to look to an ancient language to find a more perfect Word of God a concept we see in Scripture? I don't believe so.

In either case, may the Lord's love, peace, and goodness be upon you always and I can only pray that you may one day see where I am coming from (even if you see that as an impossibility now).

May God bless you;
And may you please be safe.

Sincerely,

~ J.

Bible Highlighter · May 8, 2020

Sam81 said:
And for the record this guy does believe KJV takes precedence over the original manuscripts. If I'm wrong let him correct me. But I would be willing to bet that he believes we should default to the KJV in the event of a discrepancy between that and the original manuscripts.

I don't believe the original languages disagree with the King James.
Any supposed slight differences (Which are not strong differences) is defaulted to the King James. I don't speak and write Biblical Hebrew and Greek as my native tongue. Nobody does. Some may think they do, but they did not grow up in that culture to truly know the nuances of that language unlike our own native tongue of English. I believe God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, and that His Word exists for us alive today perfectly. Meaning, we do not have a dead word in a dead language only, but a living Word of God that is perfect and trustworthy that we can understand in our native tongue. For if a man reads Hebrew or Greek out of the Bible to a crowd, they are not going to get it. But this is not the case if they were to read from the King James. Sure, some words may be difficult, but that is what a dictionary is for. There is not a complete tower of babel going on like with trying to understand a language we are not truly familiar with in any way. That's my point. Again, I am not against doing a study in the original languages and neither am I against using Modern Translations, but there has to be a final Word of authority that is without question in a language we are familiar with. If not, then we are just guessing and hoping to understand what God's Word says.

Anyways, I say all I do with love. If you disagree still, I understand.
I will not hold it against you personally. I seek to love all even if we may not agree on everything. I believe this matter is important spiritually, but we can agree to disagree in love and respect.

In either case, please be well.
May God bless you.

Sincerely,

~ J.

solid_core · May 8, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
... there has to be a final Word of authority that is without question in a language we are familiar with. If not, then we are just guessing and hoping to understand what God's Word says.

You are making the KJV to be your pope. You are using the same arguments roman catholics are using for the papacy.

But actually, our final authority is God and in our mortal bodies we are in a process of growing, learning, making mistakes and correcting them.

There is no perfect final authority in any man (pope) or any book. Both church and Bible are useful, but not perfect in every detail.

Bible Highlighter · May 8, 2020

solid_core said:
You are making the KJV to be your pope. You are using the same arguments roman catholics are using for the papacy.

Actually, speaking of Catholicism: They did not want the Bible being translated into English for the common man. This was the earlier English Bibles before the KJV, and the KJV itself. The Roman Catholic church wanted control over the Word of God, and they did not want it in the hands of the common people to read. This also shows the unique time to which God was working to preserve His Word, as well. In addition, it is kind of ironic how Catholics give their endorsement to the United Bible Society today that create many Modern Translations. Catholics also have never been a big fan of the KJV, either.

But should the Bible be our authority like the pope is an authority for the Catholic church?

According to Scripture.... the Bible is our authority, “yes.”

All Scripture (not some Scripture) is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, etc.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Some today think not all Scripture is profitable because it contains errors in it.

Jesus says, he that does not receive His words, those very words will judge them on the last day.

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

You said:
But actually, our final authority is God and in our mortal bodies we are in a process of growing, learning, making mistakes and correcting them.

Many people can say God or Christ talks to them, but if it does not align with what His Word says, then they following another Christ or god.

You said:
There is no perfect final authority in any man (pope) or any book. Both church and Bible are useful, but not perfect in every detail.

If there is no final Word of authority, then we can do our own thing or re-write God's Word to our liking, or not even have any kind of faith or trust in God because He did not offer a trustworthy and reliable Word to place our trust in. For if a person says there is a mistake in God's Word, then all of it is false. If it is not all true, then it is all false. God does not make mistakes. A perfect Word would be a reflection of God's perfect character. I have already pointed in this thread of the Scriptural connection between the Living Word and the Communicated Word. If you have not seen the thread, I would highly recommend to check it out.

The Living Word & the Communicated Word.

30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today (Update: KJVO Posters Only)

Do you believe the KJV is the one and only perfect and divine Word of God?

Yes.

No.

I don't know.

Other (Please explain).

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Jesus is everything

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Jesus is everything

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Jesus is everything

Jesus is everything

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads