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

[Strong in Him]

Where is our faith?
Is it in history or the Bible?

It's in God, and Jesus who is THE perfect word.

Yours appears to be in the perfection of a translation.

 

[Strong in Him]

Can the KJB translators approach can be seen in Scripture?

No.
There are a few James' in the NT, but none of them were king. One even got his head chopped off.
And no one had heard of England; if it even existed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So then you don’t have any Bible to trust. All Modern Bibles that exist today are based upon Westcott and Hort’s work. There is no Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (Alexandrian text type manuscripts) that was perfectly translated. I mean, why would you want to go with these Alexandrian manuscripts? They favor Gnosticism in that Arianism comes from Alexandria, Egypt, too. We can see a pattern of an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ in Modern Bibles taken from these corrupted manuscripts. So that’s the proof in the pudding that these manuscripts are inferior.

Now your exaggerating. Most modern versions compared several manuscripts not just one.

 

[CMDRExorcist]

I can't believe how long this thread has gone on...

I used the ESV for almost a decade before recently starting to use the CSB. Both Bibles have done wonders for bringing me closer to God.

 

[tampasteve]

Can the KJB translators approach can be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the KJB, as well.

I get what you are trying to say, but let me change it around for you, not as a "fixed it for you", but as an example of the flawed logic being used:

Can the Geneva translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Geneva, as well.

or

Can the Douay-Rheims translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Douay-Rheims, as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I can't believe how long this thread has gone on...

I used the ESV for almost a decade before recently starting to use the CSB. Both Bibles have done wonders for bringing me closer to God.

I used the NLT for crying out loud when I came to Christ. Probably one of the worst versions available, but the gospel is still the gospel.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I get what you are trying to say, but let me change it around for you, not as a "fixed it for you", but as an example of the flawed logic being used:

Can the Geneva translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Geneva, as well.

or

Can the Douay-Rheims translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Douay-Rheims, as well.

This is simply not the case because we see obvious errors in both the Geneva Bible, and the NASB Bible. The NASB is even worse because it comes from the Critical Text (keep reading to learn more).

Also, in a sad chapter of the Catholic Church: Unfortunately it appears that they burned anyone for owning the Scriptures (Note: This is not to say that all Catholics agreed with such a thing at the time). But why bring this up? Well, later in history we learn that the translation of the KJB began in 1604. However, one year later in 1605, we know that the Catholics tried to kill King James and stop the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Check out the documentary called, The KJB: The Book that Changed the World starring “John Rhys-Davies.”

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

Trailer:

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

Also, the ties to the Vatican involving Modern Bibles is like crazy extensive. It’s not just like one or two things. It’s a lot. It’s too much to ignore. Westcott and Hort started the Modern Translation movement we now have (that was a great departure from the trusted KJB). Westcott and Hort used two manuscripts for their Greek NT translation called the Critical Text. Manuscript #1 came from a Catholic vault (Codex Vaticanus) (Note: The word “Vatican” is very similar to the word “Vaticanus”). Manuscript #2 is called the Codex Sinaiticus (which was found in a waste basket to be burned in an Orthodox monastery). In fact, Westcott and Hort were into Catholicism, as well. Now, if your Catholic, and or you agree with the practices of Catholicism (then simply ignore my points here), brother. But if not, please keep reading. For many years later after Westcott and Hort, Nestle came along, and then years later Aland came along (With both of them updating the Critical Text). Aland met the pope. There are pictures of this.

Unlike the KJB, most of all your Modern Bibles comes from the Nestle and Aland’s Critical Text.

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

Note: I am aware this forbidden book of the Catholic church is an older version, and they have updated it. But the point here is that at one time, they considered the KJB to be a forbidden book.

Very interesting.

Side Note:

Oh, and yes, I know about Erasmus, but he 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.

To learn more about the Critical Text, check out this video here:

Bridge to Babylon:

Watch Bridge to Babylon | Prime Video
(Note: This documentary is more of a subtle defense of the KJB; For it talks more about the Modern Bibles).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I used the NLT for crying out loud when I came to Christ. Probably one of the worst versions available, but the gospel is still the gospel.

I actually like the NLT readings sometimes when comparing it to the KJB. But the NLT is simply not my final Word of authority because it says some bad stuff. It changes doctrine, commands, and places the devil’s name in the Bible where it does not belong, etc. There is more of course, too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I get what you are trying to say, but let me change it around for you, not as a "fixed it for you", but as an example of the flawed logic being used:

Can the Geneva translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Geneva, as well.

or

Can the Douay-Rheims translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Douay-Rheims, as well.

As for the Geneva Bible: While not all of Will Kinney’s points here are stellar or amazing, some of them are good points.

Geneva Bible vs. KJB

He also makes some good points in regards to the NASB.

NASB vs KJB

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I used the NLT for crying out loud when I came to Christ. Probably one of the worst versions available, but the gospel is still the gospel.

Also, the Bible contains a lot more than just being saved by the gospel. If this was not the case, then the Bible would be very short and small.

 

[YeshuaFan]

It's in God, and Jesus who is THE perfect word.

Yours appears to be in the perfection of a translation.

Only the Originals were inspired and perfect, no translation ever has been!

 

[YeshuaFan]

As for the Geneva Bible: While not all of Will Kinney’s points here are stellar or amazing, some of them are good points.

Geneva Bible vs. KJB

He also makes some good points in regards to the NASB.

NASB vs KJB

Kjvo is a cult

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Kjvo is a cult

I can equally say the same of Modern Scholarship or MBVO (Modern Bible Versions Only) or OAO (Original Autograph Only), but name calling does not really prove anything. You need to present your case as to WHY. I have provided 30 reasons for the King James Bible.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible

Actually, it would be 31 reasons if you count post #627 within this thread.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Only the Originals were inspired and perfect, no translation ever has been!

I address this point just recently with the Bible in post #617.

 

[timothyu]

I can't believe how long this thread has gone on...

Anything attacking the KJV can go on forever here. It has been an enemy to church authourity from the beginning.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Now your exaggerating. Most modern versions compared several manuscripts not just one.

While later manuscripts were added to update the Nestle and Aland Critical Text, the Westcott and Hort text is still there. Yes, there are 1,372 full complete changes between the updated Critical Text (Nestle and Aland) and the Westcott and Hort 1881 Critical Text.

See the mention of these differences in this article here.
(Note: This comes from a Textual Critic; So obviously I am not in agreement with his view on Modern Scholarship or Textual Criticism; I merely reference him as a point of how the Critical Text has not completely changed from the time of Westcott and Hort’s Critical Text).

So the point is that the Nestle and Aland is still the Critical Text. Nestle and Aland still has many similarities and agreements with Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Critical Text. But the connections are not good in my humble opinion. Take for example the NIV. On the committee was a sodomite. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems in Modern Bibles (if you were to research it). The NIV was the first Modern Bible to be a resounding success among the public (When it came out).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I get what you are trying to say, but let me change it around for you, not as a "fixed it for you", but as an example of the flawed logic being used:

Can the Geneva translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Geneva, as well.

or

Can the Douay-Rheims translators approach be seen in Scripture?

Well, we see God not preserving His Word in the Hebrew alone for the New Testament, but we see that God moved with the times in that He preserved His words in Scriptures written in the world language at that time (Which was Koine Greek). English is the world language of today, and so it makes sense God would again move with the times and preserve His words yet again.

Approximately 1600 hundreds years passed between Moses and Jesus. So during the time of Jesus and His apostles, Biblical Hebrew spoken by Moses would seem very old. Hundreds of years passed since the Douay-Rheims, as well.

Revelation 13:1 replaces the word “I” (John speaking) in the KJB with the word “dragon” in the NASB. Well, it depends on what NASB you have. They keep changing. But the point here is that the devil (the dragon) is trying to be something he is not; And this is not the first time the devil tries to place his name in Modern Bibles where it does not belong, too. I have shown these to others here, but they simply do not want to see the pattern or connection.

I mean, I can imagine if it was only Revelation 13:1, but there are other verses that have this same problem. One cannot keep writing them all off.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I can't believe how long this thread has gone on...

Oh this is a regular "discussion" with the KJVO crowd.

νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Now and ever unto the ages of ages. Ἀμήν

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh this is a regular "discussion" with the KJVO crowd.

νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Now and ever unto the ages of ages. Ἀμήν

I don’t see a crowd of KJB Only folk in this thread, friend. While a few chimed in favorably, it’s pretty much been me putting forth extensive biblical points and evidences of history in making a good case defense for the King James Bible as the Word of God. Granted, I don’t want to boast or anything. I am nothing, and Christ is everything. So if I write in defense of the truth, I do so for His glory.

So praise be unto the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am thankful I have a Word I can understand and completely trust.

Anyways, may God bless you, even if we may disagree on the Scriptures.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

The problem I have with no English Bible translation is perfect and so we must look to the Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek is that many times the translation by a person in the original languages ignores what the English says. Usually they go to the Original Languages to hide a false belief.

It's also a problem because a person does not speak, write, and read Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek fluently. In fact, most scholars who claim to know the original languages in the Bible do not know how to fluently read, write, and speak these languages. If they do, it is a very very very small percentage of them who do. It would be like your trying to correct Chinese people on the true meaning of a great literary work they created by using a Chinese to English Dictionary. Most Chinese people would look at you crazy if you tried to do something like that. Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek are not living languages, either. So there is also a form of guessing involved. You don't have a Moses (for the Biblical Hebrew), and an apostle Paul (for the Biblical Greek) to make sure you are always 100% correct. So the only alternative is trusting that God preserved His Word in a language we do understand or a language that is pretty close to the one we speak (Which I believe is 1600's English with the King James Bible).