Is the KJV more than a translation

[Bible Highlighter]

The TR, KJV, NKJV based on Erasumas text is from a few 10 to 15 Century translations and in some cases had no manuscript support at all. Without question it is possible to produce a text which is close to the autographs by comparing over 5,000 manuscripts avaiable today. Fundamentalists should reject the attempts by some in our movement to make the TR the only acceptable form of Greek text. An example is given by Wycliff, who translates correctly the word devil as FIEND.
View attachment 214717

Where in the Bible does it say you need tons of manuscript support for the Bible to be the most pure or true? Again, a simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs. Modern Translations clearly shows that the Modern Translations come from a corrupted source. This is no wonder because Satan seeks to corrupt God's Word. Then again, you don't believe in a Satan and that is in part having to do with not believing the KJV at face value.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

The problem with those who deny the KJV as a pure Word of God (for our day) is that who gets to decide what are the core beliefs or truths written in God's Word? It is purely subjective to the reader to determine what belongs in the Bible and what does not belong in the Bible? See, that's the problem. It's like morality. In an atheistic world: Morality is subject to the individual. But if somebody believes the Bible in it's entirety, then Morality is not subject to the individual any longer. Morality is put forth by God within His Word and a person then believes in God's Word by faith. It's the same when a person gets to decide which they prefer reading in these Modern times. They may like the Queen James Bible, or the New World Translation, or the nuetered NIV. For if we cannot trust one word or verse in the Bible, what makes us trust the rest of it? It's an all in one package deal. It's either all correct or it's all false. We cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe in. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe God is powerful and that He kept His Word preserved for our world generation today.
For me, the KJV shines like a beacon of light to all those who want to deepen their faith in their walk with God beyond their initial entrance of salvation (involving the Lord).

The only thing folks need to do is.... BELIEVE.
Then you will be able to see amazing and wonderous things.

 

[kiwimac]

Nice magic trick, but it is not really working out in your favor by reading the text of what they said so liberally. Even if you are right in the context and interpretation of those words by Wescott and Hort (of which I disagree with), you did not address their statements involving Catholicism.

In addition, in regards to salvation: They did say they have no repugnance for the doctrine paid to Satan. This is a problem because it suggests that they are liberal in their beliefs in regards to salvation. This is a big problem because men should have a basic understanding of salvation if they are writing a foundational text in Greek for God's Holy Word.

I also do not see how the context of them saying how their faith is a mere compromise helps to explain what you said. I would never say under any circumstance that my faith is a compromise. They were not speaking of somebody else's faith. They were speaking of their own faith. So you are not reading what they are saying correctly. They are saying that their Bible and their faith is a compromise. Period. The additional words they add does not change what they said.

You also added no context to Hort's words on his reference to the Arian meaning, either.

 

[kiwimac]

Their statements are both clear and unambiguous to those who bother to respond to what Westcott and Hort actually said as opposed to the deliberately cribbed "quotes" of KJV onlyists

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Their statements are both clear and unambiguous to those who bother to respond to what Westcott and Hort actually said as opposed to the deliberately cribbed "quotes" of KJV onlyists

Please underline the actual words you think undoes what they said and provide a bracket of commentary within the body of their text.

Here is an example I made from Scripture.

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day [i.e. the sun], and the lesser light to rule the night [i.e. the moon]: he made the stars also.” (Genesis 1:16).

I also provided a new quote, as well. You also did not address the verses on their favoring Catholicism, either.

You also did not reply to my points back, as well.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yes, I believe the 1769 KJV in English and the KJV (TR) translated in other languages is the perfect and pure Word of God for our day. While I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English, they are not my final word of authority like the KJV because they are corrupted in many ways. This does not mean somebody cannot be saved by a Modern Translation or a Bible in another language that is not based on the TR. This simply means that not all people have the exact pure Word of God that can lead them into a deeper walk with God by faith. There can only be one perfect Word of God. One communicated message that God preserves. For Heaven and Earth shall pass away but His words will not pass away.

But there are many KJVO-ists who believe that a Christian should not even read Modern Translations at all. They are afraid a person can be corrupted by them. While I respect their belief, I disagree that Modern Translations can corrupt me if I am aware of their changes. I am always going to make the KJV my final word of authority.

Sounds reasonable. I primarily use the KJV but sometimes use the ESV. I stay away from the NRSV and the NIV for the most part.

 

[Albion]

There are hardly any 'opponents' to the KJV.
It is KJV-only-ists who oppose other translations, AUTOMATICALLY.

I suppose that this is a matter of definition, but there are plenty of people who "bad mouth" the KJV and that's whom I was referring to. No, I don't suppose that they say it should be taken off the bookshelves of everyone who owns a copy.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sounds reasonable. I primarily use the KJV but sometimes use the ESV. I stay away from the NRSV and the NIV for the most part.

I have a parallel KJV / NLT Bible. I like the NLT when I read the Old Testament sometimes (with a re-reading then in the KJV), but I am aware the NLT has problems just like every other Modern Translation out there (Including the ESV). But I agree that the NIV is a problem. There have only been a very small amount of verses I like how the NIV words (Jude 1:4 NIV being one of them). But for the most part I consider the NIV a neutered translation. So much is removed, distorted, and changed: It's a little disturbing.

 

[Tallguy88]

I have a parallel KJV / NLT Bible. I like the NLT when I read the Old Testament sometimes (with a re-reading then in the KJV), but I am aware the NLT has problems just like every other Modern Translation out there (Including the ESV). But I agree that the NIV is a problem. There have only been a very small amount of verses I like how the NIV words (Jude 1:4 NIV being one of them). But for the most part I consider the NIV a neutered translation. So much is removed, distorted, and changed: It's a little disturbing.

I have an old PTL bible from my grandma that has parrallel KJV and the Living Bible. It's OK but being a paraphrase, it takes too many liberites for my tastes. I could go for a KJV/NKJV parallel, though.

 

[Almost there]

There seems a specific culture that looks at the KJV as the supreme authority of the written word of God above all else. I have a hard time following this logic as there is a whole lot of history before the KJV and after the KJV in thousands of languages that it seems rather arbitrary to pick the KJV above all else. This culture feels very ethnocentric I might add which then dips into offensive areas. Should not our quest in determining responsible scripture be a little more sophisticated and more focused at our mission?

Since moving to the bible belt, I've witnessed some incredible dogmatism. To a man (and woman), every person I see it in is a KJVO advocate. It's kinda comical because they sort of glaze over when I ask them which version is best for a Spanish or German speaker.

My favorite experience is when the pastor at our former KJVO church read what seemed like a confusing verse and "paraphrased" it to the church in modern english to help people understand. My wife had her NIV open and he said, word for word, what the NIV said.

When you take a population that has a low education level to begin with and convince them that the only bible they can trust is the KJV, you are promoting ignorance.

And the KJV has quite a few verses that don't exist even in the original manuscripts. It appears well meaning scribes "added" stuff.
Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Quotes from Westcott and Hort (Who favored the texts for their Greek Translation used for all Modern Versions):

Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).

Westcott: “I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

Westcott: “My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.” (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

“I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

Hort: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Since moving to the bible belt, I've witnessed some incredible dogmatism. To a man (and woman), every person I see it in is a KJVO advocate. It's kinda comical because they sort of glaze over when I ask them which version is best for a Spanish or German speaker.

The KJV (TR) has been translated into the following 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 (Thai: from KJV)
Korean King James Version:
https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/

My favorite experience is when the pastor at our former KJVO church read what seemed like a confusing verse and "paraphrased" it to the church in modern english to help people understand.

What's the problem? Jesus explained His parables to His disciples so that they would understand them.

My wife had her NIV open and he said, word for word, what the NIV said.

It's not wrong to consult Modern Versions. I do so all the time. It helps update the 1600's English. But just because the 1769 needs to be updated for our today's English does not mean that it is not the pure Word of God for our day. There are many things that the Lord Jesus said that were not always clear at first glance.

When you take a population that has a low education level to begin with and convince them that the only bible they can trust is the KJV, you are promoting ignorance.

Not if they study to show themselves approved unto God as 2 Timothy 2:15 says. Oh, and by the way, that verse is distorted in your fancy Modern Translation.

And the KJV has quite a few verses that don't exist even in the original manuscripts. It appears well meaning scribes "added" stuff.
Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

Right, because not having 1 John 5:7 really helps you as a Christian. So the next time you are up against an Arian, you can forget it. You cannot use 1 John 5:7. Also, why on Earth would you remove believing on the Lord Jesus Christ in Acts? That is evil and wrong to do that. To say that this was added is wrong on many levels. It is just non-sense because without this verse, it emphasizes baptism over believing in Jesus. It sets up the reason for why he was to be baptized. The Ethiopian Enuch said that he believed Jesus is the Son of God so as to be baptized. This is important. You take that out and you nueter your Bible! It's wrong. God says that those who take away from God's Word, He will take their name out of the book of life. So this is very serious here in what Modern Translations have done with the Word of God.

Oh, and the devil places his name in replace of the Lord's name in Modern Translations, as well.
Then there is Westcott and Hort (Who were occultists and who denied many basic things of the faith); All your Modern Translations are based upon their Greek text.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have an old PTL bible from my grandma that has parrallel KJV and the Living Bible. It's OK but being a paraphrase, it takes too many liberites for my tastes. I could go for a KJV/NKJV parallel, though.

There is a New Testament 2016 King James Bible that is available.
An adversary of KJV-onlyists here in this thread just told me about it.

King James Bible 2016

I like the effort that folks have tried to make an update on the KJV using the TR alone, but I do not like one choice they have made so far (after searching out several verses). In Ephesians 2:1, they exchange "He has made alive" instead of "he quickened,"

 

[he-man]

Where in the Bible does it say you need tons of manuscript support for the Bible to be the most pure or true? Again, a simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs. Modern Translations clearly shows that the Modern Translations come from a corrupted source. This is no wonder because Satan seeks to corrupt God's Word. Then again, you don't believe in a Satan and that is in part having to do with not believing the KJV at face value.

Here is an example of how the KJV has distorted the word fiend to mean a devil: Etymology from middle English fend, fiend, feond, viend, veond ("enemy; demon"), from Old English feond ("enemy"), from Proto-Germanic * fijandz. Cognatewith Old Norse fjandi (Icelandic fjandi, Danish fjende, Swedish fiend, Norwegian fiend, West Frisian fijan, Low German feend, fiend, Dutch vijand, German feind, Gothic fijand, all of them meàning foe. The Old Norse and Gothic terms are present participles of the corresponding verbs fja, ("fijan to hate") Akin to Sanskrit (pyati "(he) reviles")

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is an example of how the KJV has distorted the word fiend to mean a devil:
View attachment 214756

Actually, the devil placed his name in replace of God's name and for one of God's people in your fancy Modern Translations.

Spoiler

In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?

Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).

"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).

This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),

"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).

Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.

The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!

Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man.


In the NIV, it says in Revelation 13:1, The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.

But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?

Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).

So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!

Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.

So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.

For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.

Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).

But if you don't believe in an actual devil, I suppose this is not all that big of a deal for you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, ask yourself:

When I read the Word of God, do I see:

(a) The Modern Translation View - with men of God quoting from various translations?
(b) The Imperfect Translation View - with men of God not caring what God's Word says exactly?
(c) The Word of God in the Language Today Cannot Be Trusted View - with men of God saying that no Word of God put forth today can be trusted with 100% certainty? (or the):
(d) One Word of God View - with men of God trusting in one Word of God that was from the Lord whereby they trusted those words until the point of death?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The KJV-Only fits option (d). Men trusted one Word of God and did not see God's Holy Word as flawed and they trusted faithfully to even the point of death.

 

[kiwimac]

Quotes from Westcott and Hort (Who favored the texts for their Greek Translation used for all Modern Versions):

Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).

Westcott: “I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

Westcott: “My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.” (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

“I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

Hort: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

Try www.westcotthort.com in order to look at the quotes in their contexts.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Try www.westcotthort.com in order to look at the quotes in their contexts.

Obviously a pro-website in favor of Westcott and Hort is going to try to defend their claims. But so far I am not buying it. For if what you say is true, then you would be able to do what I said (i.e. underline the words in context and add a commentary in brackets so as to exonerate their other faulty claims).

You also did not answer my posts back on their wrong claims in what they said, too.
I mentioned before their clear reference to Mary worship and their favoritism towards Catholicism. Are you saying that I am taking even those quotes out of context? I kind of find that hard to believe. It is clear in what they said.

But why would people defend them erroneously?

It's a thing called "money."
Copyrights on Bibles are big money these days.