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

High Fidelity said:

Catholic theologian wrote the TR…

Click to expand...

Come on now. I already provided an article link an explanation to you on Erasmus already.

As I told you before, Erasmus 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 (that you did not read).

Also, if you know the history of the King James Bible, this is not the same thing as the Vatican itself influencing the Critical Text (upon which all Modern Bibles are based).

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

BNR32FAN said:

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.

Click to expand...

How do we know that your version of the Textus Receptus is not favor of Vatican Modern scholarship that looks to defend the Critical Text?

Again, any honest, unbiased, and careful comparison between the KJB vs. Modern Translations shows that the changes are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. The devil’s name is placed in Modern Bibles. Important doctrines are changed that are good. There is the Vatican influence. I could keep going but it seems you have chosen your side already and you have chosen to see what you want to see (despite any evidence that is presented).

@BNR32FAN

I have demonstrated in post #274 that Modern Bibles (including the NASB) is in error by comparison to the KJB. Please check out the chart in that post and carefully compare the words in the different translations and truly think about them. Don’t rush to prove your point but really look at what I presented.

Talking to a brick wall.

Yet again someone thinking the KJV is the standard by which accuracy be measured when in reality it is yet another translation and nothing more. The KJV is, like any translation, an interpretation of God’s Word based on the most accurate sources available at the time.

This discussion isn’t edifying.

I think that most of this discussion is focused on the wrong thing. The KJV was authorized by the king, so it became the "official" Bible for those it affected. It's comparable in a certain way to the Declaration of Independence: it's the official base document.

It's in the mind of the KJV folks that any other Bible is not "official". Since King James authorized his own version it must be divine, since he was divine, right? At a certain point in history, God decided that those translators would create the official, inerrant translation, right? It doesn't matter if the translation was based on a limited set of source documents, and that the translators based their verson on earlier Englyshe translations, or that they added notes where there were difficulties(!) coming up with a precise meaning, or that the KJV itself was revised several times, it was/is still the "official" Bible.

I have written earlier that we are looking in the wrong direction. IMHO the KJV people like to feel a certain way when the use their beloved (man-made) translation. In their minds, all those "beholds" and "thous" and "shalts" and other Englyshe words put them into a state of mind that they confuse with the character of early languages. Early Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are plain languages. They were read aloud to people that were almost entirely illiterate.

Can you imagine any of the Biblical writers writing in obscure, dated language that had to be re-interpreted to be understood? Jesus spoke about not understanding the Scriptures, but it was because of the content, not the language.

And I'm not touching on the factual errors. If I'm motivated I'll discuss in another post how the KJV translators changed the meaning of certain parts of Scripture to fit their society, not the actual conditions described in the sources.

High Fidelity said:

Talking to a brick wall.

Yet again someone thinking the KJV is the standard by which accuracy be measured when in reality it is yet another translation and nothing more. The KJV is, like any translation, an interpretation of God’s Word based on the most accurate sources available at the time.

This discussion isn’t edifying.

Click to expand...

But why do you think I believe the KJB is the standard of accuracy? Do you think I just woke up one day and seen a light shining on the King James Bible or that I thrown a dart randomly and it landed on the KJB? Surely not. I came to the conclusions I did based on many reasons. I have provided solid points as to why we should trust the King James Bible over Modern Bibles.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible

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).

pescador said:

I think that most of this discussion is focused on the wrong thing. The KJV was authorized by the king, so it became the "official" Bible for those it affected. It's comparable in a certain way to the Declaration of Independence: it's the official base document.

It's in the mind of the KJV folks that any other Bible is not "official". Since King James authorized his own version it must be divine, since he was divine, right? At a certain point in history, God decided that those translators would create the official, inerrant translation, right? It doesn't matter if the translation was based on a limited set of source documents, and that the translators based their verson on earlier Englyshe translations, or that they added notes where there were difficulties(!) coming up with a precise meaning, or that the KJV itself was revised several times, it was/is still the "official" Bible.

I have written earlier that we are looking in the wrong direction. IMHO the KJV people like to feel a certain way when the use their beloved (man-made) translation. In their minds, all those "beholds" and "thous" and "shalts" and other Englyshe words put them into a state of mind that they confuse with the character of early languages. Early Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are plain languages. They were read aloud to people that were almost entirely illiterate.

Can you imagine any of the Biblical writers writing in obscure, dated language that had to be re-interpreted to be understood? Jesus spoke about not understanding the Scriptures, but it was because of the content, not the language.

And I'm not touching on the factual errors. If I'm motivated I'll discuss in another post how the KJV translators changed the meaning of certain parts of Scripture to fit their society, not the actual conditions described in the sources.

Click to expand...

I don’t let all this emotional thinking get in the way of the facts. If you or anyone were to honestly compare the KJB vs. Modern Bibles, you would see that the changes are for the worse in Modern Translations and not for the better. Even if you did not believe the KJB is the perfect Word of God, at the very least it would be the most purest Word we could possibly ever have in the English if you were to compare the differences and be open to those differences in how they are for the worse. The one and only verse on the Trinity is removed. The blood atonement, deity of Christ, and holy living is all watered down in Modern Bibles. Fasting so as to cast out persistent demons possessing a person is removed. The devil’s name is placed where they do not belong in Modern Bibles. Actual errors in Modern Bibles is shown in post #286, as well. Then there is the Vatican influence. The list goes on and on and on and on…. But folks just see what they want to see. They want to side with the Modern Bibles that are clearly inferior. Why? Because it is a spiritual issue. Many people do not want to be under a final Word of authority. It’s why the sin and still be saved type belief is popular nowadays. This is because some Modern Bibles even have made our Lord to appear to lie, etc.

Bible Highlighter said:

If that was the case, then why would they forbid the King James Bible in their list of forbidden books or writings?

Click to expand...

Because the translation is inaccurate as you yourself showed in the example of Mark 1 you provided.

Strong in Him said:

Best selling does not equal best, and most accurate.

Click to expand...

No, it simply means that the best selling translation is the one that is most preferred by those who purchase new Bibles. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is the best, and most accurate. It's what the buyers wanted when they bought a new Bible.

The question is: why did they buy that particular translation? Probably because it was the one that they believed would best communicate God's Word to them. All one has to do is open a translation at random and start reading; the one that resonates with the buyer is the one they'll purchase.

That is the reason that the NIV outsells the KJV. It's written in the English that we all use, not the Englyshe of the early 17th Century, which is a dead language that nobody on Earth uses any more.

Bible Highlighter said:

I don’t let all this emotional thinking get in the way of the facts.

Click to expand...

The fact is that the KJVO position is completely illogical.
I believe in the same Gospel that you do, the same Saviour, the same Trinity etc etc. I have the same blessings in Christ as you do - there is nothing extra reserved for those who would read the KJV centuries after Jesus was on earth.
I belong to Christ and have Christ - THE Word of God and THE truth.
KJV readers are not more holy, more blessed or better Christians than the rest of us.

Those are the facts - they don't cease to be true just because you won't admit them.

Bible Highlighter said:

If you or anyone were to honestly compare the KJB vs. Modern Bibles, you would see that the changes are for the worse in Modern Translations and not for the better.

Click to expand...

You might find the same thing if you were to compare the KJV with the Greek/Hebrew Bibles. Clearly you don't want to do that, which suggests that you are afraid of what you might find.

Bible Highlighter said:

The one and only verse on the Trinity is removed.

Click to expand...

Yet I believe in the Trinity, without having read the KJV - hundreds of us do.
So maybe that means that the Trinity is taught elsewhere in Scripture and does not rely on one verse?

Bible Highlighter said:

The blood atonement, deity of Christ, and holy living is all watered down in Modern Bibles.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that.

Bible Highlighter said:

Fasting so as to cast out persistent demons possessing a person is removed.

Click to expand...

You would far rather believe that things were removed by the "corrupt" Bibles than consider that they were not in the originals and were therefore added by the KJV.

Bible Highlighter said:

The list goes on and on and on and on….

Click to expand...

In your opinion and interpretation; yes.

Bible Highlighter said:

But folks just see what they want to see. They want to side with the Modern Bibles that are clearly inferior.

Click to expand...

I could equally say that you only see what you want to see. You have said that there HAS to be a perfect word of God in English, and have staked your faith and life on the KJV being that perfect translation; no way are you going to consider anything else.

Bible Highlighter said:

Because it is a spiritual issue. Many people do not want to be under a final Word of authority.

Click to expand...

Many people love God's word so much that they want to study it, compare versions, find out the best translations of words and discover what the authors meant and how the audiences would have received their words. They take the verse "study to show yourself approved by God", which you have quoted, very seriously, and do just that - rather than be "spoon fed" by Youtube videos.
Many people love God and want to read, study and learn his word and obey his will.
Enough of the judgement about Christians choosing a "corrupt" version of the Bible because they don't wish to be under authority.

Bible Highlighter said:

This is because some Modern Bibles even have made our Lord to appear to lie, etc.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Strong in Him said:

The fact is that the KJVO position is completely illogical.
I believe in the same Gospel that you do, the same Saviour, the same Trinity etc etc. I have the same blessings in Christ as you do - there is nothing extra reserved for those who would read the KJV centuries after Jesus was on earth.
I belong to Christ and have Christ - THE Word of God and THE truth.
KJV readers are not more holy, more blessed or better Christians than the rest of us.

Those are the facts - they don't cease to be true just because you won't admit them.



You might find the same thing if you were to compare the KJV with the Greek/Hebrew Bibles. Clearly you don't want to do that, which suggests that you are afraid of what you might find.



Yet I believe in the Trinity, without having read the KJV - hundreds of us do.
So maybe that means that the Trinity is taught elsewhere in Scripture and does not rely on one verse?



I don't believe that.



You would far rather believe that things were removed by the "corrupt" Bibles than consider that they were not in the originals and were therefore added by the KJV.



In your opinion and interpretation; yes.



I could equally say that you only see what you want to see. You have said that there HAS to be a perfect word of God in English, and have staked your faith and life on the KJV being that perfect translation; no way are you going to consider anything else.



Many people love God's word so much that they want to study it, compare versions, find out the best translations of words and discover what the authors meant and how the audiences would have received their words. They take the verse "study to show yourself approved by God", which you have quoted, very seriously, and do just that - rather than be "spoon fed" by Youtube videos.
Many people love God and want to read, study and learn his word and obey his will.
Enough of the judgement about Christians choosing a "corrupt" version of the Bible because they don't wish to be under authority.



Nope.

Click to expand...

There is no way to logically discuss the KJVO concept since it's not based on logic. It's either based on x number of misinterpretations of a 410-year-old translation or, more probably, KJVOs want to seem like they have the truth because that's what their carnal ego tells them. I am just about done with them.

As a wise and good friend once said, "you can't reason somebody out of something they haven't reasoned themselves into".

BNR32FAN said:

Because the translation is inaccurate as you yourself showed in the example of Mark 1 you provided.

Click to expand...

How so? Care to explain this crazy logic? This sounds like you are just disagreeing for no real rhyme or reason.

pescador said:

There is no way to logically discuss the KJVO concept since it's not based on logic. It's either based on x number of misinterpretations of a 410-year-old translation or, more probably, KJVOs want to seem like they have the truth because that's what their carnal ego tells them. I am just about done with them.

As a wise and good friend once said, "you can't reason somebody out of something they haven't reasoned themselves into".

Click to expand...

Actually the Anti-KJB Only position is not logical. There are…

Four Major Positions on God’s Word:
(Or: 4 Major Views on God’s Word)

1. KJB only position (We have a perfect bible today).
   
   
2. Only the originals were inspired.
   
   
3. God’s Word exists amongst the thousands of remaining manuscripts (including their many variants) (i.e. the James White view).
   
   
4. All bibles are inspired.

4 Popular Wrong Approaches or Views on God’s Word:


On this second list (provided above): All these views have one thing in common.

You don’t actually have the Word of God in your hands. The Bible merely contains the Word of God.

On contrary to these views, you have the Bible believer view. King James Bible believers believe we have the inspired words of God in our hands.

There is a huge difference between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of men.

Isaiah 55:8 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.”

1 Corinthians 1:19-20 says, “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

Please take note that the scribe are those who TRAN-scribe the Scriptures. They were the ones who copied the Scriptures or translated it. The Scribes would be the scholars of our day. So when you read 1 Corinthians 1:19-20, read it as referring to scholars. Granted, this is not to say that scholars cannot glean many truths from the Scriptures accurately. The point here is the Scribes or scholars approach to God’s Word overall in that it will lead them to believe we have no perfect Bible today that we can perfectly trust as God’s 100% inerrant words that we can hold in our hands now.

The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible used to contain 1 John 5:7 but it later removed it. All the 17 verses that are omitted used to be in their older Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. So their Bibles changed in these modern times just like other Modern Bibles. In fact, all Modern Bible are based on an inter confessional text by the United Bible Societies that was under the direct supervision of the Vatican (Nestle and Aland’s NT Greek Text).

Many today believe in a Bible that does not exist because they say that the Bible was only perfect in the originals of which they do not have.

Yet, the Bible 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).

BNR32FAN said:

Because the translation is inaccurate as you yourself showed in the example of Mark 1 you provided.

Click to expand...

The NASB also has a similar rendering on Isaiah 34:16. You implied before that the KJB is inaccurate on this verse. So that NASB is wrong, too.

Bible Highlighter said:

Actually the Anti-KJB Only position is not logical. There are…

Four Major Positions on God’s Word:
(Or: 4 Major Views on God’s Word)

1. KJB only position (We have a perfect bible today).
   
   
2. Only the originals were inspired.
   
   
3. God’s Word exists amongst the thousands of remaining manuscripts (including their many variants) (i.e. the James White view).
   
   
4. All bibles are inspired.

Click to expand...

There are several positions on God's word:

i) The Bible is true, inspired and inerrant, but not always easy to understand; we need to study it.
ii) The Bible is true, inspired, inerrant and cannot be questioned.
iii) For the Bible to be true, every word has to be literally true.
iv) As every word in the Bible is literally true and is there for a reason, it must all apply to us today; teachings that weren't written for us are still for us.
v)There has to be a verse in the Bible for everything we want to do - i.e "where's the verse that says ......"
vi) The Bible is generally true.
vii) The Bible contains some truth, but it was written down long after the events happened, and there are some mistakes.
viii) The Bible is not true.

Those are some of the different shades of thinking, but it boils down to either, the Bible is true or the Bible is not true.

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. For I find Catholicism to be unbiblical. I don’t believe it is correct to bow down to statues or pray to dead people.

Click to expand...

But you also find reformed theology unbiblical as well. You don’t advocate faith alone or eternal security, am I right? The apostolic churches all adopted the name Catholic some time in the second century. I’m Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans written in 107AD he refers to the church as being Catholic (universal) in nature and in Iranaeus’ writing Adversus Haereses written in 170AD he refers to the church by name as the Catholic Church. From your posts it appears your objections are mostly towards the Roman Catholic Church which is understandable but they were excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD.

Bible Highlighter said:

The NASB also has a similar rendering on Isaiah 34:16. You implied before that the KJB is inaccurate on this verse. So that NASB is wrong, too.

Click to expand...

No I was reverting to Mark 1:2. The NASB didn’t exclude Isaiah from the verse because it was written in the Textus Receptus, the KJV omits Isaiah from that verse.

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way;”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1:2‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1:2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Your post explained why they omitted Isaiah from the verse but the question is, do you want an accurate translation or do you want the translator’s interpretation injected into the translation?

BNR32FAN said:

It’s the KJV that has the incorrect translation because the Hebrew Bible doesn’t say the Son of God it says the son of the gods. Your Bible has the translator’s interpretation added into it which is why the translation is incorrect.

Click to expand...

The translation is doctrinally correct. What matters is the translation serve the Church, not vice versa.

The Liturgist said:

The translation is doctrinally correct. What matters is the translation serve the Church, not vice versa.

Click to expand...

No What matters is what it says, that is truth, not what we think is true but what the Word says

GreekOrthodox said:

Cough... Martin Luther published the German NT in 1522 and OT & Apocrypha published in 1534. By the time Luther died in 1546, over 200,000 copies had been printed.

According to Philip Schaff, "The richest fruit of Luther's leisure in the Wartburg, and the most important and useful work of his whole life, is the translation of the New Testament, by which he brought the teaching and example of Christ and the Apostles to the mind and heart of the Germans in life-like reproduction. It was a republication of the gospel. He made the Bible the people's book in church, school, and house."

Click to expand...

It would have been better had he made the People’s Book be something like an Orthodox Prayer Book, or a Book of Common Prayer, with a Missal lectionary, with the collects, epistles and gospels, Divine Office and other prayers, his shorter catechism, a Psalter, and related material. The beauty of the Orthodox Prayer Book and the Anglican BCP is it prepares you to read the Bible.