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

[Bible Highlighter]

I wouldn't use that word (being "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]"), or even the word "harlot", in an interview because it wouldn't be relevant. The meaning of the words is the same. Offense to one word over the other is trivial. There is no truth in your offense, but there is Truth in the meaning of the words in context. What you call honoring God is just your human-derived moralistic impositions. Again, the Word of God is not an instruction book.

I agree that it is important to use the same language and vocabulary in order that we may be on the same page. But understand the 400 years ago, the language and vocabulary was much different. No language can 100% describe the Truth, but as time passes, the less useful the English of 400 years ago becomes. Read the writing on the wall, people need to hear the Gospel that speaks to them.

You say the Word of God is not an instruction book. Now I know you have not read or studied the Bible.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

You also say that a bad word would not be relevant in a job interview. Yes, I agree, but you could use bad words and thus be disqualified from the job interview (Which simply shows that you cannot use whatever words you want because you know those words would be potentially offensive to the person giving the job interview). Talking about not seeing the forest for the trees. You know bad words are wrong. If you don’t know that, I would pray and read the Word of God some more so that you can know bad words (from the Modern Bibles I shown) are wrong and or unacceptable.

Anyways, I don’t think anything I will say with God’s Word and or using basic logic or reason is helping you. You are seeing what you want to see. So I think it is best I move on from talking to you unless you are open to change.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Im not listening? I just recognized 1 Chronicles 20:5 in that post by saying that Goliath, Goliath’s brother and His son could’ve all been killed in battle against Israel. There’s no conclusive evidence that 1 Chronicles 20:5 is directly referring to 2 Samuel 21:19 it could very well be referring to a different incident since they refer to two different people.

Wow. Really? Now 1 Chronicles 20:5 is not referring to 2 Samuel 21:19? Come on now. That’s just ultra silly. I don’t think that would be the general consensus among Modern scholars even.

Besides… the NIV, and NASB has changed actual words with various editions. They cannot make up their mind as to what God’s Word says. This is not the same with the King James Bible because it has been settled with the Cambridge Edition and the changes were not major ones like we see in Modern Bibles. So which NIV or NASB do you use? The old one or the new one? So that is showing that they are in error or do you believe that God’s words are being purified like the KJB? Do you think someday you might have the Word of God perfectly but this is not the case now?

NASB 1995
And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.

NASB 1977
And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.

This is not some minor alteration here. This is a major change!!!
So you cannot claim that the NASB is perfect because it changed. Unless of course you believe as I do and that it has been purified. If so… then you need to prove that the NASB stands out above all other Bibles. But we know the NASB is under the direct supervision of the Vatican, though. It says so in the Nestle and Aland’s 27th edition (i.e. the New Testament Critical Greek Text - upon which all Modern Bibles are based upon).

 

[BNR32FAN]

What errors are you talking about?

Psalms 12:6-7 basically says God’s words are purified seven times and that these words would be preserved for all generations. What is ultra suspicious is that Modern Bibles alter this beautiful truth.

Anyways, based on Psalms 12:6-7: I believe the Cambridge Edition circa 1900 KJB Edition is God’s final purified Word (Seeing it is the seventh purification).

In fact, counting the 1611 KJB, I believe there were 6 editions leading up to the 1611 (total of 7 editions including the 1611), and there are 6 editions after the 1611 (total of 7 editions including the 1611). So a repeat of 7 purifications two times. For the Bible records how the Word of the Lord came unto men a second time (Jeremiah 1:13, Jeremiah 13:3, Jeremiah 33:1, Jonah 3:1).

Also, the Apocrypha needed to be removed among other things with the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) (even though certain publishers removed it).

Also, the words in italics are saying that there are no manuscript evidences that we are aware of today, but that does not negate their inspiration if God was overseeing the translation by preserving His Words. I don’t see it as an error but I see it as a purification process leading up to the Cambridge Edition. The Cambridge Edition is the final perfect result God intended for us to have today. While there are KJB believers who believe the italic words are not inspired, I believe they are inspired and meant to be there (Otherwise they cause confusion if those words are not there). For God is not the author of confusion.



But they are telling a lie by doing so. So it’s not older is better. We know David killed Goliath and 1 Chronicles 20:5 is proof in the pudding of clarity on 2 Samuel 21:19. You have a Bible that lies and you don’t care because of your mindless mantra of “older is better” or because we need to have manuscript evidence in order for God to preserve His Word for us today.



Again, this is the older is better coloring over the meaning of 2 Samuel 21:19 because we know 1 Chronicles 20:5 is saying brother of Goliath. You cannot see the forest from the trees on this because you are caught up into the false thinking of Modern Scholarship. This is exactly what Rome wants. They succeeded by getting people to accept the Modern Scholarship way of thinking. They are keeping the Word of God out of men’s hands. Many Christians today must appeal to Modern Scholarship and the best manuscripts and trust the favored priests of what they will say Scripture means. Rome has changed it’s tactics and many believers today fell for it… hook, line, and sinker.

Instead of Rome stopping men from having the Word of God by burning them, they have now have gotten men to trust their way of thinking in that you have to look to the priest (scholar) and evidence of manuscripts (anti-faith) in order to believe what they want you to believe. They have taken the Word of God out of men’s hands without burning them now. But you cannot see that of course.

So this is Rome’s doing? Rome changed the Tenakh? Rome changed the Septuagint? Since when did the Jews allow Rome to be the final authority on their Bible? You are blinded by your contempt for Rome. That was the same mistake the Reformers encountered. Rome is completely irrelevant to this discussion because Rome didn’t have anything to do with the writing of the Tenakh or the Septuagint. So stop pretending that this only occurs in the modern translations when it predates the KJV in every Old Testament translation in existence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wow. Really? Now 1 Chronicles 20:5 is not referring to 2 Samuel 21:19? Come on now. That’s just ultra silly. I don’t think that would be the general consensus among Modern scholars even.

Besides… the NIV, and NASB has changed actual words with various editions. They cannot make up their mind as to what God’s Word says. This is not the same with the King James Bible because it has been settled with the Cambridge Edition and the changes were not major ones like we see in Modern Bibles. So which NIV or NASB do you use? The old one or the new one? So that is showing that they are in error or do you believe that God’s words are being purified like the KJB? Do you think someday you might have the Word of God perfectly but this is not the case now?

NASB 1995
And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.

NASB 1977
And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.

This is not some minor alteration here. This is a major change!!!
So you cannot claim that the NASB is perfect because it changed. Unless of course you believe as I do and that it has been purified. If so… then you need to prove that the NASB stands out above all other Bibles. But we know the NASB is under the direct supervision of the Vatican, though. It says so in the Nestle and Aland’s 27th edition (i.e. the New Testament Critical Greek Text - upon which all Modern Bibles are based upon).

Please quote where I said anything to the effect that the NASB was perfect or even close to being perfect. I said the NASB is a more accurate translation than the KJV and I’ve proved that over and over. Key word here being translation not interpretation. I’ve pointed out several texts in support of the NASB translation, the Textus Receptus, The Tenakh, the Septuagint, you haven’t provided a single one because it doesn’t exist even though you think it may have a one time but apparently it mysteriously vanished after the KJV was written you have absolutely zero evidence to support that theory.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In addition, folks can see that not all Modern translations honor God.

Check out the Message Translation, Original 1971 Living Bible, and the New Living Translation on 1 Samuel 20:30. I cannot post these here because they use profanity.

You can check these translations on 1 Samuel 20:30 in this article here:

The Importance of Dignified Translations
​

Note: You can confirm this for yourself at BibleGateway on two of these translations.

NLT - 1 Samuel 20:30
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Samuel 20:30 - New Living Translation

Message - 1 Samuel 20:30
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Samuel 20:30-31 - The Message

1971 Living Bible you would have to buy to check out the reference.
But it is sick.​

1 Timothy 6:20 says, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings…”

2 Timothy 2:16 says,
“But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”

People wonder today why Christians swear and or use profane words. It’s because they have the wrong Bible and or they just don’t care about what God’s Word says.

Everyone knows the NLT is the worst version available, I know because that’s what I used when I began reading the Bible and it didn’t take long to figure that out. Using the worst version available to determine the authenticity of all modern translations can be compared to the same bigotry that was used against African Americans based on the actions of a few criminals within the group.

 

[seeking.IAM]

You would not know about Jesus if it was not for the Bible...

​

​

I think you are wrong about that. The Word was largely spread in the earliest days of the church through oral tradition. I think God would not be limited by the absence of a text.

 

[BeingThere]

You say the Word of God is not an instruction book. Now I know you have not read or studied the Bible.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

You also say that a bad word would not be relevant in a job interview. Yes, I agree, but you could use bad words and thus be disqualified from the job interview (Which simply shows that you cannot use whatever words you want because you know those words would be potentially offensive to the person giving the job interview). Talking about not seeing the forest for the trees. You know bad words are wrong. If you don’t know that, I would pray and read the Word of God some more so that you can know bad words (from the Modern Bibles I shown) are wrong and or unacceptable.

Anyways, I don’t think anything I will say with God’s Word and or using basic logic or reason is helping you. You are seeing what you want to see. So I think it is best I move on from talking to you unless you are open to change.

Sir, the Word of God is Christ. We can come to him by the Law, but not through the Law. The Word must be allowed to live through us. The Word cannot be limited by human language. Therefore, any instruction which instructs us in the Law is Scripture, but Scripture is not the Law itself, nor is it a substitute for Grace. You may place your fleshly chains and limitations on Scripture if you like, but you are only causing yourself to be paralyzed spiritually.

 

[BeingThere]

​

I think you are wrong about that. The Word was largely spread in the earliest days of the church through oral tradition. I think God would not be limited by the absence of a text.

I like this. The Word is a reality within every one of us. We do not need instruction on understanding it, because it is a living thing inside us. What we do need sometimes, is to be reminded that it is there, and that there are ways of seeing it more fully. People forget that the Bible as we know it today is a set of different writings, compiled by human beings. This is for a reason, but God is beyond reason, though he appeals to reason.

 

[pescador]

Faith comes not by simply hearing the Word of God, but by understanding and following it. If, to you, as it seems to me, the Word is just a string of English (and an antiquated string according to long-dead theologians at that), then you have gone only so far along the Way, and have not the eyes to see nor the ears to hear, so long as your understanding is superficial. As Christians, we do not "speak according to this word" [of King James] but according to the Word [that is Christ]. Again, you cannot reduce the Truth down to one rigid set of words.

While I get your point, I disagree with your first sentence. The Bible clearly states "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Romans 10:17 NASB

 

[BeingThere]

While I get your point, I disagree with your first sentence. The Bible clearly states "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Romans 10:17 NASB

You are correct, but it is so that hearing, we do not understand. Faith in this case is demonstrated to be without works, and dead. One can endlessly read the Bible, and yet, seeking wisdom from the pages, neglect to hear the living wisdom from Christ within. I think we agree, despite my novice exposition of the Bible.

 

[BeingThere]

You say the Word of God is not an instruction book. Now I know you have not read or studied the Bible.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

You also say that a bad word would not be relevant in a job interview. Yes, I agree, but you could use bad words and thus be disqualified from the job interview (Which simply shows that you cannot use whatever words you want because you know those words would be potentially offensive to the person giving the job interview). Talking about not seeing the forest for the trees. You know bad words are wrong. If you don’t know that, I would pray and read the Word of God some more so that you can know bad words (from the Modern Bibles I shown) are wrong and or unacceptable.

Anyways, I don’t think anything I will say with God’s Word and or using basic logic or reason is helping you. You are seeing what you want to see. So I think it is best I move on from talking to you unless you are open to change.

No, I am trying to remain open to change. But I don't think you can unilaterally denounce anyone for trying to explain what the original authors wrote. Whether one likes it or not, any translation ever made is an interpretation. What is not interpretation is the actual Life [and works] of Christ. That will never change, but the way we come by it may be, and is, different for people of all languages.

I believe we agree on much more than we disagree on, anyway. I've been blessed to encounter people like you. It is because of people like you that I was introduced to the scriptures. But now I am blessed by people who are living the Way, not just mouthing it. I have reached a little higher on the lamp cord, closer to the switch mechanism, and God willing the Light will be unhid and glowing from within me. You have done well and may do better by placing precept upon precept, line upon line, and going deeper within the Word, which only starts with the scriptures. Right now, we may have stopped on precept 1, which is seeking wisdom among the written word, which is still part of the flesh. I know you can see some sense in that, now pick up your bed and walk.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

​

I think you are wrong about that. The Word was largely spread in the earliest days of the church through oral tradition. I think God would not be limited by the absence of a text.

I disagree. I believe…

Read Revelation 22:18-19.
We are also looking for the return of Jesus and not new words of God. The Bible is enough. But some people don’t think the Bible is enough.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Everyone knows the NLT is the worst version available, I know because that’s what I used when I began reading the Bible and it didn’t take long to figure that out. Using the worst version available to determine the authenticity of all modern translations can be compared to the same bigotry that was used against African Americans based on the actions of a few criminals within the group.

We are not talking about a race of people but the one and only true Word of God. I have shown you multiple errors in Modern Bibles and it is obvious you don’t want to see it, my friend.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please quote where I said anything to the effect that the NASB was perfect or even close to being perfect. I said the NASB is a more accurate translation than the KJV and I’ve proved that over and over. Key word here being translation not interpretation. I’ve pointed out several texts in support of the NASB translation, the Textus Receptus, The Tenakh, the Septuagint, you haven’t provided a single one because it doesn’t exist even though you think it may have a one time but apparently it mysteriously vanished after the KJV was written you have absolutely zero evidence to support that theory.

So why defend the NASB’s errors if you know it is not perfect? What errors are in the NASB?

So you basically have no perfect Bible? So how do you determine what is true and what is false?

 

[seeking.IAM]

...The Bible is enough. But some people don’t think the Bible is enough.

The Bible is enough. But some people don't believe the Bible is all there is.

 

[timothyu]

But some people don't believe the Bible is all there is.

Because it was the manifesto of a corporation?

 

[seeking.IAM]

The Bible is enough. But some people don't believe the Bible is all there is.

Because it was the manifesto of a corporation?

No, because there is also tradition, passed from the faithful to the faithful from generation to generation for 2,000 years.

 

[timothyu]

No, because there is also tradition, passed from the faithful to the faithful from generation to generation for 2,000 years.

I agree but tradition is fallible as for example we talk out pf tradition about three wise men visiting a stable when neither the number nor them visiting a stable is in scripture. Even ritual does not address Jesus' good news that God was returning to overthrow the government of man, the very governments that the churches promoting ritual and tradition teamed up with. Conflict of interest I agree has become tradition.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Bible is enough. But some people don't believe the Bible is all there is.

Prove to me your traditions are divine in origin like the Bible is divine in origin.

 

[BeingThere]

The Bible is enough. But some people don't believe the Bible is all there is.

The Bible is enough. In fact, I believe many have, and will, be saved by reading and understanding less than the totality of the Bible.

I also agree that it is not all there is, in that God's Word is not limited to one set of books. So, it is enough. The KJV is enough, but the NIV is also enough. I don't think we need so many translations, as it scatters our common vocabulary, but translations always have their place.

The so-called errors in certain translations, or omissions, or things added by using a particular text over another, does nothing to diminish the power and penetration of the most popular Bible translations. I think BibleHighlighter is in the minority on this one, and he is justified in his own beliefs, as is anyone who chooses to read a more lucid translation.

I agree but tradition is fallible as for example we talk out pf tradition about three wise men visiting a stable when neither the number nor them visiting a stable is in scripture. Even ritual does not address Jesus' good news that God was returning to overthrow the government of man, the very governments the churches promoting ritual and tradition that they teamed up with. Conflict of interest I agree has become tradition.

As long as human beings are alive, there will be tradition. Even Christians are justified in tradition, but relying on tradition to save you is a trap. It's up to the individual and the collective to honor God over tradition and ritual.

As for the three wise men: to someone who reads and understands the Gospel, does it matter what number or the existence of such men? It adds color to the story, and gives evangelists (God's storytellers) more material to work with, though the Bible is enough.

As long as a story conveys truth as represented in the bible, it is the gospel. I mean, read CS Lewis or JRR Tolkien. They know how to subtly work the gospel into the ears of gentiles, and hopefully it ultimately leads people to the truth. This detracts not one bit from the Bible, but in fact brings more people in the direction of the Kingdom.