Why is the Bible so hard to understand?

Bible Highlighter said:

First, the Septuagint is clearly a huge corruption. Jesus was a Jew. He quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures because he mentioned jots and tittles (Which is clearly from the Hebrew and not Greek).

Second, if you knew about anything involving the history of the KJB, you would know that the Catholics tried to kill King James and stop the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Try watching the documentary called, The KJB: The Book that Changed the World starring “John Rhys-Davies.”

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

Trailer:

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

Also, the ties to the Vatican involving Modern Bibles is like crazy extensive. It’s not just like one or two things. It’s a lot. It’s too much to ignore. Westcott and Hort started the Modern Translation movement we now have (that was a great departure from the trusted KJB). Westcott and Hort used a manuscript for the Greek NT translation that came from a Catholic vault. In fact, one of them was into Catholicism, as well. Then many years later, Nestle and Aland came along. Aland met the pope. There are pictures of this.

Unlike the KJB, most of all your Modern Bibles comes from the Nestle and Aland’s Critical Text.

This constantly changing Critical Greek Text is under the direct supervision of the Vatican. They come right out and tell you this. They aren't even trying to hide it. Here is a photo of page 45 from right out of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

But Guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want you to read -

Source:
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions" by: Another King James Bible Believer

Note: I am aware this forbidden book of the Catholic church is an older version, and they have updated it. But the point here is that at one time, they considered the KJB to be a forbidden book.

Very interesting.

Side Note:

Oh, and yes, I know about Erasmus, but he was not exactly in agreement with many Catholic doctrines, and he was later rejected by the Catholic church and he died among his Protestant friends.

To learn more about Erasmus, check out this article here.

Click to expand...

Who cares what the Catholic Church has to say?

We are only interested in which version of the Old Testament, the Bible is based on.

The Masoretic text was altered by the Jews to erase certain passages in the Old Testament. Passages that were prophetic of the approaching messiah.

klutedavid said:

A correct translation does not exist.

Men translate the Hebrew and the Koine Greek and yes, they do differ in their translations, unfortunately.

The burden of Jesus is light in the long run but it may not be in the short term. Depends on a person's willingness to submit fully to the Holy Spirit.

To swap a temporary life span for an eternal life span is not a hard yoke. It is only difficult if you deliberate.

Click to expand...

So if no correct translation exists, then who gets to decide which words are true in the Bible and which words are false? It’s either all true, or it’s all false. To make a Bible in one’s own mind is to basically sit in God’s seat. But that is what the whole Modern Translation movement is all about. Make that perfect Bible that nobody has. They are forever on a quest to find God’s words when we already have them.

Bible Highlighter said:

They are forever on a quest to find God’s words when we already have them.

Click to expand...

Especially His Kingdom come and His will be done. About sums up the whole book.

Bible Highlighter said:

First, the Septuagint is clearly a huge corruption. Jesus was a Jew. He quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures because he mentioned jots and tittles (Which is clearly from the Hebrew and not Greek).

Second, if you knew about anything involving the history of the KJB, you would know that the Catholics tried to kill King James and stop the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Try watching the documentary called, The KJB: The Book that Changed the World starring “John Rhys-Davies.”

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

Trailer:

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

Also, the ties to the Vatican involving Modern Bibles is like crazy extensive. It’s not just like one or two things. It’s a lot. It’s too much to ignore. Westcott and Hort started the Modern Translation movement we now have (that was a great departure from the trusted KJB). Westcott and Hort used a manuscript for the Greek NT translation that came from a Catholic vault. In fact, one of them was into Catholicism, as well. Then many years later, Nestle and Aland came along. Aland met the pope. There are pictures of this.

Unlike the KJB, most of all your Modern Bibles comes from the Nestle and Aland’s Critical Text.

This constantly changing Critical Greek Text is under the direct supervision of the Vatican. They come right out and tell you this. They aren't even trying to hide it. Here is a photo of page 45 from right out of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

But Guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want you to read -

Source:
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions" by: Another King James Bible Believer

Note: I am aware this forbidden book of the Catholic church is an older version, and they have updated it. But the point here is that at one time, they considered the KJB to be a forbidden book.

Very interesting.

Side Note:

Oh, and yes, I know about Erasmus, but he was not exactly in agreement with many Catholic doctrines, and he was later rejected by the Catholic church and he died among his Protestant friends.

To learn more about Erasmus, check out this article here.

Click to expand...

Take your pick of either passage below, one Catholic, one Protestant.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.(Catholic.com)

In addition, the discovery of Greek manuscripts and inscriptions have also led scholars to believe not only that Greek translations of the Old Testament, such as the LXX, were available, but that Greek was widely spoken in Palestine, even among Jews. The one time we are told that Jesus himself read Scripture in the synagogue, the text he read followed the LXX (Septuagint). (Christianity.com)

ChristianForCats said:

What is the difference between Masoretic and Septuigent text? In terms of message accuracy, why does it really matter?

Another issue I have with the KJV is it originally had the Apocrypha. Martin Luther got rid of it and now all fundamental Baptists say the 1900 authorized KJV - not the original that was embrace by Catholics - is an accurate translation. So when people say the KJV is superior, they need to explain why the Apocrypha has been removed since King James himself read that part of it.

Click to expand...

I would have left 1 Maccabees in the Bible.

The Masoretic Text is different to the Septuagint Text.

Here we have the prophetic fulfillment announced by Matthew. Please note the word 'virgin'.

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, “God with us.”

Here is the passage in the Old Testament that Matthew is quoting from.

Isaiah 7:14 (Septuagint)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14 (Masoretic)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a young woman will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

The Septuagint allows no debate to ensue, 'a VIRGIN will be with child'.

The Masoretic does not actually state a virgin but a young woman.

Is this sufficient evidence to purify the Masoretic with fire?

klutedavid said:

Incorrect. The Masoretic text is corrupt. The Septuagint was extensively quoted by the apostles in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

Anyone even remotely familiar with the Scriptures and history knows that the Hebrews were the keepers of the OT Scriptures and not the Greeks.

Josephus 70 A.D. - One of the strongest evidences against there being an authoritative and widespread, recognized Greek Tanach called "the" Septuagint at the time of the New Testament writings is the testimony of Josephus.

Here is the quote by Josephus, Antiquities - Book 10, Chapter 10 (AJ 10.218) "But let no one blame me for writing down every thing of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books; for as to that matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in any such point, or complain of my management, and have told them in the beginning of this history, that I INTENDED TO DO NO MORE THAN TO TRANSLATE THE HEBREW BOOKS INTO THE GREEK LANGUAGE, and promised them to explain those facts, without adding any thing to them of my own, or taking any thing away from there."

The LXX is a product of reverse engineering. There was not even an LXX before the time of Christ.

This article here has tons of information and links to prove the LXX is a huge big fate fraud. It uses points in Scripture, as well.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

Bible Highlighter said:

So if no correct translation exists, then who gets to decide which words are true in the Bible and which words are false? It’s either all true, or it’s all false. To make a Bible in one’s own mind is to basically sit in God’s seat. But that is what the whole Modern Translation movement is all about. Make that perfect Bible that nobody has. They are forever on a quest to find God’s words when we already have them.

Click to expand...

Obviously, there is not a perfect translation of the original Koine Greek scripture. Every single translation has errors of course. The KJV was revised a number of times and I wonder why that was?

There are many errors in the KJV and that is the third last translation I would ever use.

I use the NASB but I have to check the Greek in places because the translators made mistakes.

The Bible is inspired because it contains in places the very words of YHWH, i.e., JESUS.

You do the best you can with the available translations.

Bible Highlighter said:

Anyone even remotely familiar with the Scriptures and history knows that the Hebrews were the keepers of the OT Scriptures and not the Greeks.

Josephus 70 A.D. - One of the strongest evidences against there being an authoritative and widespread, recognized Greek Tanach called "the" Septuagint at the time of the New Testament writings is the testimony of Josephus.

Here is the quote by Josephus, Antiquities - Book 10, Chapter 10 (AJ 10.218) "But let no one blame me for writing down every thing of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books; for as to that matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in any such point, or complain of my management, and have told them in the beginning of this history, that I INTENDED TO DO NO MORE THAN TO TRANSLATE THE HEBREW BOOKS INTO THE GREEK LANGUAGE, and promised them to explain those facts, without adding any thing to them of my own, or taking any thing away from there."

The LXX is a product of reverse engineering. There was not even an LXX before the time of Christ.

This article here has tons of information and links to prove the LXX is a huge big fate fraud. It uses points in Scripture, as well.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

Click to expand...

Septuagint, LXX.
The full title (Ancient Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. 'The Translation of the Seventy') derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE)

The Septuagint was the Bible the apostles used.

klutedavid said:

I would have left 1 Maccabees in the Bible.

Click to expand...

In 1 Maccabees 6 Eleasar is praised for voluntary rushing upon death.
How exactly is that biblical?

You said:

The Masoretic Text is different to the Septuagint Text.

Here we have the prophetic fulfillment announced by Matthew. Please note the word 'virgin'.

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, “God with us.”

Here is the passage in the Old Testament that Matthew is quoting from.

Isaiah 7:14 (Septuagint)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14 (Masoretic)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a young woman will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

The Septuagint allows no debate to ensue, 'a VIRGIN will be with child'.

The Masoretic does not actually state a virgin but a young woman.

Is this sufficient evidence to purify the Masoretic with fire?

Click to expand...

The KJB is translated from the Masoretic and it says virgin in Isaiah 7:14. But I can see you like the Apocrypha, and the LXX. So would it matter what evidence I show you (which demolishes your love for them)?

klutedavid said:

Septuagint, LXX.
The full title (Ancient Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. 'The Translation of the Seventy') derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE)

The Septuagint was the Bible the apostles used.

Click to expand...

Sorry, this is just a big fat lie. Just read the article I gave you and check out all the links. If it does not convince you it is because you don’t want to be convinced.

Here is that link again if you are truly interested in the truth.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

klutedavid said:

Obviously, there is not a perfect translation of the original Koine Greek scripture. Every single translation has errors of course. The KJV was revised a number of times and I wonder why that was?

There are many errors in the KJV and that is the third last translation I would ever use.

I use the NASB but I have to check the Greek in places because the translators made mistakes.

The Bible is inspired because it contains in places the very words of YHWH, i.e., JESUS.

You do the best you can with the available translations.

Click to expand...

So if the Bible has errors, who gets to decide which words are true and which words are not true in their Bible? Do you have a truth detector machine? If it is something you don’t like in the Bible, you can just say that was an error and move on. That is what I don’t like in the whole choose your own adventure Bible type thinking. There is no defined nailed down Word of God. It has to be created. But don’t you think God would want us to eventually get busy in loving Him and others instead of trying to create a Bible that caters to our own way of thinking?

klutedavid said:

Take your pick of either passage below, one Catholic, one Protestant.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.(Catholic.com)

In addition, the discovery of Greek manuscripts and inscriptions have also led scholars to believe not only that Greek translations of the Old Testament, such as the LXX, were available, but that Greek was widely spoken in Palestine, even among Jews. The one time we are told that Jesus himself read Scripture in the synagogue, the text he read followed the LXX (Septuagint). (Christianity.com)

Click to expand...

Again, there is no Pre-Christian LXX. That is your imagination working overtime and the lies of men (Who want to prove the Modern Translation agenda). Jesus did not quote from the LXX. For Jesus did not even want to have anything to do with the Gentiles during His earthly ministry. Do you ever recall the Canaanite woman in how she had to keep at Jesus? Jesus tried to get her to go away, and said He came only for Israel, but her great faith persisted. Salvation only went to the Gentiles because Israel rejected their Messiah. Jesus said salvation was of the Jews. So Jesus was very Jewish and He was not very Gentile like at all. Jesus called Gentiles dogs. That is what we are. So why would God have the OT Scriptures written in a dog language? Doesn’t make any sense. But go right ahead and believe contrary to what the Scriptures testify.

klutedavid said:

Take your pick of either passage below, one Catholic, one Protestant.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.(Catholic.com)

In addition, the discovery of Greek manuscripts and inscriptions have also led scholars to believe not only that Greek translations of the Old Testament, such as the LXX, were available, but that Greek was widely spoken in Palestine, even among Jews. The one time we are told that Jesus himself read Scripture in the synagogue, the text he read followed the LXX (Septuagint). (Christianity.com)

Click to expand...

So you don’t have trouble that all Modern Bibles we have today come from the direct supervision of the Vatican? Are you Catholic? Do you believe in Catholic doctrine? Do you not have a problem with certain Catholic practices? I sure do because they are not found in the Bible. The Apocrypha is favored by the Catholic Church because it includes their precious teaching on purgatory among other teachings. The LXX includes some of the Apocryphal books. The Apocrypha points one towards Rome and their practices. I don’t want to have anything to remotely do with that. I will continue to trust my King James Bible over the ever changing words of Modern Bibles. For I have a more sure word of prophecy. My Bible does not change. My Bible can be trusted. I am not seeking to make God’s words out to what I want them to be. I just read His Word and believe it because that is what faith is all about. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

klutedavid said:

Obviously, there is not a perfect translation of the original Koine Greek scripture. Every single translation has errors of course. The KJV was revised a number of times and I wonder why that was?

There are many errors in the KJV and that is the third last translation I would ever use.

I use the NASB but I have to check the Greek in places because the translators made mistakes.

The Bible is inspired because it contains in places the very words of YHWH, i.e., JESUS.

You do the best you can with the available translations.

Click to expand...

As for the different EDITIONS of the King James Bible: God’s Word says that His Word is purified seven times. There is exactly seven editions that led to the final purification with the King James Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900). But I am not expecting you to believe that of course. You have never really kept an open mind in regards to any of the King James Bible arguments in that it could be the Word of God for today.

See a good detective or investigator examines the evidence before making a judgment. Folks do not like the idea of a perfect Bible to be under authority to and so they will seek an ever changing Bible that caters to their way of thinking. But Jesus said His words shall not pass away. It’s a fact that Jesus’ words are changed for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. Fact. Not under dispute. Am I saying the KJB is the pure Word of God and perfect? It could be. I would have to face God to truly know that. But I know the KJB is the most pure Word we have by way of comparison to Modern Bibles. It’s not under debate even. The facts keep pointing to the KJB being superior ten times over when compared to Modern Bibles.

Here is my biblical case for the King James Bible being God’s Word we can trust.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible

Bible Highlighter said:

It’s not worth my time to continue to go back and forth with you on every point you made here because:

(a) You stated an obvious contradiction.
(b) You are not open to the truth that God could ever preserve His Word perfectly in the English.

Click to expand...

Of course I'm open to the idea. God is God; he can, and may, do anything he pleases.
I just don't believe that he has done this, nor that it is necessary.

Bible Highlighter said:

What contradiction did you make? Well, you stated that all bibles are the Word of God. However, it’s clear that not all bibles are the Word of God because they don’t all say exactly the same thing.

Click to expand...

They teach and proclaim the same triune God, same Saviour and same Gospel. They are all God's word.

Bible Highlighter said:

Life teaches us that things that are different are not the same.

Click to expand...

Bibles all have the same purpose - to reveal God, his nature, his ways, his will.
All Bibles teach the same things - all teach about creation, the fall, the flood, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, his disciples and Paul's teaching. All teach the words of Jesus, the cross, the resurrection, Pentecost, Paul's journey's and teachings.
All Bibles are the word of God. Like that or not, believe that or not; it's true.

Bible Highlighter said:

Again, not going to try and convince you.

Click to expand...

You can't.
I read God's word. I do not read the KJV. Both statements are true and you cannot convince me otherwise.

Bible Highlighter said:

I believe the King James Bible is THE Word of God

Click to expand...

Jesus is THE Word of God, John 1:1 - which, as I've said, has exactly the same words in the NIV as in the KJV.
The KJV says "in the beginning was the word" - that Word was Jesus, NOT the KJV. The Word of God is eternal, is God and became flesh. That Word is Jesus; eternal and divine.

Bible Highlighter said:

. I believe Modern Bibles are tainted or corrupted by the Vatican because that is simply a fact.

Click to expand...

And how do you think that people became saved, born again, Spirit filled, Trinity believing, Bible loving children of God, with authority over the evil one and EVERY spiritual blessing in Christ, Ephesians 1:3, through reading corrupt and tainted Bibles?
Because they do; and we, are just as much saved and loved by God as you are.

Bible Highlighter said:

You can protest and or bury your head in the sand all you like to such a truth, but I cannot do so.

Click to expand...

Ditto.
I, and thousands of others, are Christians, believe the Trinity and read the Bible, which is God's word - we do not use the KJV, and maybe never have. That is a fact that cannot be answered - ignore it all you like; it's still true.

Bible Highlighter said:

So I will side with the pure Word we have today, or the most purest Word we have in the English

Click to expand...

I will side with THE Word, who is Jesus, and with God's word which is recorded in the NIV, KJV, NEB, NET, RSV etc etc.

You say it is not worth your time trying to argue with me; you are correct, because you will never be able to disprove, or contradict, the fact that I, a non King James user, am a Trinity believing, saved, born again, Bible believing Christian just as you are.
I fully believe the Gospel and the Trinity; I do not use the KJV. Thousands, if not millions, of others can say the same. You won't like that fact and you can't contradict it - so I guess you'll either have to ignore, or accept, it.

Bible Highlighter said:

As for the different EDITIONS of the King James Bible: God’s Word says that His Word is purified seven times. There is exactly seven editions that led to the final purification with the King James Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900).

Click to expand...

God does not say that his word is purified 7 times.
Psalms 12:6 says that the words of the Lord are flawless - LIKE silver that has been purified 7 times.
i) David is using a simile. Silver that has been refined 7 times would be completely pure and flawless - God's words are that pure.
ii) God's words do not need purifying at all - that would imply that they were wrong/tainted when he first uttered them. God is pure and holy, and so are his words.
iii) Elsewhere the Psalmist says that God's words are greater than gold, Psalm 19:10. So which is it? Are God's words like silver that has had to be purified 7 times, or are they greater than gold?
iv) That there were 7 revisions of the KJV does not prove, or even illustrate, Psalms 12:6. You are saying that God did not get his "perfect word" right first time, so had to have 6 more attempts. Like I said, that is not possible; God's words are perfect, holy, true, flawless and just, the first time he speaks them.
How could it be otherwise? He is a Holy God. He never speaks and then says "ooops, I didn't mean that" or "never mind what I said earlier, that was my first word before it had been purified."
Such an idea is monstrous.

Strong in Him said:

Of course I'm open to the idea. God is God; he can, and may, do anything he pleases.
I just don't believe that he has done this, nor that it is necessary.



They teach and proclaim the same triune God, same Saviour and same Gospel. They are all God's word.



Bibles all have the same purpose - to reveal God, his nature, his ways, his will.
All Bibles teach the same things - all teach about creation, the fall, the flood, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, his disciples and Paul's teaching. All teach the words of Jesus, the cross, the resurrection, Pentecost, Paul's journey's and teachings.
All Bibles are the word of God. Like that or not, believe that or not; it's true.



You can't.
I read God's word. I do not read the KJV. Both statements are true and you cannot convince me otherwise.



Jesus is THE Word of God, John 1:1 - which, as I've said, has exactly the same words in the NIV as in the KJV.
The KJV says "in the beginning was the word" - that Word was Jesus, NOT the KJV. The Word of God is eternal, is God and became flesh. That Word is Jesus; eternal and divine.



And how do you think that people became saved, born again, Spirit filled, Trinity believing, Bible loving children of God, with authority over the evil one and EVERY spiritual blessing in Christ, Ephesians 1:3, through reading corrupt and tainted Bibles?
Because they do; and we, are just as much saved and loved by God as you are.



Ditto.
I, and thousands of others, are Christians, believe the Trinity and read the Bible, which is God's word - we do not use the KJV, and maybe never have. That is a fact that cannot be answered - ignore it all you like; it's still true.



I will side with THE Word, who is Jesus, and with God's word which is recorded in the NIV, KJV, NEB, NET, RSV etc etc.

You say it is not worth your time trying to argue with me; you are correct, because you will never be able to disprove, or contradict, the fact that I, a non King James user, am a Trinity believing, saved, born again, Bible believing Christian just as you are.
I fully believe the Gospel and the Trinity; I do not use the KJV. Thousands, if not millions, of others can say the same. You won't like that fact and you can't contradict it - so I guess you'll either have to ignore, or accept, it.

Click to expand...

If you are open to the truth, you would re-examine with an open mind the evidences in my thread for the King James Bible being either the pure Word or the most purest Word we have.

30 Reasons for the KJB

I believe anyone who is open and honest with such evidence will come to the same conclusion I have. In fact, in addition, I already shown how Modern Bibles we have today come from the direct supervision of the Vatican. So unless you are Catholic, I would not make them your final Word of authority. I have demonstrated time and again the inferiority of the Modern Translations in regards to doctrine, and commands. Modern Bibles attack Jesus, and the devil’s name is placed in them where they don’t belong. So it’s a fact that not all bibles say the same thing. But again, I am not going to set out to do a back and forth debate with you on this because you simply do not want to see it. It’s your choice. Believe as you want or wish (despite the evidence I presented, which I believe is very convincing). So I will simply point you to the thread link to check out my biblical case for the preservation of God’s Holy Word for today.

The fact remains that the KJV is an English translation, originally created over 400 years ago from the sources available then, upon the orders of a British king to create an authorized (by him) translation. In other words, he created the "official" Protestant Bible of the British empire. So..?

There have been many more English translations created over time, based on better and more sources, coupled with a better understanding, not only of the languages but also of the cultures that produced them.

Simply because a king of a foreign country ordered a translation 410 years ago doesn't mean a thing. It wasn't authorized by God as His Word!

I am grateful that we now have a variety of translations, based on better sources and knowledge, than one created many years ago in a foreign country by authority of a secular king.

Strong in Him said:

God does not say that his word is purified 7 times.
Psalms 12:6 says that the words of the Lord are flawless - LIKE silver that has been purified 7 times.
i) David is using a simile. Silver that has been refined 7 times would be completely pure and flawless - God's words are that pure.
ii) God's words do not need purifying at all - that would imply that they were wrong/tainted when he first uttered them. God is pure and holy, and so are his words.
iii) Elsewhere the Psalmist says that God's words are greater than gold, Psalm 19:10. So which is it? Are God's words like silver that has had to be purified 7 times, or are they greater than gold?
iv) That there were 7 revisions of the KJV does not prove, or even illustrate, Psalms 12:6. You are saying that God did not get his "perfect word" right first time, so had to have 6 more attempts. Like I said, that is not possible; God's words are perfect, holy, true, flawless and just, the first time he speaks them.
How could it be otherwise? He is a Holy God. He never speaks and then says "ooops, I didn't mean that" or "never mind what I said earlier, that was my first word before it had been purified."
Such an idea is monstrous.

Click to expand...

God’s words are perfect. The moment God speaks words from His own mouth, they are perfect (of course). But God also does compare His words with being purified like silver seven times, too. So there has to be a way that this truth is applicable in some way, too. But you don’t like the idea of His words being like silver purified seven times. You don’t like the comparison. You want to erase that truth. For if things are as you say: With this kind of mindset and wrong reading of the Scriptures, I am not surprised you would deny this truth in the Scriptures. For you, there is no need for His words to be purified seven times. The idea is meaningless to you. It’s just a useless comparison with no truth attached to His words being purified seven times. But I believe all Scripture is profitable for doctrine. Psalms 12:6-7 establishes the truth of the doctrine of “Divine Preservation of His Word.” So it’s no wonder you don’t get it. In fact, the beautiful promise of Psalms 12:6-7 is altered in Modern Translations. They say it’s not His words that are purified for all generations like the King James Bible says. In fact, those who are for the Modern Translation Agenda do not believe in His words being perfectly preserved for our generation (language) today and so this is why their Modern Bibles alter this precious truth to Christians who do hold to the doctrine of Divine Preservation.

Also, as for your claim that there are mistakes by the different seven editions of the KJB in comparison to the beautiful truth you dislike in Psalms 12:6-7:

Well, of course God does not make mistakes. I never suggested otherwise. The fault of course is always man. I believe the seven edition comparison here is showing how God works in man’s life (Which is imperfect to begin with). God progressively sanctifies men by the Holy Spirit. It can be a growing process for men to live a holy life by God’s Word. So seeing men are involved in the translation of His Word, their imperfections have put forth the different editions of God’s Word before it was refined perfectly with the circa 1900 Cambridge KJB Edition. Before this point in time, God’s Word perfectly existed in another language (Until the Word would be perfected for the world language we have today - which is English). So when English became the world language, God’s perfect words were ready to meet that point in time. For the English language needed to have a standard in grammar, and in perfecting the printing process (Which led to man’s errors appearing in His Word). God worked with men who are imperfect to refine His Word like silver purified seven times. But again, you can believe as you wish. I know this will not convince you. So go back to your ever changing words found within your Modern Bibles and trust in them if you wish. My Bible is not going to change it’s words like the shifting sands on a beach. I can trust it and I know His words will be preserved for our time forever. For I am not out to convince you. But I speak so as to help those who are looking for the truth (Wherever they may find it).