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

The Liturgist said:

Well, as a matter of fact, I use a modified version of Devotional Services, which is an elegant alternative to the BCP of high church Congregational provenance and which does preserve the formal, ecclesiastical oratory of the Book of Common Prayer.

It is really the BCP/KJV synergy that drove the historic popularity of the KJV.

Click to expand...

Or it could be that people believe that because the KJV was authorized by the king it is the Bible. Personally, I have no interest in throwing out 400+ years of translation scholarship.

kahn888 said:

What did God say about changing his words?
Be careful now i tell thee, most modern versions of the bible are from hell itself,

Click to expand...

i) If they were, they would put the devil in a good light rather than describe him as a liar and a murderer, the father of lies, someone who has been defeated now, and will be thrown into the lake of fire at the end. No "bible" from hell would say that about the devil, and praise Jesus as being stronger.
ii) Modern translations of the Bible teach, proclaim and reveal the same God and same Gospel that the KJV teaches. There is only one God, one Saviour, one Spirit, one Gospel - non KJV readers are just as saved and blessed as KJV readers are.
iii) If you claim that modern translations are from hell, what does that say about a) the Christians who translated them, b) the Christians who read them. And be careful; questioning someone's salvation can get you suspended/banned from CF.

kahn888 said:

if your truly Born again, pray that the Holy spirit guide you in all truth.

Click to expand...

He has, thank you very much.

kahn888 said:

Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate
King James Bible is inspired Authorized Version of 1611 infallible Word of God.
this is a long read, but you will understand the truth, All Glory to Jesus Christ Almighty God.

Click to expand...

So God didn't speak his infallible word before the KJV came along?
Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, John the Baptist and Jesus - none of them had God's infallible word?

I wonder how the apostles managed to convert thousands without having God's true word?

kahn888 said:

just 1 Example of other Hellish bibles translations against the King james 1611 inspired Word of God.
Daniel 3:25 CHANGE "the Son of God" TO "a son of the gods" ("He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC "Thats Blasphemy"

Click to expand...

No it's not.
In Daniel 3:25 a Babylonian, pagan king is speaking. He did not even believe in the Jewish God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; he certainly wouldn't have understood about the Son of God.

As I've asked a number of times before, what does the Hebrew say? If you compare what was written in the original language with the KJV and other Bibles and the KJV was found to be more accurate, or agreed with the original language every time, then there would be proof, in black and white, that the KJV was always the most accurate. And any KJVO lovers would shout that from the rooftops.
No one has yet taken up this challenge - and the only reason I can see for that is that no one wants to discover and/or admit that there might be times when the KJV has added words. That would be completely unthinkable, so no one does it.

kahn888 said:

Galatians 4:16 KJV
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Click to expand...

Not at all - but you might make enemies by presenting your version of the truth and implying that any Christian who doesn't have it is deficient, in some way.

kahn888 said:

please click this blue link, more will be revealed and explained Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate

Click to expand...

i) Best - best for who? Not me; I prefer other translations and became a born again Christian by reading them.
ii) Most accurate - this is another thing no one has been able to explain; manuscripts discovered since the KJV was produced could obviously not have been included in the KJV. So how could it be the most accurate?
As there were several KJVs produced, which of those is the most accurate and inspired word of God? Did they get it wrong the first time?

If the KJV helps you to grow in faith, grow closer to God, learn more about his love; if you have memorised verses from the KJV so that you can witness to others and fight against the devil, that is great. Please go on using it, and may you grow even more in love and faith.
But please don't imply that Christians who don't read, and share your love for, this Bible are misguided, nor that our Bibles are false or satanic.

Strong in Him said:

i) If they were, they would put the devil in a good light rather than describe him as a liar and a murderer, the father of lies, someone who has been defeated now, and will be thrown into the lake of fire at the end. No "bible" from hell would say that about the devil, and praise Jesus as being stronger.
ii) Modern translations of the Bible teach, proclaim and reveal the same God and same Gospel that the KJV teaches. There is only one God, one Saviour, one Spirit, one Gospel - non KJV readers are just as saved and blessed as KJV readers are.
iii) If you claim that modern translations are from hell, what does that say about a) the Christians who translated them, b) the Christians who read them. And be careful; questioning someone's salvation can get you suspended/banned from CF.



He has, thank you very much.



So God didn't speak his infallible word before the KJV came along?
Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, John the Baptist and Jesus - none of them had God's infallible word?

I wonder how the apostles managed to convert thousands without having God's true word?



No it's not.
In Daniel 3:25 a Babylonian, pagan king is speaking. He did not even believe in the Jewish God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; he certainly wouldn't have understood about the Son of God.

As I've asked a number of times before, what does the Hebrew say? If you compare what was written in the original language with the KJV and other Bibles and the KJV was found to be more accurate, or agreed with the original language every time, then there would be proof, in black and white, that the KJV was always the most accurate. And any KJVO lovers would shout that from the rooftops.
No one has yet taken up this challenge - and the only reason I can see for that is that no one wants to discover and/or admit that there might be times when the KJV has added words. That would be completely unthinkable, so no one does it.



Not at all - but you might make enemies by presenting your version of the truth and implying that any Christian who doesn't have it is deficient, in some way.



i) Best - best for who? Not me; I prefer other translations and became a born again Christian by reading them.
ii) Most accurate - this is another thing no one has been able to explain; manuscripts discovered since the KJV was produced could obviously not have been included in the KJV. So how could it be the most accurate?
As there were several KJVs produced, which of those is the most accurate and inspired word of God? Did they get it wrong the first time?

If the KJV helps you to grow in faith, grow closer to God, learn more about his love; if you have memorised verses from the KJV so that you can witness to others and fight against the devil, that is great. Please go on using it, and may you grow even more in love and faith.
But please don't imply that Christians who don't read, and share your love for, this Bible are misguided, nor that our Bibles are false or satanic.

Click to expand...

It's obvious that kahn888 thinks the Authorized Version -- authorized by whom? -- is the Word of God and that every other translation is invalid. There is no convincing a KJVO that they are misguided, or that they are confusing a translation into a language that nobody on Earth uses any more with a perfect rendition of the imperfect source documents.

Personally, I worship God, not a 410-year-old rendition of a limited set of sources into a dead language.

Which version?
1611,1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769.

I am glad you have faith in the Word. I would not try to dissuade you from your faith. But I think we should all take care that we do not hinder the faith of others.

pescador said:

That's because the English word is "authority". Where do you find the corrupt version: "authourity"? It's not in any English dictionary, including the OED.

The KJV is actually copyrighted under the Crown Copyright of England therefore the copyright of the KJV falls under the jurisdiction of England. Since the Crown Copyright is a perpetual copyright it will never end. The US has agreed to honor copyright laws of other countries. As a result the KJV is actually copyrighted here in the US as well.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. The King James Bible does not have a copyright here in the US.
The King James is considered to be in the public domain here in the US.

King James Version - Wikipedia

Which Bible Versions are In the Public Domain, and Which Can I Cite?

https://support.biblegateway.com/hc...es-on-Bible-Gateway-are-in-the-public-domain-

Bible Highlighter said:

The King James is considered to be in the public domain here in the US.

Click to expand...

No wonder the Queen's coffers are floundering.

Uh, no. The King James Bible does not have a copyright...

Click to expand...

Precisely.

Getting back to the motivation$ of men and their copyrighted invention$:

I have in my hand The Holy Bible, the actual title of the King James Bible. Neither on its indicia page, nor elsewhere, is the word “copyright” found. It is in the public domain - worldwide.

Conversely, modern translations are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.

There are fundamental differences between a “copyright” and a “letters patent."

Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.

LETTERS PATENT. The name of an instrument granted by the government to convey a right to the patentee; as, a patent for a tract of land; or to secure to him a right which he already possesses, as a patent for a new invention or discovery; Letters patent are a matter of record. They are so called because they are not sealed up, but are granted open. Vide Patent. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, 1856.

A Letters Patent is about preservation; a copyright is about restriction.

So this is how it plays out in the real world:

Obviously the KJB's crown patent is not the same as a copyright, as it was created before copyright laws. The proof is in the pudding, as anyone may reproduce the text, throughout the world, freely. God had his Bible done before the invention of the copyright. The crown patent simply related to the care and control of printing an accurate text back then and was overseen by the government which 'authorized' the text. That same government, although now liberal, still has the responsibility of guarding the veracity of the text within England. They have always allowed anyone in the world to print it, and consequently could never go back and change their mind and not allow this. Even if one wanted to say it had a copyright, that copyright would be null and void, because they have set the precedent of allowing it to be printed worldwide. One of the legal caveats about current 'copyright' law is that if you do not restrict people from printing your material, you lose your right to come back later and insist that they do. So either way, the KJB, as the word of God, unlike the modern copyrighted versions of the KJB, is not bound.

God made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the correct "equivalency" long before copyright laws were created worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen's Patent is never enforced to curtail its spread in Great Britain.

timothyu said:

No wonder the Queen's coffers are floundering.

Click to expand...

She may drink coffee (not tea?) but I'm not sure she eats flounder (not Dover sole).

My King James Bible is the Thompson Chain Reference, copyright 1964 by B. B. Kirkbride Bible Co., Inc. While the actual text of the KJV in theory can't be copyrighted, all the references, footnotes, maps, concordance, and everything else between the covers is copyrighted by the publisher.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the OP subject: whether the KJV is still the best and most accurate. IMHO it's not either!

I'm a bit hazy on copyright; isn't it something about 50 years after the death of the author?

God is alive!

I'm a bit hazy on copyright; isn't it something about 50 years after the death of the author?

Click to expand...

“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 to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.” -- Derivative Copyright Law (partial)

Note that legally, they're not "translations;" they're derivative works of the King James Bible, but changed in accordance with Derivative Copyright Law.

So, we learn it's never been about any "translation," although that is where worldly men place the emphasis so that worldly wanna-be "scholars" can acquire the wiggle room required to play their "textual criticism" games with their copyrighted inventions. They say, “If we can convince others that the King James Bible also meets the legal definition of a modern revision, then we can continue to PROFIT from our plethora of modern copyrighted revisions unfettered.”

Why do you think the AV (aka KJB) is not, and has never been, copyrighted? If the KJB is just another version in a long line of versions, then why, as the most common Bible in the world, isn't it copyrighted?

The King James Bible is under a Letters Patent; it is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but the NIV, and all modern versions, are.

backNforth said:

The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but the NIV, and all modern versions, are.

Click to expand...

So is there a lot of illegal activity here or will many claim they can quote?

backNforth said:

“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 to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.” -- Derivative Copyright Law (partial)

Note that legally, they're not "translations;" they're derivative works of the King James Bible, but changed in accordance with Derivative Copyright Law.

So, we learn it's never been about any "translation," although that is where worldly men place the emphasis so that worldly wanna-be "scholars" can acquire the wiggle room required to play their "textual criticism" games with their copyrighted inventions. They say, “If we can convince others that the King James Bible also meets the legal definition of a modern revision, then we can continue to PROFIT from our plethora of modern copyrighted revisions unfettered.”

Why do you think the AV (aka KJB) is not, and has never been, copyrighted? If the KJB is just another version in a long line of versions, then why, as the most common Bible in the world, isn't it copyrighted?

The King James Bible is under a Letters Patent; it is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but the NIV, and all modern versions, are.

Click to expand...

I posted this earlier; I guess that you missed it...

My King James Bible is the Thompson Chain Reference, copyright 1964 by B. B. Kirkbride Bible Co., Inc. While the actual text of the KJV in theory can't be copyrighted, all the references, footnotes, maps, concordance, and everything else between the covers is copyrighted by the publisher.

I posted this earlier; I guess that you missed it...

My King James Bible is...

Click to expand...

Didn't miss your statement. Your point?

I have a publishing company that prints Large Print New Testaments and Portions.
There is no copyright on the KJV unless you valued added such as Dakes or Scofield.
More modern Bibles published in the previous to 70 years are out of copyright and are in the "public domain." Versions like the ISV, The Message, etc are still under copyright.

pescador said:

How do you know that where it was inserted was a determination of man? It's entirely possible that the translators were also guided by the Holy Spirit. And the correct placement can clarify the entire meaning of a verse. It's obvious that you're trying to devalue modern translations but it's not working...

Furthermore, since the originals don't exist, how can we be sure that the early copies are accurate? It's a matter of faith. Some of us have it and some of us don't.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have faith, too. But it is in the King James Bible.
I see the KJB existing as one of two possibilities.

I say this because when you compare Modern Translations next to the KJB, the Modern Bibles drop the ball big time multiple times in many ways. For Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the KJB attack key doctrines (like the Trinity, the teaching on fasting along with prayer to cast out persistent demons), and they attack certain commands by God. Modern Bibles water down the deity of Jesus Christ, they water down the blood atonement, and they place the devil’s name where they do not belong, etc.). Such a thing would not exist if the KJB was not something special. Divine Preservation of God’s Word is what we do see in Scripture and yet this doctrine is denied by those who say there is no perfect English Bible and so we have to create one. The origins behind Modern Bibles is tied to the Vatican. Yet, Catholics appear to hate or dislike the KJB. In fact, the Catholics tried to kill King James and the KJB translation with a super bomb. The KJB was the favored translation in public schools in the US, and riots broke out in certain cities over a Catholic translation. So there is a battle. It’s a spiritual one.

Also, think about what the devil does in God’s Word. What one tactic did he use? Well, the devil tries to subtly attack God’s Word. He did it with both Eve, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Just a subtle change by the enemy in God’s Word is enough sometimes in order for the devil to win or get what he wants. But “No Bible is perfect” folk don’t think there is an attack. Yet, this is what we read about within God’s Holy Word. This type of thing must go quietly ignored in order to make their way of thinking correct.

jamiemb said:

View attachment 308985 Here is a page, one of 23, listing the variations between the first two printed issues of the AV/KJV, both of which appeared in 1611:

The page is taken from volume 1 of a five-volume reproduction of the 1611 Bible. Here is the URL to the page: The Authorised Version of the English Bible, 1611 : Wright, William Aldis, 1831-1914 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The section listing the variations occurs before the main body of volume 1.

Here is the beginning of the preface of The Translators to the Reader: The Authorised Version of the English Bible, 1611 : Wright, William Aldis, 1831-1914 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Which of those two issues of the AV, if either, is to be preferred as the correct one, and why ? And by what means does one decide on the answer ?

Click to expand...

Check out the following articles:

The Pure King James Bible (Cambridge Edition)

Line Upon Line

backNforth said:

Didn't miss your statement. Your point?

Click to expand...

My point is that publishers copyright their King James bibles because of the references, footnotes, maps, etc. that have been added.

backNforth said:

“The King James Bible is under a Letters Patent; it is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but the NIV, and all modern versions, are.

Click to expand...

The following Bibles in Biblegateway are in the public domain:

• American Standard Version (ASV)
• Darby Translation (DARBY)
• Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
• King James Version (KJV)
• World English Bible (WEB)
• Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
• Reina-Valera Antigua (RVA)
• Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE)

A_Thinker said:

Even today, translations into languages other than English, are made from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV isn't lingually available to non-English readers.

Click to expand...

Not true. The King James is available in other languages:

Textus Receptus in Spanish (RVG 2010):
https://www.amazon.com/Santa-Biblia-Rústica-Valera-Spanish/dp/0758907567/

King James Francais in French:
Bible King James Française | King James Française

Koning Jacobus Vertaling in Dutch:
http://www.koningjacobusvertaling.org/info_english.php

Bibelen Guds Ord in Norwegian:
http://www.hermon.no/netbibelen/

Thai King James Bible Version:
The Bible (พระคัมภีร์ไทย)

Korean King James Version:
https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/

Brazillian Portuguese (the BKJ):
Bíblia King James Fiel 1611

You said:

The miracle ... is the preservation of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, ... from which all subsequent translations, including the KJV, are drawn. These manuscripts span the lifetime of the Church, ... and are the source for every Bible ever distributed ...

Click to expand...

And you believe God has changed in that He kept His Word in a more ancient language when that is not what we read in God’s Word. We know that God moved with the times. God did not keep His Word in the Hebrew but He made the New Testament available in the Greek (Which was the world language at that time). So if God is to be the same and or consistent, He would also make available His Word in the English language perfectly or at the very least it would be His Word available in the most purest form we could possibly ever have for the world language of today (Which is English).

For there are many problems with denying the doctrine of Divine Preservation of God’s Word.

Problem #1. It denies Psalms 12:6-7 (Which is altered in Modern Bibles), and we can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs (of which you don’t believe we have today).



In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).

Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.

Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).

2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.

So the belief of “OAO (Original Autograph Only) Proponent” that says that we need to look to the original autograph (that does not exist anymore) because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today. Most in the OAO camp do not believe any perfect Bible exists and so they must decide what the Bible correctly says and does not say. They are the one who are the ultimate arbiters of truth and not God’s Word.

Problem #2. The departure from the King James Bible with the Critical Text has led to the majority of Modern Bibles we have today (Which is influenced by the Vatican). If you are Catholic or you do not have a problem with the practices in the Catholic Church, then there is no point to read on further. But if you are not Catholic, and you disagree with Catholicism, then this point should greatly unsettle you.

For 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. The Modern Translations are based primarily upon two manuscripts (i.e. the Critical Text). One manuscript was found in an Orthodox monastery and the other one was found in a Catholic vault. These two manuscripts were used to create a New Testament Greek translation under Westcott and Hort (with one of them who was into Catholicism). Later in time, Nestle and Aland had created another NT Greek text using their work partially upon which Modern Translations are based now. This work was supervised by the Vatican this time with a Catholic cardinal being the editor.

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 1:

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.

Side Note 2:

Kurt Aland who worked on the Critical Text (under the supervision of the Vatican) can be seen with the pope here:



If you know American history involving the King James Bible, you would know that the KJB was the chosen Bible in public schools here in America. But riots broke out in certain cities throughout history on occasion over the Catholics trying to push their chosen Bible at the time in public schools. So obviously, the Catholic Church succeeded in a different way in their spin or influence on God’s Word with Nestle and Aland’s Critical Text (That was under their supervision).

I would also encourage you to check out this documentary here:

It shows that the Catholics tried to set off a super bomb to not only kill King James but they wanted to also stop the translation of the King James Bible (Which threatened their way of trying to keep the meaning of God’s Word with their special religious men only).

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

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

Problem #3. The Babel language approach to God’s Word.

We know at the Tower of Babel that God confused the languages so that they would spread throughout the globe. People have a hard enough time understanding each other in the English and you want them to understand and agree on the truth of God’s Word in a dead language? That’s too complicated of a task. We do not have an apostle Paul to correct us on our Biblical Greek, and we do not have a Moses to correct us on our Biblical Hebrew. Not all scholars agree and we are only guessing at best as to which interpretation might be the correct one in a dead language. We did not grow up in these cultures while they were alive writings and speaking them to truly know them with 100% certainty. Also, most who are for the Original Languages approach usually look to the corrupt Critical Text (Which is the wrong line of manuscripts influenced by the Vatican). Most often, those who are for the Original languages Only to interpret the Bible don’t like the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts (whereby the King James Bible comes from).

Problem #4. The KJB Wins When Comparing the KJB next to Modern Bibles.


So there are two vines (or two lines of manuscripts). One good and one bad.
There are two bibles in Christian book stores today.
The Critical Text Modern Bibles (that all say something different).
The Textus Receptus Bible (the King James Bible).

I could keep going, but if you are not convinced, you can simply look at this thread to find more reasons.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible.