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

High Fidelity said:

The KJV is not the benchmark by which other translations are measured. This is commonly argued, even if unknowingly, but is false and ridiculous either way.

The same argument you make for the KJV could easily be used against the KJV by saying it should only be read and/or disseminated in the original languages.

The KJV is no longer the most accurate translation. Even amongst those that claim it is, they ironically use a later translation of it and not the 1611 anyway.

Click to expand...

Again, unlike the KJB (which comes from the Textus Receptus), most of all your Modern Bibles comes from the Critical Text.

I could list more problems as to why we should not trust the Modern Bibles, but if you need more reasons, you can simply check out the following CF thread here.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible.

Note:

When I mention this fact in the post above (post #241) to Christians today, some simply do not care that their Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican (even though they do not agree with Catholicism). Other Christians try to deny this truth in some way. But I have had this discussion on the KJB vs Modern Bibles in the past many times, and Anti-KJB Only Christians throw down how all Modern Bibles come from the Nestle and Aland Critical Text when I bring up Westcott and Hort. One can even check out Gotquestions and other sources in regards to the Critical Text and how that is the source of where we have all Modern Bibles. Yet, we can clearly see the current Critical Text we have is from Nestle and Aland and this was under the supervision of the Vatican. In fact, a Catholic cardinal was an editor on it, too. If your Catholic, then this is not going to bother you. But if you are not in agreement with Catholic practices, this should concern you then.

Bible Highlighter said:

Two, you believe I am taking the Lord’s Jesus’ words out of context by the KJV. If this is the case you must be appealing to some more superior source that is infallible over the King James Bible. What source is that?

(a) A buffet of Modern Vatican English Bibles that all disagree with each other?
(b) The Critical Text?
(c) Another line or set of Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts?
(d) A buffet of all the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that all disagree with each other (i.e. the James White mentality)?
(e) The NASB?
(f) Another Bible?

Click to expand...

Nebuchadnezzar specifically said that it was an angel in verse 28. So your saying that Nebuchadnezzar knew it was Jesus the Son of God in verse 25 but he specifically said that it was an angel in verse 28. That’s why it is translated as son of the gods instead of the Son of God, because Nebuchadnezzar knew nothing about Christ, he knew nothing about the Son of God. He would not have made that reference unless it came from a revelation from God and if he had received such a revelation he wouldn’t have reversed his identification of the individual in verse 28.

Bible Highlighter said:

Note: The NASB said something different in 1977 on this verse. So they keep changing with whatever they feel like.

Click to expand...

The KJV has received over 400 revisions over the last 500 years. So why are revisions of the NASB so relevant to its authenticity if the KJV has also received revisions as well?

BNR32FAN said:

Nebuchadnezzar specifically said that it was an angel in verse 28. So your saying that Nebuchadnezzar knew it was Jesus the Son of God in verse 25 but he specifically said that it was an angel in verse 28. That’s why it is translated as son of the gods instead of the Son of God, because Nebuchadnezzar knew nothing about Christ, he knew nothing about the Son of God. He would not have made that reference unless it came from a revelation from God and if he had received such a revelation he wouldn’t have reversed his identification of the individual in verse 28.

Click to expand...

When we speak there are no written words that come out of our mouths. God’s Word was written to record such an event in Daniel 3:25 by the Spirit to point out this truth to us (after the event happened). So while Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was Jesus and he believed it to be a messenger of God (or an angel), God inspired Scripture to clarify the reality of the actual event in telling us it was Jesus.

Anyways, I think it is worth repeating here what I had written in regards to the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.



Jesus (Who is the Eternal God) is the Messenger of the Lord in the OT:

It is quite astonishing to discover that Jesus Christ appears not only in the prophecies and typifications within the Old Testament but He also actually makes real pre-incarnate physical appearances in the Old Testament, as well. Many of these appearances are under the title of the "Angel of the Lord" in the KJV. Yet, we clearly know that Jesus is not a created angel or being but He is God Almighty Himself (or the second person in the Godhead).

Anyways, please take the time to look up the origin of the word "angel" at etymonline. While you are there, you will discover that it can also be defined as "messenger".

Online Etymology Dictionary

In other words, Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament!

Now, where does our Lord Jesus appear as a messenger in the Old Testament?

1. The Story of Hagar -

Genesis 16:7-13

The angel of the LORD promised to do something that only God can do (see v.10). Hagar knew that it was the Lord who spoke to her (v. 13) and she identified the angel of the LORD as God: "Thou God seest me" (v.13).

Genesis 21:17-20

The angel of the Lord promised to do something only God can do (see v.18). This angel is identified as God (v.19).

2. The Story of Abraham & Sarah -

Genesis 18:1-33

Although the title of the "angel of the Lord" is not used here, it is clear within this chapter that is Jesus Christ. First, "the Lord appeared unto him (i.e. Abraham)" (v. 1) followed by the immediate appearance of three men (v. 2). Abraham and Sarah both call him Lord, as well (v. 3) (v. 12). The Lord also knew Sarah had laughed at God's promise when she was not present (v. 15).

3. The Story of Abraham & Isaac -

Genesis 22:15-18

The angel of the Lord is speaking (verses 15-16) and yet verse 16 makes it clear that it is God who is speaking ("saith the LORD")! In verses 17-18 the angel of the Lord promises to do what only God can do.

4. The Story of Jacob -

Genesis 31:11-13

The angel of God (v.11) identifies Himself as God: "I am the God of Bethel" (v.13).

Genesis 32:24-32

Jacob wrestles with a man who he later identifies the place with the name "Peniel", which means he had seen God face to face (v. 30).

5. The Story of Joseph -

Genesis 48:14-16

When Jacob was blessing Joseph and his sons he mentions :The Angel which redeemed me from all evil" (v. 16). Now, last time I checked, but angels do not redeem anyone. They are simply guardians.

6. The Story of Moses -

Exodus 3:2-7

The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses out of the midst of a burning bush and identified Himself as God (verses 4 and 6) and as Lord (verses 4 and 7). See also Acts 7:30-32 where the angel of the Lord is identified as the Lord God.

Exodus 14:19-21

The angel of God does what only God can do (verses 19-20) and is identified with the glorious manifestation of God in the pillar of the cloud (verses 19-20). In verse 21 this angel is identified as "the LORD".

Exodus 23:20-23

This passage makes it clear that the Lord’s angel is much more than a mere angel; this angel is closely identified with God: Lord’s "name is in Him" (v.21, "name" referring to Lord's nature and character) and God’s people must "obey His voice" (v.21). Indeed, He has the authority to "pardon your transgressions" or not to pardon them, and who can forgive sins but God alone? Notice that the angel is distinct from God and sent by God. The LORD said, "Behold, I send an angel before thee." We are reminded of New Testament parallels as the Son was distinct from the Father and sent by the Father (John 3:17; etc.) and yet equal to the Father (John 5:18) (John 10:30).

7. The Story of Balaam -

Numbers 22:20-35

Now in the story of Balaam, we begin with God speaking directly to Balaam, then a transition from God to "angel of the Lord" So guess who was standing before Balaam? None other than Jesus Christ. The "angel of the LORD" is used many times in verses 23-26, and verses 31-35 and the LORD in verses 28-31. Then continuing in Chapter 23 God meets Balaam in verse 4 and the LORD is mentioned in verses 5 and 16. These titles are being used interchangeably.

8. The Story of Joshua -

Joshua 5:13-15

Again, although the "Angel of the Lord" is not mentioned here, Jesus did appear to Joshua in the form of a man. This man was worshiped by Joshua (v. 14) and this man declared that Joshua was standing on Holy ground (v. 15).

9. The Beginning Story of the Judges -

Judges 2:1-3

The angel of Lord says things that only God could say. God is the One who brought them into the land which He swore to give unto their fathers (v.1). God is the One who promised to never break His covenant (v.1).

10. The Story of Gideon -

Judges 6:11-24

As you follow this passage, pay close attention to who is speaking to Gideon: in verse 12 the angel of the Lord is speaking; in verse 14 the Lord is speaking; in verse 16 the Lord is speaking; in verse 20 the angel of God is speaking. Lord and the angel of Lord are one and the same.

11. The Story of Samson's Birth -

Judges 13:3-23

Note especially verses 17-18. Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, "What is Thy Name?" (v.17) and the angel of the Lord said, "Why asketh thou thus after My Name, seeing it is secret?" The word "secret" may be translated "wonderful." It is the same Hebrew word found in Isaiah 9:6 – "His Name shall be called wonderful." In Isaiah 9:6 the term is used as a name of Christ who is also called "the Mighty God." The fact that the Lord's angel was God was certainly known by Manoah. After the angel of the Lord appeared to him Manoah said, "We have seen God!" (v.22).

Conclusion:

The Angel of the Lord is also mentioned in the story of David, Isaiah, the Psalms, and Zechariah. So it is amazing to see how Jesus Christ being our eternal God was always present in the past, even revealing Himself within the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, too.


Side Note 1:

Even the Word of Promise Dramatized Audio Bible acknowledges the Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ in the OT.

Side Note 2:

Oh, and "Angel of the Lord" is an accurate description or title for Jesus in the Old Testament as stated in the KJV (King James Version).

Now, while Jesus was NOT an actual created being like an angel or anything silly like that, Jesus did have to hide His glory as God (who is a spirit being and who is eternal and uncreated). For just looking at the face of God would kill a flesh and blood human being (as Scripture says).

So Jesus put on an empty soulless shell of a body that comes from angels. Think of it like an angel suit. Jesus did not possess an angel in existence (who had a soul). No, no,no. Nor did Jesus create a new sentient being so as to co-mingle his mind with. Certainly not! Jesus is eternally God! Jesus's mind is His own! Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity (Who is eternal and spirit and uncreated).

Anyways, God hiding His glorious presence is not a new thing in Scripture. God was within the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of cloud by day.

BNR32FAN said:

The KJV has received over 400 revisions over the last 500 years. So why are revisions of the NASB so relevant to its authenticity if the KJV has also received revisions as well?

Click to expand...

If you were to actually compare the changes, they are not major ones in the KJB. Fixing typos in the printing process, or updating the font type, and only a super small small list of minor verses have been updated. There is no place where the devil’s name is placed in the Bible where it does not belong like in Modern Bibles (like the NASB). What’s horrible is that the NASB now favors the dragon interpretation on Revelation 13:1 now. This should horrify you.

As for the different editions of the KJB: Well, God’s Word was purified seven times according to Psalms 12:6-7. If you were to count the major editions of the KJB, the seventh edition is the KJB Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900). This is purified Word of God. Yes, I know not all KJB folk agree on this point. Some think it is the 1769. Others think it is the 1611, etc. But the point here is what does actually line up with what God’s Word says. I don’t believe God intended for the Apocrypha to be a part of the Bible. So this is why the circa. 1900 KJB Cambridge Edition is the winner (among other reasons).

Anyways, there are doctrines that are changed for the worse and not for the better when you compare the KJB vs. Modern Bibles. You can check that out here.

BNR32FAN said:

Nebuchadnezzar specifically said that it was an angel in verse 28. So your saying that Nebuchadnezzar knew it was Jesus the Son of God in verse 25 but he specifically said that it was an angel in verse 28. That’s why it is translated as son of the gods instead of the Son of God, because Nebuchadnezzar knew nothing about Christ, he knew nothing about the Son of God. He would not have made that reference unless it came from a revelation from God and if he had received such a revelation he wouldn’t have reversed his identification of the individual in verse 28.

Click to expand...

Another issue here is that if I am correct, you would be defending a corruption of the text by the enemy that is implying that the devil is trying to be like Jesus. Can you imagine if you are wrong and explaining this to the Lord when you will see Him face to face? I cannot imagine doing that. I would not want to be in that kind of position. For me: It’s all too clear that Daniel 3:25 is referring to Jesus as being the fourth one in the fire. I gave supporting verses that supports this truth. But we have to be open to what those verses say over our preferred interpretation or belief.

What is it about the King James translation that makes it so perfect? Nothing! It's not perfect, it's simply a time-honored translation. It is not and never will be the English translation. To me, it's astonishing that the KJVOs worship their book.

pescador said:

What is it about the King James translation that makes it so perfect? Nothing! It's not perfect, it's simply a time-honored translation. It is not and never will be the English translation. To me, it's astonishing that the KJVOs worship their book.

Click to expand...

This is simply a false claim in that King James Onlyists worship a book. I know of no KJB Only Christian who bows down to the Bible as if it was God Himself. Most Christians believe God is a spiritual being, and they worship Him. But God’s words are an expression of the mind of God, and so we do revere those words because they come from Him. Sort of like a love letter a woman might receive from her fiancé when he is in a far away place. She would cherish the letter because it represents his thoughts, but she would not treat the letter as if it was her fiancé. She would not take the letter out on dinner dates and talk to the letter, etc.

There is nothing wrong with holding to a perfect Bible in existence today. Do you not have a perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands today? Most who believe as you do, have no perfect Bible that they can hold in their hands and claim it as the Word of God. It’s an ever shifting Word of God that changes every few years based on Modern Scholarship (under the Vatican influenced Nestle & Aland Critical text). Therein lies the problem.

Bible Highlighter said:

Yet, we can clearly see the current Critical Text we have is from Nestle and Aland and this was under the supervision of the Vatican.

Click to expand...

If you can't stop the spread by burnings you change course and control the narrative. Obvious why the burnings stopped more recently after centuries upon centuries of burnings. They didn't give up but changed tactics.

timothyu said:

If you can't stop the spread by burnings you change course and control the narrative. Obvious why the burnings stopped more recently after centuries upon centuries of burnings. They didn't give up but changed tactics.

Click to expand...

I agree.

pescador said:

It is not and never will be the English translation.

Click to expand...

The King James is still the best selling translation in the US (i.e. 55%).
Abraham Lincoln quoted from it, and it was the Bible that used to be in public schools at one time. It’s amazing to me how some compliment the KJB and then spit on it in the same sentence.

Bible Highlighter said:

This is simply a false claim in that King James Onlyists worship a book.

Click to expand...

I know you're fed up with talking to me about this, but I'm afraid you cannot stop me from answering your posts.

That's exactly it though; you, and other KJVO folk, have said that it is holy, pure and THE perfect word of God. I am pretty sure that you have said that if you lost faith in ITS perfection, you would lose your faith.
But Scripture, the KJV itself, says that JESUS is the Word of God, John 1:1, and Jesus was perfect. Therefore THE perfect Word of God is Jesus.
If you say that you would lose your Christian faith if it could be proved, or if someone convinced you, that the KJV wasn't perfect, you are putting a Bible on the same level as the Son of God.
You are saying, it seems, that all your faith in God, experience and everything that God has done for you over the years is all dependent on whether or not a Spirit inspired, but man made, translation of God's word is perfect - the "perfection" of this Bible means more to you than the presence of God in, and throughout, your life.

That is really sad, and THAT is why I have been responding to so many of your posts.
I'm not stalking you or getting at you and I have no desire to prevent you from reading the KJV. But I am reminded very much of the first commandment when I see your posts, and others on the same subjects.

The KJV is an inspired translation of God's word - just as are the NIV, RSV, NRSV etc. It is nowhere near equal to the Son of God, THE Word.

Bible Highlighter said:

I know of no KJB Only Christian who bows down to the Bible as if it was God Himself.

Click to expand...

You don't need to literally get on your knees and bow down before something to worship it.

Is your belief in the perfection of the KJV greater than your belief in God?
IF you were ever to say, "yes, the KJV translators may have made a mistake there", do you believe that you would no longer be a Christian/that God wouldn't love you/that you would forfeit eternal life/that you would lose his Holy Spirit? If so, ARE you putting the KJV before God?
Is the imperfection of the KJV the thing that could snatch you from the Father's hands? Jesus said that nothing ever can, John 10:29.
If the KJV contained errors would this separate you from the Father's love? Paul said that nothing ever can, Romans 8:38-39.

I'm not going to quote the rest of your post, but the Bible is not "ever shifting".
OT stories of Noah, Abraham, John the Baptist etc have been the same since they were written down. No one has changed the Gospel, removed the cross or said "let's make it so that salvation comes by doing good deeds, being nice to the vicar " etc.
All that has changed is language, and the emergence of new scrolls/documents and methods of translation. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the cross, the resurrection, the Trinity and all Bible characters have remained the same.
I am certain that you are wise enough to realise this. I am certain that you know, even if you are too afraid to admit it, that non KJV readers are Christians, believe the same Gospel and have eternal life just as much as KJV readers.

If you are done talking with me, don't answer this.
But please, think about it.

Bible Highlighter said:

The King James is still the best selling translation in the US (i.e. 55%).
Abraham Lincoln quoted from it, and it was the Bible that used to be in public schools at one time. It’s amazing to me how some compliment the KJB and then spit on it in the same sentence.

Click to expand...

Best selling does not equal best, and most accurate.

Bible Highlighter said:

First, my user name is Bible Highlighter, brother. Second, if my memory serves me correctly, I know we agree on how we need to live holy as a part of God’s plan of salvation after we are saved by God’s grace. I know you believe in the Trinity. These are fundamentals things we agree on. I am thankful for these things we do agree on. However, while we may have discussed it, I simply don’t recall any discussion between us on Messianic prophecies, Pre-Incarnate appearances of Jesus in the Old Testament, etc.; So I have no idea where you stand on these things. By the response you gave me on John 5:39, you made it sound like that was a translation error in the King James Bible in the way that it was written or by the existence of such a verse. At least, that is the impression I got, my friend.
Three, while I love you in Christ, we do have to face the truth of things. So I ask you. Where is your perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands that you claim is more superior than the King James Bible? Do you agree that Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican? This is at the heart of the issue here.

In any event, whether you agree or disagree, may God bless you greatly.

Sincerely,

B.L. Highlighter.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry I was pretty sure we were in the same thread talking about Jesus references in the Old Testament and I said that I believe that in every single case where man spoke to God face to face they were speaking to Jesus not God The Father because Jesus said no one has seen The Father and he also said no one has ascended into Heaven except He who has descended the Son of Man. As far as the prophecies I’ve read them but I do not study into them very much because in my opinion they are too ambiguous to base any sort of detailed predictions for coming events. They certainly give us clues to keep watch for but I don’t indulge in discussions about them due to the nature of my reluctance to discuss scriptures that do not provide a comprehensive explanation. There are too many verses that are symbolic that can refer to almost anything so I strive to not attribute those verses to any particular interpretation so as to not mislead myself nor anyone else. I apologize for using your name I have edited the post and removed it. I’m sorry I didn’t think it was an issue. About John 5:39 no I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the KJV translation on that verse the only thing I found wrong was your implication that it was in reference to the fourth person in the fire in Daniel 3. There’s nothing in the context of John 5 to support that interpretation.

Strong in Him said:

I am certain that you know, even if you are too afraid to admit it, that non KJV readers are Christians, believe the same Gospel and have eternal life just as much as KJV readers.

Click to expand...

The issue seems to be more one of motive. Are the people allowed access to scripture to cross reference the teachings of the church or does the church have final authourity. It's been the issue since the Reformation. If scripture gets out to the people how then does the church maintain authourity unless by controlling the scripture itself, controlling it's narrative. Does the emphasis remain on the kingdoms of man that the church has amalgamated with for 1700 years, including to this day with the new world government (both Church of England and of Rome working together), or are the people allowed to focus on the counter-culture of the Kingdom of God which is contrary to the kingdoms of man and would pose a threat to organized religion? Translations and emphasis on the wrong gospel are quite important.

Strong in Him said:

I know you're fed up with talking to me about this, but I'm afraid you cannot stop me from answering your posts.

That's exactly it though; you, and other KJVO folk, have said that it is holy, pure and THE perfect word of God. I am pretty sure that you have said that if you lost faith in ITS perfection, you would lose your faith.
But Scripture, the KJV itself, says that JESUS is the Word of God, John 1:1, and Jesus was perfect. Therefore THE perfect Word of God is Jesus.
If you say that you would lose your Christian faith if it could be proved, or if someone convinced you, that the KJV wasn't perfect, you are putting a Bible on the same level as the Son of God.
You are saying, it seems, that all your faith in God, experience and everything that God has done for you over the years is all dependent on whether or not a Spirit inspired, but man made, translation of God's word is perfect - the "perfection" of this Bible means more to you than the presence of God in, and throughout, your life.

That is really sad, and THAT is why I have been responding to so many of your posts.
I'm not stalking you or getting at you and I have no desire to prevent you from reading the KJV. But I am reminded very much of the first commandment when I see your posts, and others on the same subjects.

The KJV is an inspired translation of God's word - just as are the NIV, RSV, NRSV etc. It is nowhere near equal to the Son of God, THE Word.



You don't need to literally get on your knees and bow down before something to worship it.

Is your belief in the perfection of the KJV greater than your belief in God?
IF you were ever to say, "yes, the KJV translators may have made a mistake there", do you believe that you would no longer be a Christian/that God wouldn't love you/that you would forfeit eternal life/that you would lose his Holy Spirit? If so, ARE you putting the KJV before God?
Is the imperfection of the KJV the thing that could snatch you from the Father's hands? Jesus said that nothing ever can, John 10:29.
If the KJV contained errors would this separate you from the Father's love? Paul said that nothing ever can, Romans 8:38-39.

I'm not going to quote the rest of your post, but the Bible is not "ever shifting".
OT stories of Noah, Abraham, John the Baptist etc have been the same since they were written down. No one has changed the Gospel, removed the cross or said "let's make it so that salvation comes by doing good deeds, being nice to the vicar " etc.
All that has changed is language, and the emergence of new scrolls/documents and methods of translation. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the cross, the resurrection, the Trinity and all Bible characters have remained the same.
I am certain that you are wise enough to realise this. I am certain that you know, even if you are too afraid to admit it, that non KJV readers are Christians, believe the same Gospel and have eternal life just as much as KJV readers.

If you are done talking with me, don't answer this.
But please, think about it.

Click to expand...

Great post!

Bible Highlighter said:

Again, unlike the KJB (which comes from the Textus Receptus), most of all your Modern Bibles comes from the 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.​

I could list more problems as to why we should not trust the Modern Bibles, but if you need more reasons, you can simply check out the following CF thread here.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible.

Click to expand...

If this were true then why would vehemently anti-RCC pastors, such as Dr John MacArthur, be using a translation 'controlled' by the Vatican? He and many others speak the original languages, so surely they'd just read the original texts and translate?

Strong in Him said:

Best selling does not equal best, and most accurate.

Click to expand...

Nor does it imply that the best-selling translation is not the best and most accurate. It is possible that the best-selling translation is the best and most accurate. Regardless it's obvious that the best-seller is the one that most people prefer. BTW, it's not the King James; it's the NIV.

pescador said:

Great post!

Click to expand...

Thank you.