Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

[Bible Highlighter]

Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word:

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect:
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations:
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

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").

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

To learn more on this study, click on the following spoiler button:

Spoiler

In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.

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!

Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(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 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).

#3. Biblical Numerics:
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.
Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):

Now, while I may not agree with Mike and Chuck on everything they teach in the Bible nor on the way they teach the Bible, but their teaching on Biblical numerics are amazing; I have found that they have made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the original languages (Chuck) and only in the King James (Mike).


#4. Men have lost their voice for tampering with God's Word.

The Bible warns us not to add to God's Word, otherwise the plagues that are written in this book (the Bible) will be added to us.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18).​

Many have said that this is only talking about the book of Revelation. But men have lost their voice for adding to God's Word (Which is a plague in another part of the Bible and not Revelation).

Check out these articles here:

Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show
Bible Correctors lose Voice


Concluding thoughts on the KJV vs. the Modern Translations:

I believe the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) is the Word of God for our world language (English) today. In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either. The Apocrypha was also not removed officially until 1885, too (Even though it was never regarded as Scripture by Christians).

From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.

Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.

In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).

This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.

Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.

For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.

I hope this helps someone today, and may God bless you all.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What about supposed contradictions in the KJV?

See this thread here:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...t-supposed-contradictions-in-the-kjv.8035969/

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Choice of words in translating from language to language do not render the Bible, or greater yet, God's Word...which is eternal, inaccurate. It is my belief that the Holy Spirit teaches us all things...see I John 2:27. Meanings of words come out in context and Scripture to Scripture comparisons. I said KJV has archaic language and you should be able to identify this usage here...it's why you flagged it as a topic of discussion.

You originally said I was using an imperfect translation. Maybe you were not aware of it, but I was using the KJV. The KJV is my final word of authority. Do you believe there are errors in the KJV?

 

[redleghunter]

I believe most of the modern versions of the Bible rely heavily on the Critical text which leans heavily on the earlier manuscripts. The textual critics believe the manuscripts which are closer to the originals should hold weight.

Whereas the Received Text used mostly for the Authorized KJV Bible and larger population of the Majority Text (or Byzantine text) draw off of later manuscripts. I know there are several nuances so my question is why would you discount Bible versions relying on the earliest of all manuscripts by almost 1,000 years?

I know I have seen Eastern Orthodox defend the Byzantine Text in that it was that manuscript tradition received by the church from earlier generations. It had the endorsement of patriarchs throughout the centuries. Whereas the Critical text, even though it draws from the earliest of manuscripts, mainly came from the Alexandrian text tradition and a such Alexandria was a hot-bed of heresies over the centuries.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe most of the modern versions of the Bible rely heavily on the Critical text which leans heavily on the earlier manuscripts. The textual critics believe the manuscripts which are closer to the originals should hold weight.

Whereas the Received Text used mostly for the Authorized KJV Bible and larger population of the Majority Text (or Byzantine text) draw off of older manuscripts. I know there are several nuances so my question is why would you discount Bible versions relying on the earliest of all manuscripts by almost 1,000 years?

I know I have seen Eastern Orthodox defend the Byzantine Text in that it was that manuscript tradition received by the church from earlier generations. It had the endorsement of patriarchs throughout the centuries. Whereas the Critical text, even though it draws from the earliest of manuscripts, mainly came from the Alexandrian text tradition and a such Alexandria was a hot-bed of heresies over the centuries.

You don't have a time machine to truly know the actual dates to confirm their say so that it is truly that old or not. You have to simply take that by faith. I believe in Observational Science and not Historical Science. Historical Science requires more faith. Observational Science does not. In post #1, I have provided some observational evidences that support that the KJV is divine and or superior to other translations when it comes to accuracy.

As for as readability:
You will get no argument from me that the Modern Translations are easier to read.
But just because something is easier to read, does not mean it is always correct. I use Modern Translations sort of like how a person would pan through dirt to get to the gold that is in the KJV and the original languages.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

 

[Endeavourer]

Hi Jason,

I just spent quite a bit of time replying to your comment in your other thread, and you said you weren't going to even read it, and withdrew from your thread.

So, I won't be engaging you in any further conversations and will change my settings to ignore all of your posts.

 

[HTacianas]

Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word:

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect:
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations:
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

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").

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

To learn more on this study, click on the following spoiler button:

Spoiler

In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.

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!

Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(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 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).

#3. Biblical Numerics:
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.
Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):

Now, while I may not agree with Mike and Chuck on everything they teach in the Bible nor on the way they teach the Bible, but their teaching on Biblical numerics are amazing; I have found that they have made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the original languages (Chuck) and only in the King James (Mike).

I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today.
In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.

From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.

Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.

In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).

This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.

Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.

For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.

I hope this helps someone today, and may God bless you all.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

My Church doesn't use a translation.

 

[High Fidelity]

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect:

So the NASB is perfect? The NIV? ESV?

No.

NASB is the most accurate English translation, but it is not perfect because it is exactly that; a translation. The KJV is no different and it is certainly not the benchmark for accuracy many want to believe it is; the original texts are.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Learning that the KJV is the perfect Word of God is something I believe that a Christian will have to discover on their own. I cannot force a person to see what I have come to learn. Only God can reveal that to a person if they are open to seeing it.

There are evidences that support the KJV being the perfect Word of God; But you first have to take that step of faith and believe before you examine the evidences. If one examines the evidence with a closed mind, then they are going to throw out the evidence out right.

 

[SeventyOne]

Oxford or Cambridge? Why?

 

[Just Another User]

The KJV is a pretty solid translation. The singular and plural are pretty evident which is helpful.

Nevertheless, KJV clearly has a major error in it which shows it isn't a "perfect" (whatever that means) Word of God. It's inaccurate to call scripture the word of God anyway but that quite frankly irrelevant. This major error would be 1 John 5:7.

1 John 5:7 as we know that early church fathers never mentioned the text even when talking about the Trinity (such as Tertullian and Orgien writing in the early to mid 3rd century and Clement of Alexandria writing in the late 2nd as well as some minor early church fathers too). Besides Cyprian there's not a single early christian who even says anything remotely like 1 John 5:7 and Cyprian himself never even quotes it.

We do have Christians in the 4th century using some variations of 1 John 5:7's structure and content but they never actually quote it. Furthermore, it's hardly conversational that these Christians used something similar because it's quite a orthodox statement and may be the reason why it was glossed into the Bible anyway.

I believe the earliest evidence we have for the Johannine Comma as it's called is circa 400 AD and the oldest Latin Vulgates don't say it either. Our oldest Greek and Syriac Manuscripts are silent on it too. Jerome's Latin Vulgate lacks the Johannine Comma too. I believe it was around 800 AD when it's modern form began to circulate but variations of the Comma existed a couple centuries earlier (I'm not sure about that last point).

The main theory of how the Johannine Comma ended up in our Bible is because scribes originally wrote it on the side of a manuscript and eventually in became apart of the text.

Even Erasmus' original New Testament translations lacked the Comma because there was not a single Greek manuscript to support it. He eventually included the Comma in latter editions due to pressure from the Catholic church. He may have removed the Comma again in later editions but I'm not sure.

Finally the translators of the KJV used one of Erasmus' later editions and that's why 1 John 5:7 is like that.

Therefore, despite being the inspired by God and being scripture, KJV like any other modern translation, isn't perfect.

 

[Hillsage]

NASB is the most accurate English translation, but it is not perfect because it is exactly that; a translation. The KJV is no different and it is certainly not the benchmark for accuracy many want to believe it is; the original texts are.

And none of the original Greek texts has existed 'since beyond' the 4th century. And the errors began before then, making no text inerrant.

QUOTE
"Matt 28:19 "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"

These words are contained in every Greek MS. known, and are therefore, on documentary evidence, beyond suspicion: but yet there is one great difficulty with regard to them. The difficulty is that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the NT there is no hint as to its ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
ACT 8:16...they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
ACT 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
ACT 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given or it ever really formed part of the primitive text.

It is a question, therefore, whether we have here, something beyond the reach of the science or the powers of ordinary Textual Criticism. As to the Greek MSS. there are non beyond the fourth Century,and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the church knew nothing of these words. Eusebius quotes this verse no less than 18 times, and always quoted it in this form, "Go ye into al the world and make disciples of all nations." He omits all reference to "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Now Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day. If the Greek MS there contained these words it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse 18 times without including them. Professor Lake (now of the University of Leiden) and Mr. Conybeare have called attention to this face, and shown that neither Justin Martyr (who died in 165 A.D.) nor Aphraates, of Niisibis (who flourished in Syria, 340 A.D.), knew anything of these words. It looks therefore, as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS. at their disposal.
The point is interesting. The difficulty is there. And if there be any truth in Professor Lake's argument, then that would be a reasonable explanation of it."

These words above, were written by a scholastic theologian a hundred years ago.

Worship the 'bible of God', and I will worship the 'God of the bible'....who still speaks words today. He is my shepherd and I hear His voice.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oxford or Cambridge? Why?

See this link here:

Pure Cambridge Edition

 

[topher694]

I've run across folks who insist KJV is the only accurate version of the Bible from time to time. As have several pastor friends of mine. In all those experiences I've found those who make a big deal out of which version is the most accurate have little actual demonstrable fruit in their lives. Their are even several examples alarming behavior (physically attacking the pastor for example). I have my favorite versions I use, but I rely on the Holy Spirit for the actual translation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've run across folks who insist KJV is the only accurate version of the Bible from time to time. As have several pastor friends of mine. In all those experiences I've found those who make a big deal out of which version is the most accurate have little actual demonstrable fruit in their lives. Their are even several examples alarming behavior (physically attacking the pastor for example). I have my favorite versions I use, but I rely on the Holy Spirit for the actual translation.

And I have been ganged up on and insulted many times online for defending the KJV. So that does not prove anything, my friend. The real test is looking at the observable evidence. See my post #1.

 

[topher694]

And I have been ganged up on and insulted many times online for defending the KJV. So that does not prove anything, my friend. The real test is looking at the observable evidence. See my post #1.

"You will know them by their fruits..."

or in KJV

"Ye shall know them by their fruits..."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't have a problem with reading and using Modern Translations, but I always make the KJV my final word of authority. I cannot do this with the original languages because I did not grow up speaking and writing Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. Nobody has. Many times I run into people who try to make the Bible what they want it to say by their claiming they know the original languages (Which many times ignores what the English says in their own Bibles). Yet, they read the Bible in the English sometimes, too. In other words, they are not consistent.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God is simple. He is not going to require me to know a dead language. I believe God has preserved His words for me today that are both understandable and 100% trust worthy.

 

[SeventyOne]

And I have been ganged up on and insulted many times online for defending the KJV. So that does not prove anything, my friend. The real test is looking at the observable evidence. See my post #1.

Considering the KJV is not source documentation, but rather a translation of source documentation, the burden is really on you to conclusively show successive divine intervention, even through all the changes the KJV went through for the first 150 years. That would include demonstrating how an original translators were guided by God in the areas not altered after 1611, but weren't guided by God in areas that did require alterations. Also, how later translators were guided by God to spot those mistakes by the original translators, but not guided by God to find all the mistakes at the same time.

It's your claim this is what happened. It's not ours to disprove, but yours to prove. Your OP doesn't cover this process.