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

High Fidelity said:

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?

Click to expand...

First, MacArthur teaches Calvinism (of which I find to be unbiblical). Second, his net worth is 14-15 million (Which runs contrary to 1 Timothy 6). Three, MacArthur also pretends to teach holy living as a requirement for salvation, but he really does not believe that way according to the Bible. The Lordship Salvation doctrine he popularized is a Trojan horse.

How so?

Well, Kenneth Nally committed suicide as per his influence of John MacArthur's ministry and MacArthur said that he was still saved.

Here is a quote from an article:


Article Source:
Fundamentalist Clergymen Face Charges of 'Malpractice' When a Parishioner Turns to Suicide

John MacArthur says that a person can take the mark of the beast and they can still be saved afterwards. Listen to this audio clip by him here:


John MacArthur says,


John MacArthur confirms how one can sin and still be saved here in this video:


Four, it is unlikely MacArthur is aware of the Catholic connection in Nestle and Aland’s Critical text and if he is aware of it, he probably is like most in that he does not care or he thinks it does not matter.

High Fidelity said:

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?

Click to expand...

Also, there is nobody alive today who 100% accurately speaks and writes Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek because they are dead languages. Scholars are only guessing at best.

Modern Translation Scholars also do not believe any perfect Bible exists and so they are on an endless quest to figure out what God actually said. I don’t have that problem. I believe God preserved His words for us today perfectly (or as close to perfect in the English language). I believe there is one Word of God and not many.

BNR32FAN said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry. Some discussions I recall, and others I don’t. I lead a pretty busy life outside of the forums and so a lot of things occupy my mind. I talk with many on the forums on many topics, as well.

You said:

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.

Click to expand...

Messianic prophecies and Typifications of Christ are merely past things in the OT that point to Christ. I am not sure how they can mislead people exactly.

You said:

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.

Click to expand...

John 5:39 says that the Scriptures testify of Him. Do you not think that Pre-Incarnate appearances play a part in that? I know you don’t think Daniel 3:25 is a clear case for a Pre-Incarnate appearance for Christ, but I believe this is the case because the Bible says that. Your rejection of the King James Bible over the Vatican Modern Bible is what will not allow you to accept such a truth in Daniel 3:25. This is where our beliefs differ. This is why not all bibles say the same thing.

Bible Highlighter said:

Also, there is nobody alive today who 100% accurately speaks and writes Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek because they are dead languages. Scholars are only guessing at best.

Click to expand...

Scholars - people who have studied for years and got qualifications in their subjects - are only guessing?
What evidence do you have for this?
And don't tell me; the KJV translators and scholars were perfectly qualified and did not need to guess? Even in passages where there is a footnote to say "the Hebrew for this is not clear", nevertheless, they knew?

Bible Highlighter said:

. I believe God preserved His words for us today perfectly (or as close to perfect in the English language). I believe there is one Word of God and not many.

Click to expand...

What leads you to believe that?

Why not any of the preceding translations in English?

Why assume God would preserve His Word perfectly in English at all out of the countless world languages, several of which have and will be the dominant languages of the world at various points in history?

High Fidelity said:

What leads you to believe that?

Why not any of the preceding translations in English?

Why assume God would preserve His Word perfectly in English at all out of the countless world languages, several of which have and will be the dominant languages of the world at various points in history?

Click to expand...

Chuckles, what happens when we all learn Chinese?

GreekOrthodox said:

Chuckles, what happens when we all learn Chinese?

Click to expand...

Precisely. English hasn't always been the dominant language and likely will again be eclipsed by another in the future. Then it'll be yet another translation of a translation.

Bible Highlighter said:

I believe God preserved His words for us today perfectly (or as close to perfect in the English language). I believe there is one Word of God and not many.

Click to expand...

High Fidelity said:

What leads you to believe that?

Click to expand...

Because when you read the Bible itself, it teaches that there is only one Word of God and not many. We don’t see the Modern scholarship approach to God’s Word in the Bible. So it’s unbiblical. For the Modern scholarship idea that there is no perfect Word of God cannot be found in the Bible itself. The idea of looking to some ancient language to understand His Word is also a foreign concept in Scripture. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Anyways, if you need more reasons, I provided a CF thread with a wealth of information.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible

You said:

Why not any of the preceding translations in English?

Click to expand...

While I am sure God may have other reasons, one major reason is that it has to do with faith (Which is trusting in His Word). Psalms 12:6-7 says His words are purified seven times. The King James Bible is the seventh in the line of English Textus Receptus bibles.



All your Modern Bibles come from the Critical Text under the supervision of the Vatican. I provided actual proof of the page that shows this to you but you seem to be in denial of it (like many others). Some agree that Nestle and Aland’s Critical Text under the supervision of the Vatican is not a big deal. So it’s interesting how folks look at the facts and see what they want to see. I am not Catholic, and so I am going to reject Modern Bibles as my final Word of authority. Now, I may use Modern Bibles to update the 1600’s English, but they are not my final Word of authority. Why? Well, the Catholic Church used to kill anyone for having the Scriptures, and now they are simply changing tactics. Their goal was to take the Word of God out of the layperson’s hands. Even on the forums I have had Catholics tell me something along lines of how we should not study Scripture but we should leave it up to the holy priests to tell us what it means. In 1604, the translation of the King James Bible started, and a year later in 1605, Guy Fawkes who was a Catholic wanted to take out King James and his translation with a super bomb. The King James Bible was the first Bible that was to go out to the common man in English (with the improvements in the eve of the printing process).

I would recommend in checking out this documentaries here to educate yourself on history.

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

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

The Forbidden Book:
Watch The Forbidden Book | Prime Video

You said:

Why assume God would preserve His Word perfectly in English at all out of the countless world languages, several of which have and will be the dominant languages of the world at various points in history?

Click to expand...

God did not keep His Word in the Hebrew tongue but He sent it out into Greek, which was the world language at that time (When the Jews rejected their Messiah and salvation went out to the Gentiles). So if we are to follow the pattern of how God operated then, it makes sense that God would want to preserve His Word in yet another world or global language (Which is English today). Also…

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


Source used for a picture within this post:
Textus Receptus Bibles

High Fidelity said:

Precisely. English hasn't always been the dominant language and likely will again be eclipsed by another in the future. Then it'll be yet another translation of a translation.

Click to expand...

English is the world language.

The most spoken languages in the world | Berlitz
How English became the global language | EF English Live
Why is English Considered a Global Language?
10 Reasons Why English Is The World’s Language | English Harmony

Bible Highlighter said:

I believe God preserved His words for us today perfectly (or as close to perfect in the English language). I believe there is one Word of God and not many.

Click to expand...

High Fidelity said:

What leads you to believe that?

Click to expand...

It’s also a logical deduction. If there is not one nailed down Word of God that we can trust, then we are constantly on a quest to figure out what God really said. People in Modern scholarship believe they have no perfect Bible and so they become the arbiters of truth whereby they get to decide what is true or not true in the Bible. So either God preserved His Word perfectly whereby we can trust in it perfectly or we are on a continual quest to figure out what God said and we could even be wrong on that quest. For how do you know that some words are true or false in your Bible? Are men infallible or is the Word of God infallible? I will trust God and not men.

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

Isaiah says,
“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:16).

In the Modern scholarship view there is no book of the Lord that can be found. It is gone. They believe only the originals were perfectly inspired. There is no perfect book of the Lord today. So it cannot be found. So the scholar has to create it out of his own flawed mind.

Bible Highlighter said:

Sorry. Some discussions I recall, and others I don’t. I lead a pretty busy life outside of the forums and so a lot of things occupy my mind. I talk with many on the forums on many topics, as well.



Messianic prophecies and Typifications of Christ are merely past things in the OT that point to Christ. I am not sure how they can mislead people exactly.



John 5:39 says that the Scriptures testify of Him. Do you not think that Pre-Incarnate appearances play a part in that? I know you don’t think Daniel 3:25 is a clear case for a Pre-Incarnate appearance for Christ, but I believe this is the case because the Bible says that. Your rejection of the King James Bible over the Vatican Modern Bible is what will not allow you to accept such a truth in Daniel 3:25. This is where our beliefs differ. This is why not all bibles say the same thing.

Click to expand...

I couldn’t care less about what the Vatican thinks about what Bible version I choose to study. I didn’t know it was approved by the Vatican until you told me it was and I’m not going to reject it simply because the Vatican approves of it. My reasons for choosing the NASB over the KJV derive from my own studies not what someone else thinks about it. When I choose a particular Bible version I don’t go and check if the Vatican likes it or not I compare it to the Greek & Hebrew texts in comparison to other modern versions and chose the most accurate translation to the older texts. The KJV is catered to support reformed theology which I am not a subscriber to and it contains the interpretations of the translators which I’m not interested in reading. I want to read what the authors wrote not what someone thinks they meant by what they wrote. I will determine for myself what they meant thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

BNR32FAN said:

I couldn’t care less about what the Vatican thinks about what Bible version I choose to study. I didn’t know it was approved by the Vatican until you told me it was and I’m not going to reject it simply because the Vatican approves of it.

Click to expand...

The Critical Text was meant to be an inter-confessional text. The Critical Text was under the supervision of the Vatican, and a Catholic cardinal was an editor on it. I am not Catholic, and so I would not want to make any Bible my final Word of authority that came from their influence in any small way. For I find Catholicism to be unbiblical. I don’t believe it is correct to bow down to statues or pray to dead people.

Also, the Catholics at one time in recent history had forbidden Catholics from reading the King James Bible. This means that there is something special about it that can take Catholics away from their way of thinking. If this was not the case, then why would they forbid the King James Bible at one time?

You said:

My reasons for choosing the NASB over the KJV derive from my own studies not what someone else thinks about it. When I choose a particular Bible version I don’t go and check if the Vatican likes it or not I compare it to the Greek & Hebrew texts in comparison to other modern versions and chose the most accurate translation to the older texts. The KJV is catered to support reformed theology which I am not a subscriber to and it contains the interpretations of the translators which I’m not interested in reading. I want to read what the authors wrote not what someone thinks they meant by what they wrote. I will determine for myself what they meant thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

The thing is that the KJB is not a product of Calvinists only. Actually if you were to check out the documentary called the book that changed the world, you would learn that King James had got two opposing groups of Christians to work together in order to make the translation of the King James Bible.

Oh, and yes. I do agree that Calvinism is seriously unbiblical big time. But I do not believe the KJB was an exclusive work of Calvinists by any means. The Geneva Bible used to be the Calvinists favored bible at one point in history.

Bible Highlighter said:

It’s also a logical deduction. If there is not one nailed down Word of God that we can trust, then we are constantly on a quest to figure out what God really said. People in Modern scholarship believe they have no perfect Bible and so they become the arbiters of truth whereby they get to decide what is true or not true in the Bible. So either God preserved His Word perfectly whereby we can trust in it perfectly or we are on a constant question to figure out what God said and we could even be wrong on that quest. For how do you know that some words are true or false in your Bible? Are men infallible or is the Word of God infallible? I will trust God and not men.

Click to expand...

This makes zero sense since men have written every single Bible version out there including the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and the KJV itself. The KJV is a modern version. What makes the KJV any more inspired than any other version? If you believe God will preserve His word then why don’t you believe that He preserved it in the modern translations as well?

BNR32FAN said:

This makes zero sense since men have written every single Bible version out there including the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and the KJV itself. The KJV is a modern version. What makes the KJV any more inspired than any other version? If you believe God will preserve His word then why don’t you believe that He preserved it in the modern translations as well?

Click to expand...

The problem I have with your view on this is that you have to keep ignoring the bad stuff. You have to ignore the Vatican influence. You have to ignore the devil’s name being placed in the Bible. You have to ignore that doctrine is changed. The list can go on and on. I can keep going even more. But folks see what they want to see. The real issue here is where is your authority that you can perfectly trust? If there is no perfect Bible, then who gets to decide what is true or not true in the Bible? Is not the person who gets to decide what is true or not true in the Bible making themselves out to be God?

I just believe God’s Word in that He preserved His words today as Psalms 12:6-7 says. I believe His words are pure words as Psalms 12:6-7 says. I believe the Bible and I am not looking to create my own Bible or look to scholars to tell me what the Bible says. I have found the book of the Lord (See: Isaiah 34:16). Have you found the book of the Lord? Can the book of the Lord be imperfect? Not all bibles say the same thing. So to say that all Modern Bibles make up the truth of God’s Word simply means you have not carefully done the study that makes this truth obvious (in that they are not the same).

If there is one mistake in God’s Word then it is not His Holy Word. Modern Translations clearly show a lack of their own inerrancy.


(Note: Click on the image chart above to zoom in closer if desired).

The King James Bible is accurate in its use of "prophets" in verse two because Mark is referencing more than one prophetic book (Which is Malachi, and Isaiah). In contrast, the NIV offers a reading that is demonstrably wrong. It says in Mark 1:2-3 (NIV), “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" According to the NIV reading, both quotations come from the book of Isaiah. However, in reality, Mark is quoting from both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In contrast, the KJB's use of "prophets" is plural thus correctly identifying Mark as quoting from more than one prophet (Compare Malachi 3:1 with the first half of the quote of the prophets words, and then compare Isaiah 40:3 with the second half of the quote of the prophets words). You will see that the Modern Translations are clearly are in error here and the King James Bible is correct instead. Hebrews 3:13, and 2 Samuel 21:19 are other verses that show errors in the Modern Translations compare to the King James, among other verses. This means Modern Translations are not inerrant like the pure Word of God (the KJB).

Bible Highlighter said:

The Critical Text was meant to be an inter-confessional text. The Critical Text was under the supervision of the Vatican, and a Catholic cardinal was an editor on it. I am not Catholic, and so I would not want to make any Bible my final Word of authority that came from their influence in any small way.

Click to expand...

Where do you think the Textus Receptus came from? The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus which is a Vatican approved Latin version. Your so caught up on the Vatican involvement, have you realized that you don’t hold the same theology and doctrines that the translators of the KJV held?

Bible Highlighter said:

The problem I have with your view on this is that you have to keep ignoring the bad stuff. You have to ignore the Vatican influence

Click to expand...

The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus which is a Vatican approved Latin version. Neither you nor I hold the same theology as the translators of the KJV.

BNR32FAN said:

Where do you think the Textus Receptus came from? The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus which is a Vatican approved Latin version. Your so caught up on the Vatican involvement, have you realized that you don’t hold the same theology and doctrines that the translators of the KJV held?

Click to expand...

The Textus Receptus did not come from the Vatican. That’s insane. If that was the case, then why would they forbid the King James Bible in their list of forbidden books or writings? I already shown you proof of this. If the Catholics were in favor of the Textus Receptus, then why would they want to destroy a translation that was in favor of their agenda? Guy Fawkes wanted to stop the King James translation with a super bomb.

BNR32FAN said:

The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus which is a Vatican approved Latin version. Neither you nor I hold the same theology as the translators of the KJV.

Click to expand...

The Catholics today do not favor the Textus Receptus. They favor the Critical Text.
As for the theology of the KJB translators: Well, there were two groups of Christians that had differing theologies. The fact that it was not one group of translators who had all one theology and for the fact that the king double checked their work (to make sure they were not being biased to their beliefs) helped to create a balanced and fair translation. You need to watch the two documentaries that I provided in post #268. I say this because it seems you don’t understand what really happened in history involving the KJB, brother.

Bible Highlighter said:

The Textus Receptus did not come from the Vatican. That’s insane. If that was the case, then why would they forbid the King James Bible in their list of forbidden books or writings? I already shown you proof of this. If the Catholics were in favor of the Textus Receptus, then why would they want to destroy a translation that was in favor of their agenda? Guy Fawkes wanted to stop the King James translation with a super bomb.

Click to expand...

Catholic theologian wrote the TR…

Bible Highlighter said:

The problem I have with your view on this is that you have to keep ignoring the bad stuff. You have to ignore the Vatican influence. You have to ignore the devil’s name being placed in the Bible. You have to ignore that doctrine is changed. The list can go on and on. I can keep going even more. But folks see what they want to see. The real issue here is where is your authority that you can perfectly trust? If there is no perfect Bible, then who gets to decide what is true or not true in the Bible? Is not the person who gets to decide what is true or not true in the Bible making themselves out to be God?

I just believe God’s Word in that He preserved His words today as Psalms 12:6-7 says. I believe His words are pure words as Psalms 12:6-7 says. I believe the Bible and I am not looking to create my own Bible or look to scholars to tell me what the Bible says. I have found the book of the Lord (See: Isaiah 34:16). Have you found the book of the Lord? Can the book of the Lord be imperfect? Not all bibles say the same thing. So to say that all Modern Bibles make up the truth of God’s Word simply means you have not carefully done the study that makes this truth obvious (in that they are not the same).

If there is one mistake in God’s Word then it is not His Holy Word. Modern Translations clearly show a lack of their own inerrancy.

(Note: Click on the image chart above to zoom in closer if desired).

The King James Bible is accurate in its use of "prophets" in verse two because Mark is referencing more than one prophetic book (Which is Malachi, and Isaiah). In contrast, the NIV offers a reading that is demonstrably wrong. It says in Mark 1:2-3 (NIV), “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" According to the NIV reading, both quotations come from the book of Isaiah. However, in reality, Mark is quoting from both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In contrast, the KJB's use of "prophets" is plural thus correctly identifying Mark as quoting from more than one prophet (Compare Malachi 3:1 with the first half of the quote of the prophets words, and then compare Isaiah 40:3 with the second half of the quote of the prophets words). You will see that the Modern Translations are clearly are in error here and the King James Bible is correct instead. Hebrews 3:13, and 2 Samuel 21:19 are other verses that show errors in the Modern Translations compare to the King James, among other verses. This means Modern Translations are not inerrant like the pure Word of God (the KJB).

Click to expand...

What did the Textus Receptus actually say in those verses? It is written Isaiah the KJV translators changed that to add their interpretation which is a clear example of what I’ve been talking about.